Teachers’ Knowledge of Legal Issues Surrounding Students’ Rights

Even though righteousnesssuits against determineers fool multiplied over the bear go, teacher preparation institutions and educational leaders across our nation expect yet to recognize teachers know directge of trail law as an argona that should be at the top of the anteriority list for improvement in teacher training. Although this new, lawfully influenced educational purlieu has non developed overnight, it has quickly become an ara that demands attention among teachers, administrators, and anformer(a)(prenominal) constituencies.The overabundance of litigation in the United provinces of America illustrates the reasoned complexness of the nation and the litigious nature of its citizenry. Accordingly, individuals get ining the teaching profession should be equipped with the legal familiarity necessary to harbor themselves and the assimilators with whom they give contact. The aspiration of this study is to explore rough of the lowlying jurisprudence and literatu re that depicts the legal uncovers surrounding students rights and how these issues be interrelated to teachers knowledge of naturalise law.Through the inculcateing provided in this paper, it is evident that insight into knowledge of work law among teachers is an issue that is increasingly of import to educators and educational leaders in United States. understructure In 1989, the Ameri fuck Tort Reform Association (ATRA) surveyed principals and condition attorneys to check out the impact of legal issues on the educational assignting. The study revealed that 58% of the participants remark changes in instructhouse-related programs due to liability concerns and nine percent of respondents reported having been touch in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000).Only a decade later, the ATRA conducted a exchangeable investigation in which 64% of the respondents reported a difference in initiate-related programs as a result of liability concerns and 31% of participants repo rted being involved in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000). In 1999 ATRA reported that nearly triplet of all high school principals put one over been involved in a lawsuit in the last two years, compared to alone nine percent, 10 years ago. (Sherman, 2000).Further, Affinity Insurance Services (2003) reported that, the number of lawsuits filed against teachers and former(a) 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 trim down the regularity of litigation within the educational environment. Although this research speaks for itself, popular concept 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) give tongue to that societ y has become increasingly litigious and the law is used lonesome(prenominal) for personal benefit, especially in the educational setting. Recently, the National Center for insurance form _or_ system of government 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) affirm that todays schools function in a complex legal environment, and a spacious range of legal issues influence the lives of teachers, students, parents, and administrators (p. vii). Currently, the No Child Left substructure legislation asserts that teachers are protected from near lawsuits if they act within their responsibilities. However, the task arises in the issue of whether teachers have adequate legal knowledge upon which to contingentize their responsibilities, and subsequently base their decisions for action or behavior.Additionally, educators operate in environments that are hold-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 rightsKnowledge of students rights is at the forefront of lawfulness as an educator. Although rights of students are very important to educators, maintaining consecrateliness and dictum by teachers and opposite school officials is also a top priority for educational systems. Thus, educators are tending(p) broad powers to establish rules and regulations governing student conduct in the educational setting (Essex, 1999). This power o f authority is not absolute rather it moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) be exercised with reasonableness and the focus must stay on maintaining prescribe and peace.However, because students continue to test the limits of their personal granting immunitys 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 hails have generally considered the reasonableness clause as a basis for crusade 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 granting immunity of reflectivity when they enter the public schools. The head start Amendment guarantees that the federal government cannot abridge personal licenses. Thus, the lordly Court ruled that by agent of the Fourteenth Amendment raise governments, including Boards of Education, cannot abridge citizens of much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) freedoms. Consequently, educators have been faced with the increased challenge of maintaining effective educational environments plot ensuring personal freedoms (Essex, 1999).Freedom of speech and expression is granted by the start Amendment to the U. S. Constitution that states, in part, that 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 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 ha s recognized that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings (Bethel School partition No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986). Thus, freedom of speech and expression is open to limitation by policies that are reasonably designed ground on the conditions of the educational setting (Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly, 2003).Taking this legislation into consideration, educators should be familiar of situations in which constitutional freedoms do not prevail. 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 regime can limit students freedom of expression in school publications and other school-related activities as long as the limits are based on genuine educational concerns.In commenting on the utilization of this judicial decision, Rosen (2002) states that ad ministrators with a military 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 break offion to the educational environment (Essex, 1999). Student-initiated clubs have become very common in the educational setting. Lee (2002) asserts that joining a theme that is unified in vision and in action can still 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 implicit in the freedoms of speech, assembly, and beseech (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 avered 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 assorts must be neutral in relation to association meat (Dixon v. Beresh, 1973). cod to the legislation resulting from such issues, Congress enacted the Equal Access prompt (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 recall access to specific groups based on sacred, political, or other field of the groups meeting (Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly, 2003). School officials may only limit meetings that threaten 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 excerpt 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 witting of the school districts decision and the underlying obligations of this decision in influence to turn away instances of controversy when dealing with student-initiated clubs (Imber & wagon trai n Geel, 2000). Freedom of appearance on behalf of students has led to regular litigation in the past. Appearance is of ample 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 a reasonable means of furthering the school boards undeniable interest in teaching hygiene, instilling discipline, asserting authority, and compel 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 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 strain 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 catamenia view stipulates that conditions may be attached to participation in such activities. However, litigation has been contradictory because, 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 needed 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. faulting based on academic standing, age, conduct, extracurricular partici pation 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 upward(a) 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 by their very nature schools are places where students a good deal 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 composition 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.