Pedagogue Blog

School reform is a process that occurs on many levels and involves several layers of responsible parties. While the U.S. government is the largest entity involved in school reform, state government often spearheads local decision-making. The role of states in school reform is in two main areas:

1. First Phase: Results-Centered

In the 1980’s, states’ education reform actions were focused on straightforward policies and practices that could be easily be implemented and measured to determine effectiveness. Policies for teacher qualifications and the introduction of testing models fit into what can be described as “results-centered” initiatives. Nevertheless, problems—perceived or real—resulted from the first phase of reforms. Despite the desire of many groups to move away from homogeneity, the end result was a move toward standardization. Another setback of first-phase reforms was due to the reward system offered for high test scores. One example of this involved a teacher who had given students questions on an upcoming test to learn. Other teachers were instructing students with test questions from past exams or giving students similar tests to complete as student activities. Instead of teaching to educate their students, teachers were providing materials that would enable themselves to achieve highly. This meant that students were deprived of a holistic education, exposed to limited knowledge, and provided simply with means to pass the tests.

Despite these problems, reform efforts continued, and many associated problems were largely ignored by the governors of the states. Education reform was so important that governors during the 1980’s strived for the label of “education governor.” This honor was so highly regarded that, following their tenure as governor, many “education governors” ended up in top-rank political positions. And during the 1980s, states were also taking regulatory power away from the federal government. Although conservatives suggested this shift would help reduce regulatory burden, in time, states were perceived as being just as bad at placing demands and directives on local educational units as the federal government. During this same period, federal funding was also more restricted. States now had more power over how funding would be spent but a lot less funding to disperse.

2. Second Phase: Relieving the Regulatory Burden

The second phase of state school reform involvement took place in the latter part of the 1980s. States’ actions were in response to discontent that had arisen from first-phase involvement in the early to mid-1980s. The states’ main goal was to liberate schools from an overabundance of regulation and control from higher authority. Discontent emerged, however, as this reformed model of school administration was short-lived, lasting only a decade and then losing all support.

The method used to reduce regulatory burden was to increase management at the school level. Administration and organization were now the school’s responsibility. This promoted decentralization, as opposed to the top–down, centralized model. The power to make decisions passed predominantly to those on the ground (e.g., teachers and parents). As a working model, it gathered much support from education professionals and was seen as a model of inclusion where power shifted from bureaucratic decision makers to immediate stakeholders.

This site-based model was still centered on the leadership and direction of the school principal. From a state perspective, decentralization was apparent, but on a working level, the inclusive model was merely a shift of responsibility from one layer of administration to another, without providing adequate personnel support. An additional flaw in the model also surfaced. The personnel support was intended to come from staff working under the principal, even though these individuals already had duties and engagements that were not alleviated to allow them participate effectively in the process. Teachers viewed the model as infringing on time they needed to plan and teach. The end result of this lack of coherent, well-communicated reform was that this reformed model of school management received as much criticism and resistance as the previous model with burdensome regulation. Consequently, the site-based model was discontinued in most districts within a decade.

While many alternative schools have sprouted from discontent around efforts to reform public schools, some of these new schools feature entirely new models. Why keep trying the same failing pathway? Or so goes the rationale of four of the most pioneering of new schooling forms:

1. Virtual Schools

Instruction is delivered in virtual schools without the need for a physical space or infrastructure, because learning takes place primarily via technology. Virtual schools also offer everything available to students in physical schools, such as rules that must be followed, a teaching staff, organized field trips, and parent–teacher conferences. Although they didn’t surface until the 1990s, the popularity of virtual schools is evidenced by the fact that half of all states in America now offer some type of online learning program. Almost three quarters of a million students incorporate online learning into their education. In fact, due to the need of the current generation to possess online literacy, Michigan recently made it compulsory for students to include online learning as part of their education.

One of the most significant characteristics of virtual schools is their ability to offer specialized programs not offered at conventional high schools. Another unique feature of virtual schools is the 24/7 accessibility, a quality that has proven very attractive to students. There are no set times for class. Virtual classrooms not only tailor classes to students’ individual learning interests by offering specialized courses; they also make it easier for students from anywhere in the world to take part in offered classes and programs.

The initial rationale behind establishing virtual high schools was to supplement conventional high school programs. But the convenience and unique qualities possible with virtual learning formats resulted in the development of fully functioning high schools. From a personnel perspective, the virtual school is a solution to teacher shortages. Perhaps the greatest benefit of the virtual high school model is that it has opened up new possibilities for certain student groups, such as those with disabilities, those who are homeschooled, and even students who attend schools that lack the funding to provide specialized courses.

