# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed perusing these resources. I hadn't really thought about how court cases  affect classrooms still today. I'm sure that there will be some in 50 years in which people say, "Wow how was this not a precedence before?" While I wasn't sure before this class, now I know that I believe that equal funding within states. This is the most political thing that affects education. While I know that changing funding will bring a whole other group of problems, but I think it can begin to solve other problems. I have said this multiple times, but students must be on the forefront of policy-makers' minds. Also, in conclusion, I believe that the people making the policy should be the people directly involved in education.

# data[].attributes.body
While many people bring many different opinions, it is important to investigate these opinions and views. Individuals should voice their opinions, but know when it is appropriate. In some settings, teachers must choose to remain neutral. However, there are other situations when teachers must speak out and let their voices be heard. They are the ones who are in the classroom, making their voices about certain topics some of the most informed voices. They see the issues within the schools, and it is important to know the ways in which they wish to see things change. Everyone's voice is important, but it is also important to know when that voice should be used.

# data[].attributes.body
NC Public School Forum listed these to be the top 10 educational issues in 2017. With these being more local issues, how can these issues affect your classroom?

# data[].attributes.body
This short video takes on Sir Ken Robinson's idea of policy in education. Are there any parts that you agree or disagree with? How should policy flex in ways that fits the needs of all people?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sir Ken Robinson- The Role of Policy in Education

# data[].attributes.body
This page has many different landmark cases, with majority pertaining to students. Explore the cases that relate to students, doing independent research if needed, and analyze how these cases affect the school systems today and how you as a classroom teacher will uphold these verdicts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)
Holding: Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.

*This case relates to students.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
Holding: Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.

*This case relates to students.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Holding: Separate schools are not equal.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."

Learn more about this case.

Honor the important figures involved in the related cases Brown v. Board of Education and Mendez v. Westminster using a readers theater presentation.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)
Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Holding: School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

*This case relates to students.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Holding: Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Learn more about this case.

Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Holding: Students are entitled to certain due process rights.

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.

*This case relates to students.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Holding: Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

*This case relates to students.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Holding: Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.

*This case relates to students.

Learn more about this case.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Holding: Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).

Learn more about this case.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Holding: Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

Learn more about this case.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Holding: Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.

*This case relates to students.

Learn more about this case.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Holding: In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.

Learn more about this case.

Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Holding: It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18.

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.

*This case relates to students.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)
Holding: Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

*This case relates to students.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Holding: Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Holding: Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.

Learn more about this case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Holding: Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.

*This case relates to students.

Learn more about this case. Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moines which examines student's First Amendment rights.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Holding: The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Holding: Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.

*This case relates to students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Holding: Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school. Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers in public schools can sometimes feel pressured to keep their political opinions to themselves. Do teachers have the right to advocate for themselves in or out of the classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where do teachers' rights begin and end when it comes to voicing their opinions in the public square?

So many times, teachers, faculty, and public employees are hesitant to step forward and speak out on issues - political issues, election debates, candidate endorsements, education policy questions. They worry about appearing biased, and they worry about losing their jobs. I urge you not to censor yourself into silence. I urge you to step forward, and be active participants in our democracy.

I am not talking about using your classroom or public position as a bully pulpit for whatever issue you believe in. I understand scholarly distance and teaching in a way that respects others' opinions. I am talking about respectfully engaging in the public debate and the political process - particularly regarding educational policy.

Why? First, you are more knowledgeable about these issues than most people. Second, you have the constitutional right to do so. Finally, engaging as active members in our participatory democracy models what children and students need to learn and be able to do.

Public educators can certainly engage in political activity in public and on their own time - and many do. In fact, in the past few years we have seen many educators engaged in political activity. Last year, college blogger Stephanie Rivera posted a list of teacher protests in 32 of the 50 states. ( http://teacherunderconstruction.com/2012/07/10/list-of-2012-u-s-teacher-protests/)

Many of the protests dealt with fiscal issues - budget cuts, teacher layoffs, wage freezes, pension cuts, and cuts to curriculum like music, art, and library services. Some focused on contract negotiations and teacher assessments. Others focused on more specific educational issues, such as class sizes and standardized tests. The audience for the demonstrations varied from legislatures to school boards to the general public. There were a wide variety and just from that listing, it appears as if public educators were working to get their opinions known.

Public employees have the right to engage in political activity on issues of public concern - even those issues that relate to education. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that neither "students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door" ( Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 [1969]). The constitutional rights of public employees, including public school teachers, are protected. Educators who are employed by a private entity - private schools - do not have these protections. In some states charter schools are considered public schools, and in other states they are considered private schools, so charter school teachers' rights vary. The U.S. Supreme Court has directly ruled that teachers have the constitutionally protected right to speak publicly on issues of public concern ( Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 [1968]).

In addition, advocacy for a particular candidate on a ballot or taking a side on a referendum clearly are issues of public concern and therefore protected. Conversely, speech that involves a purely personal matter is not protected. Examples of such unprotected speech include personal opinions about other employees, individual work grievances, or complaints relating to an individual personnel action.

