# data[].attributes.headline
Professional Perspective - Future Educational Position

# data[].attributes.subject
Professional Perspective - Future Educational Position

# data[].attributes.body
After obtaining a certification in School Administration, I am hoping to be employed as a Principal. Prior to the start of this program, I wanted to be an Assistant Principal at an elementary school. Since then, I have learned that I am also interested in being an Assistant Principal at a middle school or career technology facility.

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 2 Legal Issues - National School Board Association (NSBA) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 2 Legal Issues - National School Board Association (NSBA) 

# data[].attributes.body
"Off-Campus, Online Student Speech Cases Chart"
The NSBA provides a chart, that is up-to-date as of 2011, with cases on student who have written or made images online and then communicated the articles to others via the internet. Each case shows who prevailed. The Supreme Court still has yet to rule on a case, so this is still a slippery slope for Principals. I was able to quickly look up the cases. I love having charts available to help with research. What I learned after reviewing some of the cases (I also reviewed some more current cases to back up my conclusion) - The Courts may side with the school if they can show evidence of: the articles being brought back on to campus, there is an interruption to classroom and school business substantially, or puts others at harm.

"Background on Child Nutrition in Schools"
When reviewing NSBA's information on nutrition in schools I gained some perspective on The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010. It provided funding for federal school meal and child nutrition programs such as the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, Summer Food Service Program, and the Afterschool Meal Program. HHFKA also addresses childhood obesity by establishing nutritional standards for all foods sold in school during the school day, and requiring districts to improve training and certification for providers. The act expired in 2015, at which time HHFKA was supposed to be reauthorized. Some provisions remain in place because some parts are still being funded.

School Law. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://www.nsba.org/advocacy/school-law-issues

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 2 Legal & Ethical Issues - National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 2 Legal & Ethical Issues - National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

# data[].attributes.body
"Education Technology"
An issue that NASSP supports is the need for technology in education. They believe federal policies and programs, such as the FCC, should work with state and local governments to increase technology and internet availability both at school and home. They believe in and provide information on trying to close the "homework gap" produced by those who do not access at home. Resources are also provided to different coalitions.

"Career and Technical Education"
The NASSP also advocates for CTE (Career and Technical Education).  The Perkins Act is a federal program that promotes vocational classes and provides a grant that can be used under certain conditions. Information is also provided on H.R. 2353 which strengthens CTE, and primarily focuses on funding. This bill went into effect July 2018.

Learn the Issues. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://www.nassp.org/policy-advocacy-center/learn-the-issues/

# data[].attributes.headline
Exploration Option 4 -  The Educator's Guide to Texas School Law (Walsh, Kemere, & Maniotis, 2014)

# data[].attributes.subject
Exploration Option 4 -  The Educator's Guide to Texas School Law (Walsh, Kemere, & Maniotis, 2014)

# data[].attributes.body
"Kindergarten and Prekindergarten Programs"
I've always wondered how prekindergarten classes were done. Prekindergarten are half-day classes for children age 3 or 4 who qualify unable to speak or comprehend English, educationally disadvantaged, homeless, parent in active duty or died while serving, or have been with the Department of Family and Protective Services. A district must have at least 15 students who qualify under these conditions, or may apply for a waiver if the facilities cannot met the standards. For Kindergarten the child must be 5 years old, and the days can be half or full days.

"Locker and Desk Searches"
As I always put personal stuff inside my cabinets and desk, I wanted to see how searches are handled. First, district and schools should make sure to define desks and lockers as joint property. Second, a school official should have probable cause when searching. Third, the district should include that students and teachers have no right to privacy upon a search, so that any other contraband found during the search may receive new or additional discipline actions.

Walsh, J., Kemere, F., Maniotis, L. (2014). The Educator's Guide to Texas School Law (8th ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

# data[].attributes.headline
Academic Resource #1 for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.subject
Academic Resource #1 for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.body
STAFFORD, A. P. (2017). Resolving an Incoherent Doctrine: Regulating Off-Campus Student Speech with Principles of Personal Jurisdiction. Widener Law Review, 23(1), 135–167. Retrieved from https://easydb.angelo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgh&AN=123663357&site=eds-live

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legal & Ethical Topic Selection (Step 3 - Mod. 1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Legal & Ethical Topic Selection (Step 3 - Mod. 1)

# data[].attributes.body
One of the topics I identified was the "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech Cases Chart" on the National School Board Association's website. Cyberbullying is a major issue that cannot be easily seen in the classroom but can have a detrimental affect on a student's emotional and physical well-being, as well as their learning. I have 93 students this semester, only 2 do not have any form of social media. The majority have more than 1, from the poll I took the first week of school. We may not be able to protect them when the bullying online happens, but we should be able to help them after so hopefully it does not happen again.

