When does academic freedom become counterproductive? How does an educational leader respond to a teacher, a prominent stakeholder in both the school and the community, who models classroom behavior that becomes potentially offensive and harmful to students? Are there issues and teaching modes that are “politically incorrect”? This case study addresses the limits of teacher commentary.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
3.
Ahern v Bd. of Education, 456 F.2d 399 (8th Cir. 1972). [A teacher ignored her principal’s warnings to cover prescribed material in her economics course.]
4.
Board of Education v Wilder, 960 p.2d 695, 702 (Colorado 1998). [The Colorado Supreme Court upheld a district’s policy of reviewing controversial learning materials.]
5.
Daly, J. K.
, Schall, P. L., & Skeele, R. W. (Eds.). (2001). Protecting the right to teach and learn: Power, politics, and the public schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Debro v San Leandro Unified School District, No. C-99-0676 VRW, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17388 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2001). [A teacher has no First Amendment right to deviate from the prescribed curriculum to discuss tolerance toward homosexuals.]
7.
Downs v L.A. Unified School Dist., 228 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2000). [A high school teacher had no right to post materials outside his classroom door critical of homosexuality and favoring traditional family values.]
8.
Fowler v Bd. of Educ., 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1987). [The court determined that R-rated movies shown did not have sufficient relevance to the course’s objectives.]
9.
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). [Pickering, a teacher, had constitutional protection in writing a letter to the newspaper critical of the board’s fiscal decisions. His expression addressing matters of public concern outweighed the school board’s interest in providing educational programs.]
10.
Russo, C. J.
, & Delon, F. G. (1999). Teacher, school boards, and the curriculum: Who is in control?NASSP Bulletin, 83, 22-29.
11.
Simon v Jefferson Davis Parish Sch. Bd., 289 So. 2d 511 (La. Ct. App. 1974). [A teacher’s comments regarding the sexual behavior of African Americans had no pedagogical basis.]
12.
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). [Symbolic expression of speech is protected under the First Amendment.]
13.
Zirkel, P. A.
(1998). Boring or bunkum? [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 7-7.
