Ian Call
Pre-Proposal 2-9-04
Statement of the Problem
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2003) mandates
that student teachers understand and are able to apply knowledge related to legal aspects
of the classroom, and the state of Florida requires teacher education programs to provide
“three semester hours which integrates classroom management, school safety,
professional ethics, and educational law” (Florida, 2000). However, there is a lack of
research detailing how well teacher education programs are meeting these requirements
and preparing student teachers to deal with the constitutional issues of being a classroom
teacher.
Often, school law classes are reserved for school administration/leadership
students. A national study by Patterson and Rossow (1996) found that only 8.1 % of 221
responding teacher education institutions offer a course in educational law to
undergraduate students. Their study cited several reasons why the remaining teacher
education programs did not offer the course; lack of room in the curriculum, topics are
already discussed in other methods or seminar courses, no need for the course, and lack
of faculty training and resources.
In addition, court cases involving teachers and violations of students’
Constitutional rights continue to rise. Teachers often find themselves dealing with such
Constitutional questions pertaining to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, privacy,
and protections against illegal search and seizures. A lack of preparation for teachers in
educational law can lead to serious consequences for their students, their schools, and
their careers.
Purpose
The purpose of this research project is to investigate the level of knowledge of
student teachers in regards to Constitutional issues that affect the classroom. The
researcher will pursue whether or not the lack of a discrete course in educational law
means that student teachers are not prepared for the legal aspects of the classroom. One
aspect of the study will investigate whether or not the student teachers feel they are
adequately prepared for the classroom in regards to students’ rights. A second aspect of
the study will be an investigation of the knowledge base of student teachers and whether
or not the student teachers can correctly assess the Constitutional ramifications of given
classroom scenarios.
A third aspect of the study involves the investigation of whether there is a
difference between the preparations of student teachers according to the subject area.
The specific research questions under investigation for the study are as follows:
1. Do student teachers feel they are prepared for handling constitutional issues
involving students and education?
2. What is the level of knowledge of student teachers regarding the constitutional
rights of students at school?
3. What is the knowledge level of Math, Science, English, Social Studies, student
teachers regarding the constitutional rights of students at school?
2
4. Are their any experiences that student teachers have that prepared them for the
legal issues that affect the classroom?
These research questions address whether or not student teachers are adequately prepared
to prevent possible violation of the law or students’ rights.
This qualitative study will consist of the distribution of a questionnaire to student
teachers in Florida who are completing their final year of study in a teacher education
program. The student teachers will answer a series of questions about their feelings
toward their preparation in educational law. In addition, the respondents will answer
questions assessing their knowledge of various topics in educational law. The results will
be compiled using statistical methods to describe the preparation of student teachers in
regards to their knowledge about the Constitutional issues of working in a classroom.
After the data have been analyzed, the researcher will conduct interviews with a sample
of the student teachers from each subject area to gain further insight into their knowledge
and preparation of the Constitutional rights of students.
Review of the Literature
According to Pell (1994), nearly 28,000 teachers and districts are involved in
legal disputes each year, and schools spend nearly 200 million dollars a year on lawsuits
(Hartmeister, 1995; Imber & Thompson, 1991). While the types of cases that make-up
the 28,000 are unclear due to out of court settlements, it is clear that many involve
teacher’s lack of knowledge about legal issues and their under the law. However, the
NCATE (2003) standards for teacher education only mention educational specifically one
time, and more importantly only a very small proportion of teacher education programs
offer such courses to pre-service teachers (Gullat & Tollet, 1997). Patterson and Rossow
(1996) surveyed over 700 U.S. colleges and universities and found only 18 programs that
offered educational law in their teacher education programs.
While there are so few programs offering educational law to student teachers,
many teachers and teacher educators are calling for the widespread adoption of
educational law into the teacher education curriculum (Davis & Williams, 1992; Gullat &
Tollet, 1995; Smaetz, 1983). Proponents of including educational law in the curriculum
argue that providing a discrete class will help novice teachers avoid bad judgments and
mistakes that could become lawsuits and end their career (Morris, 1998; Petzko, 2001;
Smith, 1999, Zirkel, 1996).
The Educational Law Association recommend\s a Model Code on School Law for
teachers which includes:
1. Court system and educational governance
2. The law and students including their constitutional rights
3. The law and teachers including their constitutional rights
4. District and teacher liability
5. Laws involving students with disabilities
One of the few states that includes educational law in its certification requirements,
Washington, closely follows the Educational Law Association’s code (State of
Washington, 1992).
3
Students’ Rights Issues
Freedom of Speech
When teachers hear student complaints about violating their rights, most often the
students are referring to the First Amendment protections of speech. In Tinker v. Des
Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the court ruled that unless there
is evidence that the forbidden speech and expression would “materially and substantially”
interfere with the work of the school or the rights of others, such a prohibition is
unconstitutional. However, the courts have also ruled that school officials and teachers
do not have to wait until a disruption actually occurs (LaMorte, 1996).
