Teachers’ Knowledge of Legal Issues Surrounding Students’ Rights

Even though lawsuits against teachers have multiplied over the last decade, teacher preparation institutions and educational leaders across our nation have yet to recognize teachers' knowledge of school law as an area that should be at the top of the priority list for improvement in teacher training. Although this new, legally influenced educational environment has not developed overnight, it has quickly become an area that demands attention among teachers, administrators, and other constituencies. The overabundance of litigation in the United States of America illustrates the legal complexity of the nation and the litigious nature of its citizenry. Accordingly, individuals entering the teaching profession should be equipped with the legal knowledge necessary to protect themselves and the students with whom they have contact. The purpose of this study is to explore some of the underlying legislation and literature that depicts the legal issues surrounding students' rights and how these issues are interrelated to teachers’ knowledge of school law. Through the information provided in this paper, it is evident that insight into knowledge of school law among teachers is an issue that is increasingly important to educators and educational leaders in United States. Introduction In 1989, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) surveyed principals and school attorneys to determine the impact of legal issues on the educational setting. The study revealed that 58% of the participants noted changes in school-related programs due to liability concerns and nine percent of respondents reported having been involved in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000). Only a decade later, the ATRA conducted a similar investigation in which 64% of the respondents reported a difference in school-related programs as a result of liability concerns and 31% of participants reported being involved in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000). In 1999 ATRA reported that nearly one-third of all high school principals have been involved in a lawsuit in the last two years, compared to only nine percent, 10 years ago. (Sherman, 2000). Further, Affinity Insurance Services (2003) reported that, â€Å"the number of lawsuits filed against teachers and other education professionals has increased at an alarming rate -over 270% in the last ten years† (p. 2). These findings clearly illustrate the severity of the issue under investigation and highlight the need for corrective and preventative measures aimed at reducing the regularity of litigation within the educational environment. Although this research speaks for itself, public sentiment toward filing suits against educators is at the crux of the issue. Stern (2001) reported that for some students and parents, a good lawyer is as important as good grades. Furthermore, Sorokin (2002) stated that society has become increasingly litigious and the law is used only for personal benefit, especially in the educational setting. Recently, the National Center for Policy Analysis (2003) reported that the rising tide of lawsuits against educators over the last decade has made school discipline difficult, reduced opportunities for students, and consumed many educational resources. Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly (2003) state that â€Å"today's schools function in a complex legal environment, and a wide range of legal issues influence the lives of teachers, students, parents, and administrators† (p. vii). Currently, the No Child Left Behind legislation asserts that teachers are protected from most lawsuits if they act within their responsibilities. However, the problem arises in the issue of whether teachers have adequate legal knowledge upon which to define their responsibilities, and subsequently base their decisions for action or behavior. Additionally, educators operate in environments that are open-systems that are subject to the influence of countless extraneous variables. This makes educational policy and daily procedures more difficult to define; thus, complicating teachers' responsibilities (McCarthy et al. , 2004). For these reasons, it would seem that knowledge of legal responsibilities and legal rights would be at the forefront of professional preparation for preservice educators or professional development for inservice educators. Legal issues surrounding students' rights Knowledge of students' rights is at the forefront of lawfulness as an educator. Although rights of students are very important to educators, maintaining orderliness and authority by teachers and other school officials is also a top priority for educational systems. Thus, educators are granted broad powers to establish rules and regulations governing student conduct in the educational setting (Essex, 1999). This power of authority is not absolute; rather it must be exercised with reasonableness and the focus must stay on maintaining order and peace. However, because students continue to test the limits of their personal freedoms in public schools, frequent collisions arise as educators strive to maintain educational environments that are highly conducive to learning (McCarthy et al. , 2004). In dealing with these issues, the courts have generally considered the reasonableness clause as a basis for case decisions. In 1969, the United States Supreme Court handed down a historic decision that challenged the reasonableness consideration, in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the court ruled that neither teachers nor students lose their constitutional rights to freedom of expression when they enter the public schools. The First Amendment guarantees that the federal government cannot abridge personal freedoms. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that through the Fourteenth Amendment state governments, including Boards of Education, cannot abridge citizens of such freedoms. Consequently, educators have been faced with the increased challenge of maintaining effective educational environments while ensuring personal freedoms (Essex, 1999). Freedom of speech and expression is granted by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution that states, in part, that â€Å"Congress shall make no law †¦ abridging the freedom of speech, or of press or of the rights of peoples to peacefully assemble. † The court has stated that First Amendment rights must receive protection in the educational setting â€Å"if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principals of our government as mere platitudes† (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943). A multitude of additional court cases has set precedence in the area of students' rights. However, the court has recognized that â€Å"the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings† (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986). Thus, freedom of speech and expression is open to limitation by policies that are reasonabl y designed based on the conditions of the educational setting (Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly, 2003). Taking this legislation into consideration, educators should be knowledgeable of situations in which constitutional freedoms do not prevail. â€Å"Defamatory, obscene, vulgar, and inflammatory expression are not protected in the public school context† (McCarthy et al. 2004, p. 115). As a result of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), school authorities can limit students' freedom of expression in school publications and other school-related activities as long as the limits are based on legitimate educational concerns. In commenting on the utilization of this judicial decision, Rosen (2002) states that â€Å"administrators with a militaristic bent have no better weapon in their arsenal†¦ † In general, however, courts