Recent Changes

Students Cyber Bullying and Threats
The new type of bullying may not be a kid who uses his massive size to intimidate others but instead may possibly spread nasty things via the Internet using web logs or through text messaging on cell phones. Courts have found that threats are not protected by a student’s First Amendment right to free speech noted in both cases Lovell v. Poway and Doe v. Pulaski. In the cases of New Jersey v. T.L.O. is still the benchmark for search and seizure. Reasonable suspicion is available to school leaders rather than the more restrictive probable cause. Students should be informed that they have “no expectation of privacy” on school computers. If possible student material should be stored on school hard drives to discourage them from malicious activities. Searching student’s home computers at home are pushing the limits of the Fourth Amendment. Internet speech cannot be punished unless it significantly interferes with a school function, causes a disruption, or interferes with the rights of others. Educational leaders must have “internet usage policies”, “filtering software”, and be aware that “filtering software” is not fool proof. Schools should have every student and parents, if possible, sign the internet safety policies. Most of all do not forget due process when disciplining students for inappropriate use of the internet. More serious infractions may result in long term suspension; this will require a hearing with the Supt or his/her designee. The Principal may suspend the student up to 10 days immediately, and require them to meet with the Supt prior to them returning to school. This meeting may be the opportunity for a due process hearing for the Supt to determine if long term suspension will be necessary. If long term suspension is necessary, then due process rights and the opportunity for a hearing with the Board of Education must be presented. If a hearing is held with the Board of Education, both parties may be represented by an attorney and the parents/guardians may choose to have this in open or closed session. All policies, rules, regulations and documentation of the incident must be provided to the parents prior to the hearing with the Board. Both attorneys may request additional information and may call and question witnesses.

The rights of immature minors rights
In order to face the challenges that come with a diverse classroom, all educators and administrators need to have both pre- and in-service training opportunities in linguistic and cultural diversity, and in principles of first and second language development. It is also critical for the early childhood educator to understand the linguistic and cultural backgrounds of their children in order to facilitate learning and build cross-cultural understandings with their families.

Development and learning begin at an early age, and the language young children have heard since birth is the language they have used to begin to construct their knowledge and form meaningful communicative relationships. All young children come to school with knowledge and learning from home. Successful early childhood programs acknowledge and build upon this prior knowledge. Wherever possible, young ESOL learners should receive their initial reading instruction in their native language. The body of research in second language acquisition shows that literacy learning is easiest when the initial instruction is in the student's native language because literacy skills are easily transferred from the first to the second language.

Threats by Students, Teachers’ First Amendment Rights
You posed a very important question LaJamea! In your post, you asked "as an educational leader, is it always important to write a memorandum in a constructive manner, with precise directives to avoid real or imagined confusion about what is expected?". My answer would be absolutely yes!!! Over the years, I have found myself to become increasingly dependent on memos and emails to get information to my staff. As the years have progressed, so has the "language" of my messages.

Simplicity, clarity and knowing your audience is essential for educational leaders in using this form of communication. Tone is also of critical importance! Personally, I have found that I tend to use memos more when sent as a letter of direction or clarification. The tone of which tends to be of a more serious nature. I reserve short emails for more “light-hearted” messages such as congratulating staff on a job well done or sharing good news. Since reading this week’s cases and your post, I am encouraged to revisit my “system” a bit to insure that my memos are sending the right messages.

Teachers' tenure and due process rights
Elizabeth,
You posed a great question. From our weekly reading we all should understand the importance of the documentation of teacher performance as a critical piece of evaluation. In all the cases reviewed, it is apparent that the principal must know what is going on in the classroom and have a record of teacher performance. Due process ensures that the ‘processes’ have been effectively and efficiently followed. I personally think it is a necessary right for teachers and even if it weren’t required, a similar procedure should take place to ensure that firing is not based on any biases. Procedures for hiring and firing staff must be systematized to ensure fairness in the evaluation and removal of teaching staff.

