William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 6 Pickering, Other Cases - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 6 Pickering, Other Cases

Description:

William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 6 Pickering, Other Cases – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:615
Slides: 34
Provided by: Will1945
Category: Other

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 6 Pickering, Other Cases


1
Chapter 6
  • PEDG 5344
  • William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

2
Pickering v. Board of Education
  • Pickering, a teacher, was dismissed for writing
    and publishing in a newspaper a letter
    criticizing the Boards allocation of school
    funds between educational and athletic programs
    and the Boards and superintendents methods of
    informing, or preventing the informing of, the
    school districts taxpayers of the real reasons
    why additional tax revenues were being sought for
    the schools. The Board, as well as the lower
    courts, found that the letter, which contained
    false statements, was detrimental to the
    interests of the school system and that the
    interest of the school should take precedence
    over the teachers claim to freedom of
    expression.

3
Pickering v. Board of Education
  • The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the
    school bard was wrong in firing the teacher.
    Since the statements in the letter were not aimed
    at any person with whom the teacher would come in
    contact in carrying out his duties, and the
    falsehoods were not carelessly made nor did they
    impede school operations, the Supreme Court
    concluded that the teacher should not have been
    dismissed.

4
Pickering v. Board of Education
  • Pickering is an important case because it
    recognizes that educators, and by implication,
    all public employees do have a right to freedom
    of expression as citizens in the community.
  • It also conveys to administrators the burden of
    documentation they must shoulder to take adverse
    action against an employee who they believe has
    abused the right.
  • If it can be shown that the statements are made
    recklessly or with knowledge of their falsity,
    that school functioning or the teachers
    performance is impaired, or that the
    superior-subordinate relationship is undermined,
    then sanctions, including dismissal, might
    appropriately be brought against the employee.
  • Pickering recognized that educators have a
    substantial right to freedom of expression as
    citizens of the community and conveys to
    administrators the burden of documentation in
    order to take adverse action against the
    employee.

5
Nieto v. San Perlita ISD
  • In 1990, Frank Nieto, a school maintenance
    supervisor, was discharged after he complained
    that the schools basketball coach was abusing
    students. Nieto had conducted his own
    investigation, which included puling students out
    of class for questioning. Teachers complained
    that his actions were highly disruptive.
  • The court held that Nietos speech was of public
    concern, but the public interest was outweighed
    by the districts interest in promoting the
    public services it performs.

6
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
  • Students wore armbands in opposition of the
    Vietnam war and were suspended their parents
    sued citing infringement of their childrens
    right to free speech.
  • The US Supreme Court agreed with the students
    noting that school officials do not possess
    absolute authority over their students. The
    court did not adopt an anything goes viewpoint
    it was emphasized that student expression in or
    out of class that materially disrupts classwork
    or involves substantial disorder or invasion of
    the rights of other is, of course not immunized
    by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
    speech. Since the wearing of the armbands
    generated no significant disturbance within the
    school, the court decided for the students.

7
Alaniz v. San Isidro
  • The 5th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling in
    favor of the school districts deputy tax
    assessor-collector, who was fired after an
    opposition political party won control of the
    board. Alaniz had actively supported the
    policies and candidates of the incumbent party,
    headed by her brother-in-law. She maintained she
    would not have been fired but for her 1st
    amendment-protected political activities.
  • The trial court awarded Alaniz 51,000 in back
    pay and 40,000 in compensatory damages for
    mental anguish and emotional distress and ordered
    her reinstated to her position.

8
Whalen V. Rocksprings ISD
  • A 7th grade science teacher who became involved
    in an extended question-and-answer session with
    her class that encompassed matters related to sex
    education. In the course of responding to
    questions about AIDS, contraceptives, and the
    development of sperm, the teacher engaged in what
    school officials considered unnecessarily graphic
    description harmful to the emotional well-being
    of students of that age and grade level in the
    largely rural community. For example, with
    regard to learning more about sperm, the teacher
    advised male students in her class to go home,
    lock the bathroom door, and masturbate. The
    teacher was dismissed mid-year following a due
    process hearing, a dismissal the commissioner of
    education upheld.

9
Whalen V. Rocksprings ISD
  • The commissioner stated that for a teacher to
    show that his or her comments were protected by
    academic freedom, the teacher has to show that
    the comments were reasonable relevant to the
    subject matter of the class, had a demonstrated
    educational purpose, and were not proscribed by a
    school regulation.
  • While teacher discussion rights in the
    classroomas contrasted with the right to control
    teaching methodologyare protected under the
    weight of judicial authority, they can be abused
    and lose their protection.

