Teacher’s rights
From WikEd
The Source and History of Rights
The history of teachers’ rights in schools has evolved greatly over time. Prior to 1969, the Amendments to the United States Constitution were not applied to students or teachers in the public schools. Rather, teachers and school personnel were considered to be in loco parentis (174). Loco parentis was established in a court case in 1878 to mean, “in place of parents" (EOL notes). Loco parentis gives teachers the authority and duty to guide, correct, and punish a child to accomplish educational objectives. However it is important to note that teachers do not have unlimited control.
The Role of a Teacher
There have been many court cases that continue to support the role of a teacher as loco parentis. In Illinois, there have been two important court cases. In 1981, the case Illinois Court of Appeals in Donaldson v Board of Education affirms loco parentis. The ruling also stated that teachers are paid and certified to supervise students. Also, in 1993 the court case, Wiemerslage v Maine Township High School District 207, gives the state power to control student conduct (EOL notes).
There have also been two important Supreme Court cases that established the three school authority roles of teacher; namely New Jersey v TLO (1985) and Veronica v Action (1995) (EOL notes). The first role of teachers is as agents of the state. This role is justified because teachers are employed and certified by the state. As a result, teachers are held accountable for maintenance of order, discipline, and security in schools. Another role of the teachers are as custodians of the students. This role establishes that teachers have legal custody of students. Therefore, teachers have the power to ensure that students are in compliance with the rules that govern the school. Finally, teachers also have a paramount authority in working with students. As a result, teachers have a duty to tutor students in values, habits, and beliefs of society to teach them behavior and manners of civilized people (EOL notes).
Right to Use Reasonable Force
Under Illinois School Code, teachers are allowed to use reasonable force to maintain the safety of other students, school personnel, him or herself, and the defense of property (EOL notes). Therefore, teachers can be held liable for a student’s injury if this injury occurs while in the teacher’s care. However, in order to be held liable, the student must prove four things. First, it must be established that the teacher had a duty of due care to protect the student from harm. Next, it must be shown that the teacher failed to provide such care. Then, it must be proved that it was the teacher’s carelessness that caused the injury. Finally, the student must provide evidence that he or she sustained real injury (EOL Notes).
Rights Under the Amendments
The 14th Amendment states that, “Nor shall any State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Wolfgang 173 ). This amendment means that teachers have the right to due process, which grants teachers many rights. First, teachers have the right to adequate notice of the termination of his or her job. A teacher has the right to bill of particulars, which states the charges against him or her. A teacher, like any citizen, also has the right to representation, the opportunity to present a defense, and the right to a public hearing (EOL Notes).
Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
A teacher also has academic freedom under the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment (Alexander 634). There have been two United States Supreme Court Cases that have established and upheld academic freedoms. The first case, Keyishian v Board of Regents of University of State of New York safeguarded academic freedom (Alexander 634). The second court case, Bakke and Sweezy stated that the First Amendment protests the right to learn and teach. Academic freedom is not a separate constitutional protection but is rather achieved by enforcing the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Academic freedom permits a teacher to speak freely about subjects, experiences with new ideas, and select appropriate teaching materials for the classroom. However, a classroom is not a public forum for the teacher and teacher does not have unlimited liberty to determine the structure and content of the course (Alexander 634). As a result, the school board reserves the right to make rules about appropriate speech and can discipline the teacher when necessary.
The Supreme Court case, Tinker v Des Moines established that neither the students nor teachers lose constitutional rights to freedom of expression in public schools. However, a teacher’s freedom of speech is only protected if the speech is a public concern. A teacher’s expression is not protected if it is a self-serving issue, deliberately false information, or if the teacher is intentionally seeking to defame others. There are two free speech tests that have resulted from the cases, Connick and Pickering, that are used to objectively determine when a teacher’s speech is protected (Alexander, 636).
Teacher’s Rights in Assertive Discipline
These many rights of teachers described above are the basis of Lee and Marlene Canter’s discipline model, called assertive discipline, which establishes a very structured classroom management plan. Assertive discipline is based upon three rights and responsibilities of teachers. First, a teacher has the right to establish rules and directions in order to clearly define acceptable and unacceptable student behavior (Wolfgang 90). Second, the teacher has the right to teach students to obey the rules and directions of the teacher at all times in the school environment (Wolfgang 90). Finally, when a teacher needs support in handling students’ behaviors, the teacher has the right to ask for assistance from parents and administrators (Wolfgang 90). These rights of teachers are all justified by loco parentis, which gives teachers the authority and duty to guide, correct, and punish a child to accomplish educational objectives. Also, due to the teacher’s right to protect him or herself as well as the students, in the assertive discipline model, the teacher has a right to a severity clause. This clause gives the teacher the right to send the student who is endangering property, himself, or others, directly to the principal without moving up the hierarchy of consequences (Wolfgang 98). However, the critics of this model do not agree with the teacher’s right of total control of the classroom because by granting the teacher this right, students' rights are ignored (Wolfgang 100).
References
Alexander, K., and Alexander, M. (1998). Teacher rights and freedoms. American Public School Law (4th ed., pp. 632-645). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Educational Organization and Leadership 350: Legal and Professional Issues for Teachers. Dr. Arthur Lehr. Fall 2003. Class Notes.
Wolfgang, Charles H., Solving Discipline And Classroom Management Problems: Methods and Models for Today’s Teachers; U.S.A, John Wiley and Sons, 2001.