Teachers' Rights and the Law
The American educational system is premised on the basis that individual states are responsible for the education of their citizenry and that local communities also have rights and responsibilities in this area. While the courts continue to uphold the right for local communities to shape educational curriculum, they have placed limits on those rights by mandating that curricular decisions (to include or exclude ideas and materials) must be based on appropriate educational pedagogy and not on the ideological or religious tenets of a particular political or religious group. Ever since the “Nation at Risk” (1983) Education has been all about reform, reinvention, renewal and revival. Teacher quality is at the forefront. Teachers and Educational Leaders are being held accountable for student achievement.

Principals of the twenty-first century have the guidance of a line of cases in which the courts, with notable consistency for two decades, have supported the authority of the public schools to control curriculum. Nonetheless, school administrators must realize that censorship of teachers' speech still carries with it the risk of a law suit with the possibility of the assessment of damages should the teacher win. Principals should know and respect teacher's rights. They should approach personnel problems with a spirit of fairness and attempt to resolve them by doing what is in the best interest of the students. Finally, they should recognize potential legal implications and act under the guidance of competent legal counsel before and not wait until after such problems develop. The lessons of the cases reviewed serve as the basis for additional suggestions that follow:

• Be aware that outside of the classroom teachers have First Amendment rights to express opinions about matters of public concern even though those views may be controversial and unpopular. The only justification for interfering or punishing teachers for such speech is material and substantial disruption of the educational process.

• Exercise extreme caution when recommending the release of inferior or otherwise undesirable teachers who at the same time may be engaged in protected speech or other constitutional rights. The evidence documenting the legitimate reasons for the action must convince the courts that those reasons alone would have resulted in the dismissal or other disciplinary action.

• Exercise extreme caution when recommending the release of inferior or otherwise undesirable teachers who at the same time may be engaged in protected speech or other constitutional rights. The evidence documenting the legitimate reasons for the action must convince the courts that those reasons alone would have resulted in the dismissal or other disciplinary action.

The twenty-first century began with public school administrators having broad judicial support for their authority to control the curriculum. IN the near future, there is little indication that this authority will be eroded by elementary and secondary school teachers’ claims of academic freedom. However, few would question the desirability of teacher involvement in curriculum decisions. Communication between principal and teachers about what is taught and how it is taught is essential.

Student Rights
Most schools have student codes of conduct. Generally define the infraction, what the punishment will be and who will administer the punishment. Typically the more serious the punishment the more need there is for complete due process. Minimal due process is the only requirement for minor suspensions (10 days or less). Educational disability also plays into the need for extended due process (manifestation determination hearings etc.). Basic fairness is the typical requirement of all discipline actions.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) is the leading case in regards to procedural rights (due process) of students. Established the difference between short and long term suspension (anything less than 10 days would be considered a short term suspension in which minimal due process rights would be afforded). Goss determines that only minimal due process is required for minor infractions. Most schools do not afford an appeal of the disciplinary action for minor infractions of In School Detention or short term suspension (10 days or less). Some schools afford an appeal on even minor infractions; most likely this is not practical in most school settings. Even in the case of minor infractions/short term suspensions, a letter should be sent home to the parent specifying the act and the punishment

Tinkers v. Des Moines students do not shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Courts say that “Since schools are “educating the young for citizenship,” they should protect the “Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes”. “Tinker” also established that there were exceptions as to what could be allowed with any student conduct that “materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others”. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) case established some parameters with which school administrators must follow: must appeal to the prurient or lustful interest, it must describe sexual conduct in a way that is patently offensive to community standards, and taken as a whole, it must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. “Bethel” finally gave the administration a way to offset “Tinker”. This case held that administrators did have a way to discipline students who used “offensively lewd and indecent speech”. Heller v. Hodgin (1996) Allowed the suspension of a student who said “I am not a fucking bitch” even though someone else had allegedly called her that name.