10
Expression Within the School
  • There are three dimensions
  • (1) expression outside the classroom but on the
    school grounds
  • (2) classroom academic freedom
  • (3) retaliation for speaking out about suspected
    wrongdoing under the Texas Whistle Blower Statute

11
Expression Within the School
  • In 1979, the US Supreme court ruled that the 1st
    and 14th amendments can, under certain
    circumstances, protect private communication
    between a public-school teacher and a school
    principal.
  • At the same time, the court stated that since
    subordinate-superior relations are particularly
    sensitive, the content of what is said, as well
    as the time, place, and manner in which it is
    said, can be taken into account in deciding what
    is and is not constitutionally protected.

12
Expression Within the School
  • In 1983 (Perry Education Assn v. Perry Local
    Educator Assn) the Court decided that school
    mailboxes are not automatically public forums
    available to teachers, the associations, and
    others to disseminate information.

13
Expression Within the School
  • Administrators must be sensitive to employee 1st
    amendment rights when making decisions about
    school mailboxes, Web sites, and similar types of
    communication systems.

14
Expression Within the School
  • Connick v. Myers (1983)
  • an assistant DA was fired for distributing
    questionnaires that dealt with internal working
    conditions the question involved the issue of
    whether employee expression concerning on-the-job
    complaints is constitutionally protected and thus
    cannot be used in a negative employment decision.
  • The Court ruled that such expression is not
    protected and thus can serve as grounds for
    dismissal. In terms of school, an administrator
    must determine whether the expression is
    protected by the 1st amendmentif the expression
    does not deal with community interests, then in
    general it is not protected.

15
Expression Within the School
  • An employees speech is protected when the
    employee speaks as a citizen on matters of public
    concern but not when he or she speaks on matters
    only of personal interest.

16
Expression Within the School
  • In 1995, the 5th circuit identified a 3-part test
    for determining when particular speech by a
    public employee is protected
  • (1) the speech must have involved a matter of
    public concern
  • (2) the public employees interest in commenting
    on matters of public concern must outweigh the
    employers interest in promoting efficiency
  • (3) the employees speech must have motivated the
    decision to discharge the employee

17
Texas Whistleblower Act
  • In 1983, the legislature passed a law known as
    The Whistleblower Act prohibiting a
    governmental body from retaliating against an
    employee who reports a violation of law to the
    appropriate law enforcement authority if the
    report is made in good faith.
  • Each governmental body is required to post a sign
    in a prominent place informing employees of their
    rights under this act. A violation of school
    policy is not within this definition (Lane v.
    Galveston ISD).
  • An employee or appointed officer who is fired or
    otherwise penalized for reporting may sue for
    injunctive relief, money damages, court costs and
    attorneys fees (a cap on the amount is set).
  • The Texas Attorney General has advised that a
    school district that prevails in a whistle-blower
    lawsuit is under no obligation to pay the
    non-prevailing employees legal fees.
  • The employee has the burden of proving that the
    adverse personnel action was in retaliation for
    reporting a violation of the law, through the law
    presumes this to be the case if the termination
    occurs within ninety days of making a report.
  • The governmental entity is not liable if it can
    show that it would have made the same negative
    employment decision in the absence of the
    employees reporting.

18
Texas Whistleblower Act
  • In Castleberry ISD v. Doe, the court made clear
    that the 90 day timeline stops while the
    grievance is being processed.
  • School districts can bear a heavy burden of
    responsibility if they uphold retaliatory action
    against an employee who reports in good faith an
    alleged violation of the law.
  • The Texas Supreme Court has defined good faith
    to mean an honest belief that the conduct is a
    violation of the law, a belief that is reasonable
    in light of the employees training and
    experience.
  • Example of test question Mr. Smith brought
    into class an unapproved book. Mrs. Farmer
    disapproved of the book and turned in the
    teacher. What could be the outcome? According
    to the Texas Whistleblower Act

19
Academic Freedom
  • Involves four sometimes clashing interests
  • (1) interests of the state and local school board
    in seeing that the curriculum reflects the
    collective will of the community
  • (2) the interest of the student in having access
    to knowledge and ideas
  • (3) the interest of the teacher as a professional
    in controlling class discussions choosing
    instructional methodologies
  • (4) the interest of parents in controlling their
    childrens education.

