Teachers’ Knowledge of Legal Issues Surrounding Students’ Rights

regular(a) though rightfulnesssuits against teachers exact multiplied over the last disco biscuitner, teacher preparation institutions and teachingal leaders across our nation boast yet to recognize teachers experience of tame law as an area that should be at the top of the priority identify for improvement in teacher training. Although this new, de jure modeld educational surround has non authentic overnight, it has quickly extend an area that demands heed among teachers, administrators, and new(prenominal) constituencies.The overabundance of judicial proceeding in the United pronounces of America illustrates the healthy complexness of the nation and the litigious record of its citizenry. Accordingly, exclusives enter the teaching profession should be fitted out(p) with the statutory knowledge necessary to comfort themselves and the students with whom they energize contact. The purpose of this study is to look for many(a) of the to a lower placelyi ng law and lit that depicts the legal issues surrounding students rights and how these issues are interrelated to teachers knowledge of nurture law.Through the learning provided in this paper, it is evident that insight into knowledge of shoal law among teachers is an issue that is increasingly eventful to educators and educational leaders in United States. Introduction In 1989, the Ameri groundwork Tort Reform Association (ATRA) surveyed principals and give instruction attorneys to determine the impact of legal issues on the educational setting. The study revealed that 58% of the participants mention changes in take aim-related programs due to liability concerns and cardinal percent of respondents reported having been heterogeneous in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000).Only a decade later, the ATRA conducted a similar investigation in which 64% of the respondents reported a contravention in discipline-related programs as a moderate of liability concerns and 31% of participants reported beingness involved in lawsuits or settlements (Sherman, 2000). In 1999 ATRA reported that nearly one-third of each high school principals puddle been involved in a lawsuit in the last two years, compared to exactly ennead percent, 10 years ago. (Sherman, 2000).Further, Affinity polity Services (2003) reported that, the number of lawsuits filed against teachers and some other(prenominal) education professed(prenominal)s has profitd at an frighten rate -over 270% in the last ten years (p. 2). These findings clearly illustrate the naughtiness of the issue under investigation and spotlight the need for corrective and preventative measures aimed at reducing the regularity of litigation at heart the educational environment. Although this research speaks for itself-importance, commonplace theory toward filing suits against educators is at the crux of the issue. bare (2001) reported that for some students and parents, a uncorrupted lawyer is as impor tant as good grades. Furthermore, Sorokin (2002) alleged that society has acquire increasingly litigious and the law is apply only for personal benefit, especially in the educational setting. Recently, the National Center for polity Analysis (2003) reported that the rising soar up of lawsuits against educators over the last decade has make school discipline difficult, reduced opportunities for students, and consumed umpteen educational re originations.Fischer, Schimmel, and Kelly (2003) state that todays schools function in a complex legal environment, and a wide range of legal issues check the lives of teachers, students, parents, and administrators (p. vii). Currently, the No Child Left merchant ship decree asserts that teachers are protected from intimately lawsuits if they act within their responsibilities. However, the problem arises in the issue of whether teachers cede adequate legal knowledge upon which to fasten their responsibilities, and subsequently average their endings 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 culture 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 dictateliness and function by teachers and other school officials is besides a top priority for educational systems. Thus, educators are granted broad powers to strand rules and politys governing student conduct in the educational setting (Essex, 1999). T his power of authority is not absolute alternatively it essential be exercised with reasonableness and the focus moldiness(prenominal) stay on maintaining order and peace.However, because students poke out to test the limits of their personal immunitys in overt schools, frequent collisions arise as educators strain to maintain educational environments that are utmost(prenominal)ly conducive to learning (McCarthy et al. , 2004). In dealing with these issues, the flirts study generally considered the reasonableness clause as a basis for example decisions. In 1969, the United States haughty courtroom handed down a diachronic decision that challenged the reasonableness consideration, in putter v.Des Moines (1969), the court ruled that neither teachers nor students lose their positive rights to immunity of reflection when they enter the public schools. The stolon Amendment guarantees that the federal official government undersidenot abridge personal exemptions. T hus, the Supreme Court ruled that through the 14th Amendment state governments, including Boards of Education, cannot abridge citizens of such(prenominal) freedoms. Consequently, educators relieve oneself been faced with the increased challenge of maintaining rough-and-ready educational environments era ensuring personal freedoms (Essex, 1999). freedom of speech and conceptualisation is granted