In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) the courts ruled that a “curricular” newspaper was not a public forum and the school officials were entitled to regulate the contents…in any reasonable manner”. “Hazelwood” was the first break through for schools in regulating first amendment rights of students in regards to free speech. The court ruled that administrators had the right to prohibit articles that are “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences”. Teachers and administrators do not violate first amendment rights by “exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” “Hazelwood” does not permit educators to censor school sponsored publications unless they have a valid educational purpose. In 2003 the courts found that an Arkansas school district did violate first amendment rights by banning the Harry Potter books because of fear that they might promote disruption, witchcraft and disobedience to parents”. Counts v. Cedarville School Dist. (2003)

Based on the cases we have reviewed this week, schools cannot ban student distribution of publications because they advocate a particular religion, political, or social view. However, administrators can establish policies that regulate the time, place, and manner for distributing materials in the schools. As educational leaders, should these such rules be viewpoint neutral and/or be so restrictive that they prevent the dissemination of student opinions? Administrators should distinguish between what they have authority to do legally and what it is wise to do educationally. For example, Hazelwood allows schools to censor almost all articles in curricular publications. But this, of course, does not mean that censorship is the best way to train students to exercise their First Amendment rights “in a fair and responsible manner."

Student Rights
Courts have recognized the rights of students to be informed of prohibited behavior and afforded certain procedural safeguards prior to the imposition of punishment. In discipline cases, several rules should be followed. The administrator should move forward with an investigation by gathering additional information on any disciplinary infractions reported. Administrators should make further inquiry of other wit¬nesses to ascertain the facts concerning the event. The administrator must determine the nature of the punishment, as the necessary steps will be modified with increasing severity of punishment. As educational leaders we should become fully familiar with applicable state laws and regulations and school district policies impacting their schools. Students who represent an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others or those who disrupt the school or its classrooms should be dealt with immediately with appropriate sanctions.

Protected Speech in Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969 noted that students do not shed their Constitutional Rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. Courts say that “Since schools are “educating the young for citizenship,” they should protect the “Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes”. “Tinker” also established that there were exceptions as to what could be allowed, any student conduct that “materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others”. A Principal may restrict student expression when there is significant evidence of a “reasonable likelihood of substantial disorder” as cited in Dodd v. Rambis of 1981.

Students who are covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) and whose misbehavior is a manifestation of their disability are not automatically subject to a school system's suspension and/or expulsion process as applied to general education students. These students have additional protec¬tion afforded under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973) to ensure fairness and equity of treatment. Suits for damages may result if administrators knew or should have known that their actions violate the procedural due process entitle¬ments of their students.

Threats by Students, Teachers’ First Amendment Rights
School officials do not have absolute immunity in dealing with student issues. In addition to not having malice or ill will toward the respondents, school board members must be aware of, and act upon, their constituents’ constitutional rights if they are to be exempt under section 1983. If a board member acts from impermissible motives or violates established constitutional rights, then the aggrieved party is entitled to a compensatory award.

Pickering, Mount Healthy, Givhan and this case establish the conditions under which a public employee may exercise the right to freedom of speech in the work setting. Principals of the twenty-first century have the guidance of a line of cases in which the courts, with notable consistency for two decades, have supported the authority of the public schools to control curriculum. Nonetheless, school administrators must realize that censorship of teachers' speech still carries with it the risk of a law suit with the possibility of the assessment of damages should the teacher win. Principals should know and respect teacher's rights. They should approach personnel problems with a spirit of fairness and attempt to resolve them by doing what is in the best interest of the students. Finally, they should recognize potential legal implications and act under the guidance of competent legal counsel before and not wait until after such problems develop.

In order to be effective, any memorandum must be prepared and sent to the teacher soon after the incident and the subsequent conference occur. Under no circumstances should a memorandum be prepared after the decision to terminate has been made and backdated to reflect the incident upon which the proposed termination will be based. Have the teacher sign to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum without requiring agreement with its contents. Invite a written response and set a specific time for the response to be provided. If the teacher refuses to sign for receipt, have an adult witness sign a copy of the memorandum noting that it was provided the teacher, and indicate the person who provided it and the date provided.