Generally, a public employer can't make employment decisions - positive or negative - based on an employee's exercise of constitutionally protected speech. For example, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that teachers' speech that was critical of the principal for not effectively implementing a school improvement plan during a meeting where the school improvement plan was discussed was a matter of public concern, therefore entitling the critical speech and the teacher to First Amendment protection ( Harris v. Victoria Independent School Dist., 168 F.3d 216 [5th Cir. 1999] cert denied 528 US 1022 [1999]). Public schools can restrict an employee's speech regarding matters of public concern only if the speech would harm the school's ability to operate efficiently or inhibit the teacher's ability to perform his or her job.

Educators especially need to speak out on educational issues during policy debates at the state and federal level. More state legislatures are taking on educational policy issues directly. When school boards take on these issues, they frequently consult with school employees and other educational professionals. But state legislatures may not receive the same level of professional input and may rely instead on popular opinion and media reports. Educators can ensure that their professional perspective is heard - and they are protected by law when they do so.

Outside of School

Teachers' rights to engage in political activity are stronger when exercised outside the school. School boards can restrict teacher behavior in school or at school-sponsored activities, but they have far less authority to restrict employees outside those venues. The courts have upheld teachers' rights to support candidates or issues of their choice, display political buttons and stickers, and participate in demonstrations.

In addition, the courts have generally upheld the right of teachers to run for and hold public office. If the time and activities associated with running for or holding public office interfere with the performance of teaching duties, then the school board may require the teacher to take a leave of absence, but only if such were required for any other time-consuming activity. In addition, the courts have found that holding certain political offices - being a school board member in the employing school district, for example - present a conflict of interest and therefore the district can require the individual to choose between the two positions.

Public employees' rights to expression are stronger if the expression occurs outside of school time and off school property. When expression occurs in the school or at school-sponsored events, the right to expression gets balanced against the school's responsibility to educate students without substantial disruption, the prohibition against using public resources for personal expression, and the concern that the individual will appear to be representing the school on the particular issue.

Political Speech at School

The more complicated issue concerns political speech at school. Common sense and case law dictate that public educators should be more cautious in expressing their own views when they are in an instructional setting or in the presence of students at school-sponsored activities. Teachers may discuss political issues and candidates in a nonpartisan manner in the classroom if that's appropriate for the class and curriculum. They may not make unrelated campaign speeches in the classroom or otherwise take advantage of their position of authority over a captive audience to promote their own political views.

The district's or state's ability to regulate employee speech while in school or at school-sponsored activities can be thought of as part of the district's ability to control what goes on in the classroom. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (484 U.S. 260 [1988]) and cases that have followed that decision lay out the school district's authority to regulate employee and student speech within the curriculum and classroom for "legitimate pedagogical reasons." The legitimate pedagogical reason for curtailing employee speech is usually stated as a concern about disrupting the normal school process, appropriating district resources (time), or compromising the district's ability to remain politically neutral if students believe the employee represents the views of the district. The bottom line is that the district or the state can regulate employee speech during school hours or at school-sponsored activities to protect their own interests in instruction and political neutrality.

Protecting the School From Disruption

Even where a teacher's expression involves a matter of public concern, the employee may still be disciplined if the school district reasonably believes the speech would significantly undermine the teacher's ability to perform his or her duties, disrupt the school's normal operation, undermine supervisory authority, or destroy working relationships ( Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 [1983]). For example, a court upheld the dismissal of a teacher who wrote and circulated a letter to fellow teachers objecting to a delay in receiving summer pay and encouraging teachers to stage a sick-out during the week of final exams. The court ruled that any First Amendment interest inherent in the letter was outweighed by the employer's interest in having teachers abide by reasonable policies adopted to control sick leave and maintain morale and effective operation of the schools ( Stroman v. Colleton County School District, 981 F.2d 152 [4th Cir. 1992]).

Appropriating Public Resources for Personal Expression

Public employees may not use state resources to support their own political activity. School employees cannot use public funds or other resources such as district equipment or supplies to promote a political measure or candidate. For example, using the district's printer to make fliers for a political candidate would be an inappropriate use of public resources even if the employee provided the paper.

Similarly, campaigning during work time is an inappropriate use of district resources. But people are allowed to share their political opinions in casual conversations throughout the workday and may engage in politicking during the day when they're not directly engaged in their work activities. A number of courts have held that school districts or the state may restrict gathering petition signatures or distributing political literature during instructional time, but they may not restrict such political speech during noninstructional times in nonstudent contact settings, such as during duty-free periods in faculty break rooms and lounges.

Representing the District

The school itself must maintain political neutrality. Thus teachers or administrators who are acting on behalf of the school must also maintain political neutrality. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (126 U.S. 1951 [2006]), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they don't have First Amendment protection. If teachers are speaking on behalf of the district, they must represent the district's views. In the context of public education, teachers deliver the curriculum for a school district. Their speech within this curriculum is what they have been hired to do. As such, the district can control speech during the delivery of the curriculum.