While the “materially and substantially” concept may grant the student a large
range of expression that is protected, there are also forms of expression which the teacher
and school can punish. Fighting words, those by which their very utterance inflict injury,
are not protected by Constitutional guarantees. In addition to fighting words, teachers
and schools are free to punish students for lewd and offensive speech. In addition,
teachers have the ability to limit topics chosen by students for writing assignments
(Fischer, 1999).
Recently, students’ right to free speech has been the focus of several court cases
and news reports. One such case dealt with student displays of the Confederate battle
flag on campus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a
principal’s unwritten policy of not allowing the Confederate symbols on campus did not
violate students First Amendment right to free speech (Scott v. School Board of Alachua
County). However, courts have also allowed students to wear clothing such as an NRA tshirt with gunmen as long as the message does not become disruptive (Newsom v.
Albermarle County School Board).
In addition, speech that involves the topic of homosexuality has become a topic in
several court cases involving freedom of speech. In Michigan, a federal court has ruled
that a school’s refusal to allow a student to present her opposition to homosexuality in a
panel discussion on religion and homosexuality violated her rights to free speech (Hansen
v. Ann Arbor Public Schools). Additionally, a student in Louisiana was punished for
saying the word “gay” while describing his family and the fact that he is being raised by
two women (Stepp, 2003).
Because of the regulation of speech on school grounds, students have begun to
turn to the Internet in order to express themselves. Reaction on the part of schools to this
speech has been mixed. In some cases, students have been punished by schools for their
threatening or derogatory remarks while in other cases students have not been punished at
ass (Bach, 2003 and Garza, 2003). Whether or not schools can regulate the speech of on
the internet will almost certainly be the focus of court cases in the future.
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of religion in schools is one of the most controversial topics in
educational politics today. From school prayer to using voucher funds for religious
schools, education and religion often come into conflict. The classroom and classroom
teachers are not immune to this controversy. One of the long-standing debates regarding
freedom of religion and the classroom is standing for the pledge. Currently, the courts
4
have ruled that students do not have to recite the pledge of allegiance because of religious
reasons (Fischer 1999).
However, recent court cases have involved the school’s teachers’ role in leading
the pledge and whether or not a teacher led Pledge of Allegiance violates the
Establishment clause of the First Amendment. A federal district court struck down a
Pennsylvania “patriotism law” requiring all public, private, and religious schools in
Pennsylvania either to recite the pledge of allegiance to sing the National Anthem each
school day violates provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Circle School v
Philips, 2003). Additionally, a Federal appeals court panel in San Francisco ruled the
Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in public schools because the phrase “One nation
under God” violates separation of church and state (Newdow v. U.S. Congress).
The issue of religion in the classroom also affects teachers’ expression of religion.
A federal district court has ruled that a school district policy prohibiting school
employees from wearing “religious emblems, dress, or insignia” violates First
Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion (Nichol v. ARIN
Intermediate Unit 28). In addition, a Florida teacher is suing her school district for not
allowing her to participate in a non-school sponsored, after-school religious club for
elementary school children (Wigg v. Sioux Falls School District)
Religion is often a volatile subject that mandates teachers be well versed in the
legal aspects of involving or restricting religion in the classroom. For example, teaches
can limit the religious content of writing assignments depending on the nature of the
assignment. In addition, the Bible can be used as a reference for historical, literary,
political and cultural information in the classroom as long as the objective is to use the
Bible for secular purposes instead of religious purposes (Valente, 2001). Teacher’s
behavior is often scrutinized by other teachers, administrators, parents, and students, and
issues of religion will often force teachers to defend their actions. Knowing the laws that
pertain to religion in the school and classroom is a valuable asset when teachers have to
defend their actions with regards to religion in their classroom.
Search and Seizure
While the Constitution protects citizens against unlawful search and seizure there are
different standards for searching students on school grounds. The courts have recognized
that school officials have special needs in looking out for the safety and well-being of
students. As a result, searches conducted by school personnel must be reasonable under
the circumstances. Traditionally, students have very little expectation of privacy in their
lockers, but when it comes to book bags and other personal possessions students have a
higher expectation of privacy. In the case of book bags, the school needs to have a
reasonable individual suspicion to justify the search (Leadership, 2003). However, the
issue of how Fourth Amendment protections apply to students and drug testing is still a
legally contested concept.
Recently court cases prove that issues involving Fourth Amendment protections are
still present in schools. For instance, an Ohio federal district court has ruled that a
teacher’s search of an elementary school student that involved looking down the student’s
pants violated the student’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights, because the
teacher did not have individualized suspicion to conduct the search (Watkins v.