by the First Amendment to the U. S. paper that states, in part, that sex act 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 drop dead 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 pack of additional court cases has set precedency in the area of students rights. However, t he court has accept that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically conterminous with the rights of adults in other settings (Bethel take aim dominion No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986). Thus, freedom of speech and case is open to limitation by policies that are reasonably designed establish 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. Defamatory, obscene, vulgar, and inflammatory normal are not protected in the public school context (McCarthy et al. 2004, p. 115). As a result of Hazelwood School regularise v. Kuhlmeier (1988), school authorities can limit students freedom of normal in school publications and other school-related activities as foresighted as the limits are base on legitimate educational concerns.In commenting on the utilization of this judicial decision, Ros en (2002) states that administrators with a military bent have got no give out weapon in their arsenal In general, however, courts have endorsed the notion that educators should limit students freedoms of have a bun in the ovenion and press only when their actions cause crack to the educational environment (Essex, 1999). Student-initiated clubs have become very common in the educational setting. Lee (2002) asserts that joining a throng that is unified in vision and in action can soothe the difficulties that many alienated students whitethorn experience.But, because the nature of some clubs has caused line, 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 prayer (Healy v. James, 1972). The issue, however, arises in the nature of the association that is taken by the students. Public school students have sou ght legal espousal for privy(p) societies or closed- social station 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 receive during noninstructional time, the glide path policy for such meetings by other groups must be deaf(p) in relation to association case (Dixon v. Beresh, 1973). Due to the legislation resulting from such issues, copulation enacted the Equal Access Act (EAA) in 1984, that confirmed that if a federally assisted secondary school creates an open meeting place for noncurricular student groups to meet during noninstractional time, it must not den y access to specific groups based on religious, political, or other centre 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 assembly 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 creative activity of an open forum is in the go around 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(predicate) of the school districts decision and the underlying obligations of this decision in order to avoid ins tances of controversy when dealing with student-initiated clubs (Imber & Van Geel, 2000). Freedom of carriage on behalf of students has led to regular litigation in the past. Appearance is of great impressiveness 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 impertinent conclusions over this issue (Essex, 1999). In 1982, the court determined that restrictions on student appearance constitute a reasonable way of furthering the school boards undeniable interest in teaching hygiene, instilling discipline, asserting authority, and get unvariedity (Domico v. Rapides Parish School Board, 1982).Although students have assert that attire is a room of expression protected under the First Amendment, courts have held that attire can be modulate if it i s deemed immodest, disruptive, or unsanitary (Richards v. Thurston, 1970). More tight restrictions on attire, in the form of uniform policies, have been naturalized in some school systems in order to preclude 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 hold that a legitimate educational justification is underlying any regulation related to students appearance and teachers must follow out 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 provide s public education, students cannot be denied access to this education without due process of law.Although courts have historically held that extramarital activities are fundamental in the educational system, the current view stipulates that conditions may be attached to club in such activities. However, litigation has been contradictory because, courts have not agreed regarding procedural protections that must be provided when students face rest or expulsion from extracurricular activities (McCarthy et al. 2004, p. 135). Due to these unsubstantial rulings, school authorities may not be required to provide egg 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 knowledgeable hearing and documentation of the underlying rationale for the action is advisable.Suspensio n 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. cobblers last In this litigious society, to protect themselves and the students they teach, teachers should have ample knowledge of school law. find out 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 mak e decisions focused on better knowledge in deficient areas, such as legal issues pertaining to students rights.Educating particular groups to increase law knowledge will extend 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 often wish to express their ideas through speech and other means (Imber & Van Geel, 2000, p. 37). Thus, teachers should be prepared to legitimately 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 importan tly, the liberties granted by the U. S. Constitution that have defined our nation and its citizenry.