20
Academic Freedom
  • Epperson v. Arkansas- Supreme Court struck down
    an Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of
    evolution in public schools
  • The 5th Circuit court of appeals has ruled that
    public-school teachers do have a 1st and 14th
    amendment liberty right to engage in classroom
    discussion.
  • Profanity in the classroom has no constitutional
    protection. The use of profanity in a college
    classroom to motivate students is not related
    to any matter of public concern and is not
    protected by the 1st amendment.
  • The 5th Circuit ruled that academic freedom does
    not include the right to award a grade
  • (Hillis v. SFASU)

21
Academic Freedom
  • Given the tenuous nature of the teachers claim
    to classroom academic freedom, the following
    guidelines should be observed
  • Teachers should be careful not to use their
    freedom of expression rights within the school in
    such a way as seriously to erode their ability to
    work with school administrators and colleagues.
  • Before teachers make any determination for
    themselves about what they can or cannot do in
    the classroom, they should endeavor to ascertain
    what school policy is with respect to curriculum
    practices and the role of the teacher.
  • While teachers to have a constitutional right in
    Texas by virtue of the 5th circuit decision in
    Kingsville to engage in classroom discussion, the
    right has not been accorded much support by the
    Commissioner of Education. Teachers should make
    sure that the discussion is germane to their
    subject-matter area, is balanced, and has not
    undermined their effectiveness.
  • Teachers should proceed with caution when it
    comes to selecting materials and teaching
    methodology, as well as awarding grades. It is
    always best to check with board policy and
    administrative directives before proceeding.

22
Shelton v. Tucker (1960)
  • US Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas statute
    requiring teachers to file affidavits listing
    their membership in organizations for the
    previous 5 years.

23
Ch 617 of the TX government code
  • recognizes that An individual may not be denied
    public employment because of the individuals
    membership or non-membership in a labor
    organization.

24
TEC 21.407
  • prohibits a school district from directly or
    indirectly requiring or coercing a teacher to
    join a group or to refrain from participating in
    political affairs.

25
TEC 21.408
  • provides professional employees have a right to
    join or not to join any professional organization
    or association.

26
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)-
  • Concerning school sponsored student publications
  • The Supreme Court ruled that school
    administrators have broad censorship powers over
    student newspapers produced under the auspices of
    the school as long as their actions are based on
    legitimate pedagogical concerns and as long as
    the school has not by policy or practice
    converted the school-sponsored student newspaper
    into a public forum where controversial views can
    be freely expressed.
  • When students create messages on their own
    outside of school hours without using school
    equipment, they normally are beyond the purview
    of the school.
  • When classroom expression involves threats,
    students are less likely to find their speech
    constitutionally protected.

27
Clark v. Dallas ISD
  • Concerning non-school sponsored publications
  • Students wanted to meet outside the cafeteria to
    pray, read the bible, and distribute religious
    materials to students as they exited school
    buses. The school rejected the plan based on 3
    premises but a federal district court rejected
    all 3 premises based on Tinker.

28
Clark v. Dallas ISD
  • Most TX schools have adopted a prior review
    policy with 5 components(1) criteria that spell
    out what is forbidden
  • (2) procedures by which students submit proposed
    materials to be reviewed
  • (3) a brief period of time during which the
    principal or other school official must make a
    decision
  • (4) an appeal procedure(5) a reasonable time
    during which the appeal is to be decided.
  • These prior review systems must be carefully
    worded and applied to withstand constitutional
    scrutiny. School officials also have the right
    to determine the time, place, and manner of
    distribution of non-school sponsored materials
    (Shanley v. Northeast ISD).
  • These prior review systems must be carefully
    worded and applied to withstand constitutional
    scrutiny. School officials also have the right
    to determine the time, place, and manner of
    distribution of non-school sponsored materials
    (Shanley v. Northeast ISD).

29
Concerning Student Freedom of Association
  • High school students have a right to assemble
    peacefully for expressive purposes in the
    vicinity of the public school, and students at
    the collegiate level have a relatively unfettered
    right to assemble and to associate

30
TEC 37.105
  • Students at the secondary level also have a right
    to come together for expressive purposes on the
    public school campus as long as no material
    disruption or invasion of the rights of others
    occurs the right of association does not
    automatically extend to non-students.

31
Does the right to associate restrict school
officials in deciding which student groups may or
may not function as school-recognized
organizations?
  • It depends on the type of group and the
    legitimacy of the schools reasons in denying
    status as a campus organization to a student
    group.

32
TEC 37.121
  • It is a crime for students or non-students to be
    a member of or pledge membership to fraternities,
    sororities, etc in public elementary or secondary
    schools

33
Can a school district refuse to recognize a
controversial student organization, such as a gay
student rights club, if the students obtain a
faculty sponsor and meet other criteria for
school recognition?
  • In 2002, a federal court dismissed a case
    (Caudillo v. Lubbock ISD) when students were not
    allowed by the school board to begin an
    organization called GAP Youth (Gay and Proud
    Youth Group).
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com