Millennium School). Additionally, a Florida appellate court has ruled that a school
5
administrator’s search of a student’s wallet was unconstitutional. The court concluded
that there were “no facts which, combined with rational inferences, would warrant the
intrusion” (A.H. v. State). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
concluded that a mass strip search of an elementary school class without individualized
suspicion was unreasonable and thus violated the Fourth Amendment (Thomas v.
Roberts). In regards to drug testing, a Texas court has upheld trial court’s refusal to
suppress evidence of drug possession by a student on the ground that school officials did
not need either probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct administrative
searchers of students as they entered the building (In the matter of O.E. 2003 WL
22669014).
Privacy/Student Records
In 1974, Congress passed the Family Education Rights and Privacy Acts, commonly
referred to as the Buckley Amendment, to define who may and may not see student
records. The law has five main features:
1. It requires school districts to inform parents of their rights under the law each
year.
2. It guarantees parents the right to inspect and review the educational records of
their children.
3. It established procedure through which parents can challenge the accuracy of
student records.
4. It protects the confidentiality of student records by preventing disclosure of
personally identifiable information to outsiders without prior parental consent.
5. It entitles parents to file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education
concerning alleged failure to comply with the act.
Educational records include any information compiled by a school that directly relat to a
current student regardless of whether it was generated by the school district or not.
However, the Buckley Amendment does not give parents the right to review personal
notes of teachers and administrators if these records are in their sole possession and are
not revealed to any other individual except a substitute (Fischer, 1999).
Recently a school district was sued over the common practice of having students
grade work done by other students in class. The plaintiff in the case believed that the
teacher was violating the Buckley Amendment when her child’s grade on a quiz was
revealed to the other students. However, the United States Supreme Court in Owasso
Independent School District v. Falvo ruled that student in-class grading was not a
violation of the 1974 law (Gearan, 2002). These laws and court cases show that teachers
need to be extremely careful with student records and protecting their privacy.
Plan for Research
The purpose of this study is to investigate the level of knowledge about
Constitutional issues student teachers have acquired during their teacher education
program. In order to gain an understanding of the level of knowledge, the researcher will
distribute a questionnaire to student teachers who are preparing to be secondary Math,
Science, English, and Social Studies teachers. The questionnaire will consist of questions
designed to gauge how they feel about their preparation regarding Constitutional issues in
6
education as well as how much knowledge they have about students’ rights while at
school.
After the data are collected, it will be analyzed for how the students feel they were
prepared and their knowledge regarding students’ rights at school. The data will be
analyzed according to subject area because student teachers may gain knowledge about
students’ rights outside of their education classes. For example, as a part of their subject
area classes, social studies student teachers may take classes in political science or law
related classes that may give them additional insights into educational law. Additional
insight into the preparation of student teachers in regards to students’ Constitutional
rights will be gained through follow-up interviews.
The first step in the process is the development of a survey that will measure how
the students feel about their understanding of students’ rights and their knowledge of how
Constitutional protections apply at school. The next step of the process is to distribute
the questionnaires to the student teachers. Finally, follow-up interview questions will be
created and the interviews will be conducted with a sample from each of the subject areas
being researched.
After the questionnaires have been distributed and the interviews have been
finished, the data will be analyzed in order to answer the following research questions:
1. Do student teachers feel they are prepared for handling constitutional issues
involving students and education?
The student teachers will answer this question directly from in the questionnaire.
The proportion of students answering that they feel prepared will be calculated to
show if overall student teachers feel they are prepared.
2. What is the level of knowledge of student teachers regarding the
constitutional rights of students at school?
This question will be calculated by reporting the mean of the student teachers
results on the knowledge portion of the questionnaire. The results will show how
well the student teachers understand different aspects of educational law.
3. What is the knowledge level of Math, Science, English, and Social Studies
student teachers regarding the constitutional rights of students at school?
The results of the previous question will be analyzed according to the different
subject areas to see if there is any significant difference between the student
teachers. Along with second research question this will help answer the question
of what how different teacher education programs are successful in teaching
educational law to their students.
4. Are their any experiences that student teachers have that prepared them for
the legal issues that affect the classroom?
This question will be answered by the student teachers themselves in the
questionnaire and the follow-up interviews. The proportion of students that have
had experiences will be reported in the results, and the experiences themselves
will be discussed in the discussion portion of the dissertation.
Conclusion
The aim of this dissertation is to provide valuable research in the debate about
whether or not student teachers need a discrete class in educational law or whether
current teacher education programs are adequate in educating students about laws that
7
affect their classrooms. First, the dissertation will provide information about whether or
not student teachers feel they are adequately prepared for the legal aspects of a teaching
career. The research project will also provide information about student teachers’ level
of knowledge regarding students’ rights in school. These aspects of the dissertation will
provide additional and valuable research to the current literature on teacher preparation
curriculum.