As an educational leader we should understand that in preparing a memorandum, inflammatory words should not be used. Rather than characterize an action as insubordination, the action should be factually described, and the teacher's action referred to as a failure to comply with specific official directives or school board policy. Based Downs v. Los Angeles Unified School District, directives given in a memorandum should be positive and specific, and educational jargon should be avoided. The following examples were given for educational leaders, when directing a sometimes tardy teacher to arrive at school on time, state: "You are required to be at school by (a specific time), and you will be expected to have signed in by that time," rather than, "You are required to be at school on time." Instead of directing, "Your lesson plans are due once a week, " one might state, "Your lesson plans must be emailed to me or placed in my box by 4:00 p.m. on each Friday, and I expect you to have them there beginning this Friday." As an educational leader, is it always important to write a memorandum in a constructive manner, with precise directives to avoid real or imagined confusion about what is expected?

Title IX and Sexual Harassment
Title IX is generally used more in student cases than with employees, but the courts have been able to use both in certain situations of harassment. Damages can be collected when there are violations of either Title VII or Title IX. Title IX will also addresses issues of sex discrimination and sexual harassment. AB v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. District discussed equal protection. The courts have recognized some sexual harassment claims using the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the plaintiff must show that discrimination was intentional. Standards for sexual harassment in the workplace are the same for both public and private employers. As evinced in Ellerth and Faragher, the employer may have vicarious liability for severe or pervasive conduct of employees in supervisory positions, but may offer an affirmative defense if the plaintiff employee has suffered no tangible adverse effect on his or her employment. An important component of the affirmative defense is demonstrating the existence and dissemination of an anti-sexual harassment policy. Sexual harassment is viewed as a form of sexual discrimination and therefore is a civil rights violation. Sexual harassment results when someone in a “position of power” uses his/her status to extort sexual favors from a subordinate. Sexual harassment is difficult to measure and not easily defined. Generally it takes place between a man and a woman however, it can also be in the form of “same sex” harassment as well.

As educational leaders we must develop, review, and disseminate a strong workplace policy prohibiting sexual harassment. Preferably there should be a mechanism for the faculty and staff to contribute to and ultimately endorse the policy and to help monitor it. The policy should contain a statement explaining why it is important to prevent sexual harassment. Included in this policy should be a clear description or explanation of the prohibited behaviors. Generally speaking, these behaviors are unwarranted or unwanted sexual attention from peers, subordinates, supervisors, customers, clients, or anyone the employee must interact with in order to fulfill the duties of the job or school where the employee's responses might be restrained by fear of reprisals. The range of behaviors includes (but is not limited to) leering, pinching, unnecessary touching or patting, verbal comments, subtle pressure for sexual activity, rape, and attempted rape. There should be clear assurances in the policy that an employee who files a harassment complaint or who provides information related to such a complaint will be protected from retaliation. There should also be assurances that, to the degree possible, the employer will protect the confidentiality of those who file harassment complaints.

Affirmative Action & Cases that Have Shaped Education -- Katika Lovett
School board policy should outline procedures for filing a complaint and should describe the employer's process for investigating and responding to a complaint. The process should include: the timeline for the investigation; suggestions for possible informal resolution of the problem; and assignment of complaint managers who are respected by the employees, are sensitive to the issue, and able to empathize with the victim. Do you think that school boards should adopt, publicize, and enforce penalties for violations of the policy? It is very important that every school board keep written records; however, it should take precautions to protect confidentiality. Based on our weekly reading school board’s should publish results of resolved complaints, but should protect the identity of the individuals involved. As educational leaders I agree that measures should be taken to facilitate employees' awareness of the EEOC sexual harassment guidelines and alertness to the problem. I think it is advisable that employers conduct periodic training for administrators and others in supervisory positions, teachers, and staff to ensure all employees understand and comply with the policy. Orientation programs for new faculty and staff should include discussion of the sexual harassment policy and EEOC guidelines. The school board should include all policies related to sexual harassment in faculty, staff, and student handbooks.