have endorsed the notion that educators should limit students' freedoms of expression and press only when their actions cause disruption to the educational environment (Essex, 1999). Student-initiated clubs have become very common in the educational setting. Lee (2002) asserts that joining a group that is unified in vision and in action can soothe the difficulties that many alienated students may experience. But, because the nature of some clubs has caused controversy, litigation has ensued. Although freedom of association is not specifically protected under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of association is â€Å"implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition† (Healy v. James, 1972). The issue, however, arises in the nature of the association that is taken by the students. Public school students have sought legal espousal for secret societies or closed-membership clubs through the assertion that these associations are supported by First Amendment freedoms. However, the courts have upheld rulings by school officials prohibiting student membership in secret societies (Burkitt v. School District No. 1 Multnomah County, 1952). Conversely, student-initiated organizations with open membership are receptive to support under the First Amendment. Accordingly, courts have held that if a public high school allows student associations to meet during noninstructional time, the access policy for such meetings by other groups must be neutral in relation to association content (Dixon v. Beresh, 1973). Due to the legislation resulting from such issues, Congress enacted the Equal Access Act (EAA) in 1984, that confirmed that if a federally assisted secondary school creates an open forum for noncurricular student groups to meet during noninstractional time, it must not deny access to specific groups based on religious, political, or other content of the groups' meeting (Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly, 2003). School officials may only limit meetings that th reaten to disrupt the educational environment. As mentioned earlier in this literature review, the establishment of an open forum has been challenged by the Establishment clause when association is of a religious nature (Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990). Reflection on this legislation raises the issue of whether or not the creation of an open forum is in the best interest of the school. Fortunately, under the EAA, school districts do retain the option of restricting access to only curriculum related association, rather than creating a limited open forum for student-initiated association. Regardless of the choice, teachers must be aware of the school district's decision and the underlying obligations of this decision in order to avoid instances of controversy when dealing with student-initiated clubs (Imber & Van Geel, 2000). Freedom of appearance on behalf of students has led to regular litigation in the past. Appearance is of great importance to most students. However, when fads and fashion lead to disruptions in the learning environment, controversy usually follows. Although freedom of appearance has been considered an extension of symbolic expression, which is protected under the First Amendment, the courts have reached contradictory conclusions over this issue (Essex, 1999). In 1982, the court determined that restrictions on student appearance constitute â€Å"a reasonable means of furthering the school board's undeniable interest in teaching hygiene, instilling discipline, asserting authority, and compelling uniformity† (Domico v. Rapides Parish School Board, 1982). Although students have asserted that attire is a means of expression protected under the First Amendment, courts have held that attire can be regulated if it is deemed â€Å"immodest, disruptive, or unsanitary† (Richards v. Thurston, 1970). More stringent restrictions on attire, in the form of uniform policies, have been established in some school systems in order to eliminate gang-related attire, reduce violence, and improve school climate by removing the emphasis placed on attire, thereby enhancing the emphasis on academics (Del Stover, 1996). However, courts have reached contradictory conclusions concerning the constitutionality of mandated school uniform policies. Thus, in order to avoid potential litigation, educators must ensure that a legitimate educational justification is underlying any regulation related to students' appearance and teachers must enforce uniform policies based solely upon these established justifications in order to avoid litigation (McCarthy et al. , 2004). Extracurricular activities are integral components of the majority of public school across the nation. In 1975, Goss v. Lopez established that once a state provides public education, students cannot be denied access to this education without due process of law. Although courts have historically held that extracurricular activities are fundamental in the educational system, the current view stipulates that conditions may be attached to participation in such activities. However, litigation has been contradictory because, â€Å"courts have not agreed regarding procedural protections that must be provided when students face suspension or expulsion from extracurricular activities† (McCarthy et al. 2004, p. 135). Due to these insubstantial rulings, school authorities may not be required to provide formal due process procedures prior to the suspension of a student from extracurricular activities. Nevertheless, if the school district has a policy for suspending students from extracurricular activities, school authorities must abide by this policy, in such instances, an informal hearing and documentation of the underlying rationale for the action is advisable. Suspension based on academic standing, age, conduct, extracurricular participation fees, individual skill, school attendance, residence, and a number of other conditions have been left to the discretion of school district authorities (Imber & Van Geel, 2000). Policies concerning these considerations should be clearly written, they should be communicated to students, teachers, and parents, they should be based on sound educational rationale, and they should be enforced in an indiscriminating manner. Educators should ensure that suspension or denial of participation in extracurricular activities is based on established policy in order to avoid litigation in this area. Conclusion In this litigious society, to protect themselves and the students they teach, teachers should have ample knowledge of school law. Determining the level of knowledge of school law and the importance that teachers place on this knowledge is important so that college officials, school administrators, and teachers can make decisions focused on improving knowledge in deficient areas, such as legal issues pertaining to students' rights. Educating particular groups to increase law knowledge will remain a great challenge for universities officials, school administrators, and teachers because no one person or group of people is like that of another and because no one person or group shares the same educational or practical experiences. Knowledge of the law pertaining to students' rights is of extreme importance to educators because â€Å"by their very nature schools are places where students often wish to express their ideas through speech and other means† (Imber & Van Geel, 2000, p. 37). Thus, teachers should be prepared to lawfully allow students to exercise their constitutional rights while maintaining the structure and integrity of the educational system. In doing so, students will experience an enriched educational environment based upon diversity of ideals, respect for self and others, and, most importantly, the liberties granted by the U. S. Constitution that have defined our nation and its citizenry.