This was the thinking the court used in Mayer v. Monroe County School (474 F.3d 477 [7th Cir. 2007] cert. denied 552 U.S. 823 [2007]). Deborah Mayer was a probationary elementary teacher who wasn't given an additional teaching contract. She believed the district made its decision because of her political expressions. During a classroom current events discussion she had expressed her political views on the military intervention in Iraq. The district had told her that she could teach about the controversy regarding the Iraq war, but she had to keep her personal opinions out of the discussion. The court supported the school district in finding that teacher speech within the classroom, as part of the curriculum, can be controlled by the school district.

There is a difference of opinion about whether school employees can wear political buttons during instructional time or during school-sponsored activities. Speech through a button is not really the same as speech that is part of delivering the curriculum. Some districts have allowed this form of advocacy; others don't. But where a ban has been challenged the rule restricting the speech has been upheld.

In September 2008, the New York City School District enacted a regulation that prohibited teachers from wearing campaign buttons during the school day and at school-sponsored events. The policy stated: While on duty or in contact with students, all school personnel shall maintain a posture of complete neutrality with respect to all candidates. Accordingly, while on duty or in contact with students, school personnel may not wear buttons, pins, articles of clothing, or any other items advocating a candidate, candidates, slate of candidates, or political organization/committee. ( Weingarten v. Bd. of Education [680 F.Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)] at 597) The rationale for the regulation as explained by New York City School Chancellor Joel Klein:

"[w]hen teachers wear political paraphernalia in schools, they may improperly influence children and impinge on the rights of students to learn in an environment free of partisan political influence.... Partisan political activity by staff in the presence of students... sends the message that the view expressed carries the support of the school system" (Id. at 598).

The United Federation of Teachers filed suit to overturn this regulation; the court upheld the ban.

Earlier in California, the San Diego school district prohibited teachers from wearing political campaign buttons at work during work hours regardless of whether it was during instructional time or during student noncontact times. The teachers' union challenged the ban ( California Teachers Association v. Governing Board of San Diego Unified School District [45 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 474 (1996)]. The California Court of Appeals began with the Supreme Court's notion in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (484 U.S. 260 [1988]) that schools have greater authority to regulate speech that the public could perceive as bearing the school's imprimatur than they do when regulating personal expression. The California court concluded that public school teachers, at least when teaching, act with the imprimatur of the school district and the school or the state could restrict an employee's political expression in the classroom (53 Cal.Rptr2d at 480).

Teaching Political or Controversial Topics in Class

Teachers face particular challenges when they are teaching about political or controversial topics in class. Those discussions require them to navigate the difficult line between providing information and advocating for a particular view. More important, teachers must ensure that they are delivering the curriculum without indoctrinating students with their own political beliefs.

Diana Hess outlines the importance of teaching students how to participate in discussions of controversial issues as part of supporting students as they develop into active members of our participatory democracy. She studies the practice of teachers who are doing this well (and some not so well), and how their students experience and learn from the discussions (Hess, 2009). Her findings show that teachers need to create a classroom climate in which students are encouraged to form and support their own views and to engage thoughtfully and to respect opinions different from their own. Hess shows that some very effective high school teachers share their views and some do not (Hess, 2011). Teachers cannot let their own advocacy interfere with their obligation to teach students about political issues in a way that makes clear to students (and the community) that they are not trying to influence the content of their students' views.

Conclusion

So, what do we have after all of this? Generally, a public employer can't make employment decisions (either positive or negative) as a result of an employee's exercise of the constitutionally protected right to free speech. This does not mean public educators are free to say or write anything anywhere they wish. Rather, the courts attempt to balance the rights of the educator against harm to the school. Public educators' speech can't disrupt the school, appropriate school resources, or appear to represent the opinion of the school. But clearly public educators can speak out publicly - during noninstructional time - on issues of public concern.

Here's my take on all of this: Public educators are in the best position to influence public policy about public education. Ignoring that opportunity is a mistake. Educators offer a professional view on the effect of proposed policies. Beware of and respect the parameters that you should work within but don't allow those boundaries to censor you into silence. Every educator can both honor the law and make their views known to local school boards and state and national elected officials. The country and its children need to hear your voices in these important debates.

References

Hess D. (2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge. Search Google Scholar

Hess D. (2011). Discussions that drive democracy. Educational Leadership, 69 (1), 69-73. Search Google Scholar

Web Only

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do You Have the Right to be an Advocate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where do teachers' rights begin and end when it comes to voicing their opinions in the public square? So many times, teachers, faculty, and public employees are hesitant to step forward and speak out on issues - political issues, election debates, candidate endorsements, education policy questions.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Respond to each post on this Padlet with thoughts, ideas, or with answers to questions asked.
2. When you have completed all responses create your own post with your conclusion and final thoughts.
3. Respond to another group members final post.

By following these instructions you will have answered these essential questions:
How do political policies in education affect teachers on the classroom level?
How can educators uphold law and policies, those that you do and do not agree with, in the classroom?
How can teachers advocate for themselves and their students in politics?