As external pressures on teacher education programs mount, including recent federal critiques and requirements, institutions and their faculty must consider how they will respond to calls for increased accountability. This article discusses the legal and policy issues associated with the academic freedom claims that might arise in the current atmosphere of increased accountability and diminished autonomy for teacher education programs. It assesses the institutional academic freedom interests of both public and private institutions. It also addresses the potential outcome of academic freedom claims by individual faculty.
Allington, R. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
Basinger, J. (2003, June 13). House panel approves stricter rules for teacher training programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A25.
3.
Berliner, D. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.
4.
Bishop v. Aronov, 926 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1991).
5.
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978).
6.
Brown v. Armenti, 247 F.3d 69 (3rd Cir. 2001).
7.
Buss, W. (1999). Academic freedom and freedom of speech: Communicating the curriculum. Journal of Gender, Race, and Justice, 2, 213.
8.
Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 411 U.S. 972 (1973).
9.
Cochran-Smith, M. , & Fries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3-15.
10.
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
11.
Darling-Hammond, L. , & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us?Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
12.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
13.
Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania, 156 F.3d 488 (3rd Cir. 1998).
14.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
15.
Feuer, M. , Towne. L., & Shavelson, R. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), pp. 4-14.
16.
Finkin, M. (1983). Institutional academic freedom. Texas Law Review, 61, 817-857.
17.
Fuller, N. (2003, March 14). Group decries increasing threats to academic freedom. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12. Retrieved November 3, 2003, from chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v49/i27/27a01201.htm
18.
Hamilton, N. (2002). Academic ethics: Problems and materials on professional conduct and shared governance. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
19.
Hardy v. Jefferson Community College, 260 F.3d 671 (6th Cir. 2001), cert. denied sub nom Besser v. Hardy, 122 S. Ct. 1436 (2002).
20.
Hennessy v. City of Melrose, 194 F.3d 237 (1st Cir. 1999).
21.
Jackson, J. (1999, Summer). Express and implied contractual rights to academic freedom in the United States. Hamline Law Review, 22, 467-499.
22.
Johnson v. Lincoln University, 776 F.2d 443 (3rd Cir. 1985).
23.
Kaplin, W. , & Lee, B. (1995). The law of higher education (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)
25.
Landgraf, K. (2003, June 4) . World-class teachers for all our learners (Advertisement). New York Times, p.A-8. Retrieved October 13, 2003, from www.ets.org/aboutets/issues19.html
26.
Mailloux v. Kiley, 448 F.2d 1242 (1st Cir. 1971).
27.
Manzo, K. (2003, February 19). Training of Oklahoma reading teachers in doubt. Education Week, p. 5.
28.
Manzo, K. , & Hoff, D. (2003, February 5). Federal influence over curriculum exhibits growth. Education Week, pp. 1, 10-11.
29.
Maples v. Martin, 858 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1988).
30.
Melnick, S. , & Pullin, D. (2000). Can you take dictation? Prescribing teacher quality through testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 262-275.
31.
Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976).
32.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, amending and reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,20 U.S.C.§§ 6301 et seq.
33.
Nova University v. Educational Institution Licensure Commission, 483 A.2d 1172 (D.C. 1984).
34.
Olivas, M. A. (1993). Reflections on professorial academic freedom: Second thoughts on the third “essential freedom.”Stanford Law Review, 45, 1835-1858.
35.
Olsen, F. (2002, May 13), Accreditor denies approval to Christian college in Virginia, citing oath on creationism. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 9, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2002/05/2002051306n.htm
36.
Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989).
37.
Pellegrino, J. , & Goldman, S. (2002). Be careful what you wish for—You may get it: Educational research in the spotlight. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 15-17.
38.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
39.
Rabban, D. (1990). Functional analysis of “individual” and “institutional” academic freedom under the First Amendment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 53(3), 227-301.
40.
Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University, 489 N.E.2d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).
41.
Silva v. University of New Hampshire, 888 F. Supp. 293 (D. N.H. 1994).
42.
Sweezy v. University of New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957).
43.
Trimble v. West Virginia Board of Directors, 549 S.E.2d 294 (W. Va. 2001).
44.
University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 195 (1990).
45.
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2000).
46.
U.S. Department of Education . (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
Webb v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University, 167 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 1999).
48.
Wirsing v. University of Colorado, 739 F. Supp. 551 (D. Colo. 1990).