# data[].attributes.headline
Internet Resource for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.subject
Internet Resource for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.body
Underwood, J. (2016). Student online speech rights on and off campus. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(4), 76-77.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If off-campus online speech presents the likelihood of a disruption on campus, administrators can respond by disciplining the responsible students.
Students do not "shed their rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate."

- Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Nearly 50 years ago, Justice Abe Fortas penned those words when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a school's action to discipline students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Justice Fortas' opinion held that administrators could discipline a student only when they could reasonably forecast that the student's speech would cause a substantial disruption to the school.

The language of "schoolhouse gate" seems archaic today. The boundaries of speech today really don't rest on the physical boundaries of the "schoolhouse gate." We are no longer just faced with the students' right to speech in the school hallways. What about their rights vis-a-vis the school when they are outside of the "schoolhouse gate" sitting at home or in a coffee shop blogging, tweeting, and posting? Does the school have any control or recourse when students post and text after school hours on their own devices and outside the physical confines of the school? Justice Fortas could not have been thinking about a Facebook post when he penned those landmark words. However outdated the court's language may seem now, its overarching conclusion is still very relevant today.

In terms of student speech on campus, schools clearly have the authority to limit speech that is disruptive, lewd or vulgar, or encourages the use of illegal drugs. When the speech is off-campus, a school's authority is not so clear. Do schools have the authority to discipline students for speech that was created or emanated off school grounds?

Most often, a student's off-campus behavior must connect in some way to the school before administrators have the authority to control the behavior. Generally, the school cannot discipline a student for something that occurred away from school. Some courts have expressed this as needing a nexus: There must be some connection between the student's actions and the school to allow the school to discipline the student. Courts ask if the student's off-campus speech or behavior is tied to the school's educational interests. Can a student be suspended for an off-campus assault? No. Can a student be suspended for an assault between two students on the way to or from school? Yes, there is a connection between the school and behavior in that instance.
Electronic speech
For student electronic speech, the courts seem to be taking a more direct approach. If the student's behavior creates a disruption - or there is a reasonable expectation that the behavior would create a disruption - in the school, then administrators can control or punish the student for the behavior. The disruption (or reasonable expectation of a disruption) provides the nexus, which gives the school the authority to respond to the student's behavior through disciplinary action even though the behavior technically occurred off school grounds.

For example, in Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. den., 132 S. Ct. 1095 (2012), a student created a web page called SASH (Students Against Sluts Herpes), which was dedicated to ridiculing a fellow student. Pictures of the student and demeaning comments about her were posted on the site. The school disciplined the student who created the site by invoking the district's hate speech and harassment policy. The appeals court upheld the discipline, finding that schools have an obligation to protect students from harassment and bullying in the school environment. Kowalski claimed the school could not discipline her because she created the site off campus. The court disagreed and pointed out that the student "knew that the electronic response would be, as it in fact was, published beyond her home and could reasonably be expected to reach the school or impact the school environment. She also knew that the dialogue would and did take place among . . . students . . . and that the fallout from her conduct and the speech within the group would be felt in the school itself." The student's intent to disrupt the school environment was achieved. Causing the disruption is the sanctionable action. The court agreed that the school should be able to discipline the student for disrupting the school, even though the speech technically occurred off campus.
Applying Tinker
The Tinker case contains more than just the landmark quaint quote about the "schoolhouse gate." You can understand the parameters of a school's authority for off-campus electronic speech by looking back at the court's language in Tinker. The court said that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason - whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior - materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech" ( Tinker, 393 U.S. at 513).

Some courts have specifically used this language to provide schools the authority to control off-campus electronic speech. For example:

In Wynar v. Douglas County School District, 728 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013), a student posted instant messages to his friends, bragging about his weapons, threatening to shoot students, and alluding to the Virginia Tech University shootings. The court upheld the student's disciplinary suspension, saying "the messages, which threatened the safety of the school and its students, both interfered with the rights of other students and made it reasonable for school officials to forecast a substantial disruption of school activities. When faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, schools may take disciplinary action in response to off-campus speech that meets the requirements of Tinker."

