Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CHAPTER 6 Expression & Student Rights - William Allan Kritsonis, PHD
CHAPTER 6 Expression & Student Rights - William Allan Kritsonis, PHD
Rights
Pickering Board of Education (1986): a teacher was fired because he sent a local
newspaper
a letter he had written criticizing the Board of Education concerning past efforts to raise
revenue for schools. The Supreme Court held that a teachers exercise of his right to
speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from
public employment. The Court reasoned that because the letter concerned a matter of
public interest and there was no evidence that it interfered with (1) his or her ability to
perform classroom duties or (2) the regular operation of the school, the teachers rights
were no different than those of any other member of the general public. Thus, the teacher
could not be dismissed for the exercise of his freedom of speech.
Expression outside the school
Kinsey v. Salado ISD (1992): Nolan Kinsey, Superintendent of Salado ISD supported
candidates that were replaced by new board members. This support affected his relationship
with the newly elected board which eventually led to his removal. After a long battle the
Pickering test was denied because of the close working relationship he had with the board.
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977): A marginally qualified
teacher on a probationary contract made comments critical of the school over a local radio
station. As a result, he was terminated. The teacher had to prove that he was terminated
because of retaliatory reasons. This was evident in a memo the superintendent wrote him
listing the negative comments made as part of the decision for termination. After the burden
was sustained the school district had the opportunity prove other reasons for termination. Since
the districts burden was sustained and substantiated the termination was upheld in 1982.
Mt. Healthy test
The legacy of Pickering is a balancing test. The three-step Mt.
Healthy test was a later elaboration on the Pickering balance:
1) Is the speech protected? 2) Did it play a substantial part in
the decision to terminate the employee? 3) If so, was it the
deciding factor? The test was used in the following cases:
Reeves v. Clairborne County Board of Education (1987): Reeves was reassigned from
being a Chapter 1 coordinator to director of reading after she had testified on behalf of
several teaching assistants who were suing the district over their terminations. The
appeals court agreed with the trial court that the reassignment was an unconstitutional
retaliation for her previous trial testimony, a protected form of expression. The Mt. Healthy
test was followed since their wasnt any other reasons to support the reassignment.
Anderson v. Pasadena ISD (1999): A veteran administrator with an unblemished track
record was reassigned because criticizing a bond election and speaking out against the
reorganization of the district. The administrator wanted to argue that the interests of the
district did not outweigh the exercise of his first Amendment rights and the courts agreed.
Expression within the school
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 do have a constitutional right in Texas by virtue of the Fifth 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 relevant to their subject matter, 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 better to check with board policy
and administrative directives before proceeding.
Academic Freedom cont
TSTA v. San Antonio ISD (1983): The federal district court ruled in favor of
SATC asserting that retaliation was the motivating factor for the boards actions
(privileges revoked). District was ordered to pay $21,135 in compensatory and
punitive damages to SATC and its officers, plus attorneys fees and court costs
in the amount of $188,281. The district was also ordered to reinstate all the
organizations privileges and recognize TSTA as the exclusive representative of
its teachers, a decision at odds with Texas state law.
Valencia v. Ysleta ISD (1999): The commissioner ruled in favor of a teacher
who was notified that, as president of the Ysleta Teachers Association, she was
ineligible to run for the District Educational Improvement Council.
Educator Freedom of Association cont.
In 1960s had a
dramatic expansion of
student constitutional
rights.
In 1970s federal courts
began to accord greater
deference to school
districts decision
making.
In 1980s the expansion
of student rights ended.
Reasons for student rights
Consequences
Can ask them to remove it
If they fail to comply they can face: School suspension
Texas Court Cases