In Bell v. Itawamba County School Board, 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2015), a student recorded a music track at a professional studio and posted it on YouTube and Facebook. The posted recording used vulgar and violent lyrics to criticize school personnel. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Tinker could apply to speech both on and off campus. The court upheld the student discipline because the school had a reasonable forecast of a disruption of the school based on the threatening, intimidating, and harassing language in the posted recording.

In Burge v. Colton School District 53, 100 F. Supp.3d 1057 (D. Oregon 2015), the student had posted a series of comments on his Facebook page on a day school was not in session. He said he was going to start a petition to get the teacher fired. His language escalated with him saying the teacher "needs to be shot." At the insistence of his mother, he deleted the messages from his Facebook page. Nothing else happened. But six weeks later, someone anonymously put a printed copy of the posts in the principal's school mailbox. The student was suspended. The federal district court overturned the discipline. The court applied the Tinker standard and found that the behavior had not caused a disruption in the school. The teacher was nervous when she first learned of the comments from the principal, but she continued teaching, and the student remained a student in her classroom. The off-campus online rant, which had occurred six weeks prior, did not cause a disruption in the school and thus the school could not discipline the student for that action.

The courts generally have found that schools may sanction misbehavior where the off-campus electronic conduct was directed somehow at the school with the intent or likelihood that the communication would result in a substantial disruption within the school. That Abe Fortas was a pretty smart guy.

Citation: Underwood, J. (2016). Student online speech rights on and off campus. Phi Delta Kappan, 98 (4), 76-77.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student online speech rights on and off campus - kappanonline.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If off-campus online speech presents the likelihood of a disruption on campus, administrators can respond by disciplining the responsible students. Students do not "shed their rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate." - Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Academic Resource #2 for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.subject
Academic Resource #2 for "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech"

# data[].attributes.body
Dagley, A. L., & Weiler, S. C. (2017). Do Courts Consider the Degree of Discipline When Adjudicating Off-Campus Student Speech? Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 90(5), 208–213. Retrieved from https://easydb.angelo.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1162918&site=eds-live

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review of Resources and Implications for Future Work: "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Review of Resources and Implications for Future Work: "Off-Campus, Online Student Speech

# data[].attributes.body
The topic I chose for my educational and internet articles was on student speeches done off-campus but online. Speeches comprise of both written and video media. When searching through the ASU library I chose to do an extra article because of the angle that the paper took was different than others that I had found.

This topic is extremely important to administrators who may someday face the dilemma of having a student write or create a video in their own home that affects the school. The internet is not going away. Students are being given access to social media and the internet at even younger ages. Having to wade through varying law jurisdictions to determine when and how you can discipline a student is challenging. The Supreme Court still has yet to hear a case and weight in on any decision of this nature, leaving the lower courts to determine what rights have or have not been broken. In some cases, the courts have had differing outcomes (Underwood, 2016).

Before an administrator decides on disciplining a student for what they have posted online while off campus, the following criteria should be met using Calder’s Effects Test. First, proof that the student committed the act. Second, that action was towards the school, students, and/or staff. There must be a connection, known as nexus, for this part to apply. Third, and extremely important, that the act resulted in substantial disruption to the school.  Schools may not trample on a student’s First Amendment Rights simply to avoid unease or because feelings were hurt. Administrators may base part three on the potential of substantial disruption if the speech was highly threatening or if previous similar instances have caused extreme disruptions (Stafford, 2017). A. Dagley and S. Weiler (2017) suggested, based on their findings, that an administrator’s response should not be reactionary, and the punishment should be reasonable. In their research 8 out of the 9 cases where the punishment was considered reasonable the court sided with the school compared to only siding with school 17 out of 24 when the resulting discipline was considered unreasonable.

For administrators this issue is like a double-edged sword. If an administrator acts, the student and their parents may attempt a lawsuit for violation of First Amendment Rights. If an administrator does not discipline the student, a lawsuit may be put in place by the victim. Administrators are supposed to provide a safe environment for students and faculty, but at the same they cannot trample the rights of another. Cyberbullying and threats are two of the biggest topics in today’s educational climate when discussing safety. School officials should not have to worry about potential legal retaliation when attempting to help someone, but nevertheless should.

Dagley, A. L., & Weiler, S. C. (2017). Do Courts Consider the Degree of Discipline When Adjudicating Off-Campus Student Speech? Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 90(5), 208–213.

STAFFORD, A. P. (2017). Resolving an Incoherent Doctrine: Regulating Off-Campus Student Speech with Principles of Personal Jurisdiction. Widener Law Review, 23(1), 135–167.

Underwood, J. (2016). Student online speech rights on and off campus. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(4), 76-77.