The virtual high school model has not been without its skeptics. Opponents suggest the virtual model alienates students. They maintain that schools teach social skills as well as academics and that social skills cannot be taught online.

2. The For-Profit Model

The for-profit model exists as a result of discontent by parents and other education stakeholders with the seemingly inability of traditional schools to address achievement and other educational needs of students. The model is based on the notion that a different approach to management of schools would lead to better educational outcomes. Education management organizations (EMOs) are for-profit companies that manage schools from a corporate model. They’re guided by the belief that they must deliver the “product” (i.e., student achievement) to clients (i.e., parents, students, and school boards) to stay in business. And because EMOs receive the same per-pupil funding from states as traditional schools, they must be able to use those funds more efficiently to make a profit. Some schools have been unable to raise achievement levels; EMOs believe they must do so in order to remain viable. EMOs primarily manage charter schools, but they also collaborate with school districts to manage traditional schools.

Edison Schools, Inc., is currently the largest EMO in the nation. EMOs like Edison contend that competition brought about by privatization of schooling would serve as motivation for improved schools that would subsequently lead to improved achievement among students. Given the choice, parents would send students to successful schools, causing organizations unable to run successful schools to go out of business. That’s not the case with government-run schools, EMOs would suggest, because some state- or district-run schools are allowed to operate year after year without improving student achievement.

Edison Schools manages 150 schools with 85,000 students across the United States. Their schools rely heavily on technology, and they often supply both teachers and students with computers. Edison Schools also have longer school days than traditional schools, with students normally attending schools for 8 hours a day. Teachers have more preparation time than is normally granted in regular public school settings. Researchers at Columbia University found that teachers at Edison Schools possessed higher morale than teachers in public schools and were passionate about teaching in Edison-run schools. But EMOs like Edison Schools are not without critics. Some education advocates believe that if schools were privatized, companies might focus more on profit than on the education and well-being of students.

3. Homeschooling

Discontent with traditional schools is also the impetus for the popularity of homeschooling. This is an educational model on the increase, with approximately 1.5 million students being homeschooled across the United States in 2007. That’s an incredible increase when compared to a population of 13,000 homeschooled students 30 years ago. The advent of the Internet has been one of the leading drivers behind this popularity. Apart from discontent over the perceived lack of effectiveness in traditional schools, parents may choose to homeschool their children for other reasons, including perceptions that traditional schools are unsafe and/or a desire for religion to be a larger part of their children’s education than is possible in public schools.

Generally, research suggests that homeschooling is an effective way to educate children. Student performance tends to exceed that of students in traditional schools. Skeptics of homeschooling refer to the negative consequences of social alienation and other social benefits that only a conventional school can offer, such as mixing with children of different backgrounds. This criticism is unfounded, because homeschooling does not appear to have a negative impact on students’ socialization. Homeschooled students appear to be well prepared to continue education beyond their homeschool learning environment and also appear to be more autonomous.

4. School Vouchers

The voucher program, in which school education vouchers allow parents to use federal funds for private tuition, has been toyed with since the 1950s. Many agree with the use of vouchers in theory, but practical problems make it difficult to implement their use. It’s tricky to come up with an equal system when private schools and public schools may have widely varying costs per pupil. And no one has agreed on the requirements for eligibility for particular categories of students. Currently, students can fall into widely divergent categories, depending on the school system involved. Categories could range from students with autism, to students with disabilities, to students grouped by age, income, or residence.

The use of private vouchers, as it turns out, is less popular than the use of vouchers associated with public systems. In the private voucher systems, monies are typically collected from individual donors, such as religious organizations or corporations. The funds are then awarded through grants to low-income families.

A program very similar to the voucher system involves tax credits. Expenses for schooling are credited through the tax system with reimbursements. The voucher and tax credit programs may appear to be controlled by market forces, but that’s not the case in practice. Issues that arise during the administration of these types of programs include limits on particular students allowed to participate, the entanglement of bureaucracy, and financial limits.

There are pros and cons to alternative schooling, but the new systems at least are trying to solve new problems with innovative approaches. Are you up-to-date on the latest news in alternative schooling? How can you use information on its successes (and failures) to help guide your own teaching?

Despite efforts to reform public education by addressing a number of problematic areas in the system, many with an interest in education have been frustrated with the direction reforms have taken and the time it has taken to make any progress. As a result, proposals for alternative school models have been proposed, and many have been initiated. Disillusionment with the school system and its lack of flexibility can be traced to the 1950s. Milton Friedman, a renowned economist, maintained that schools would work much better if they operated in a free market environment. Friedman believed requiring students to attend the nearest local school was problematic. In this environment, there was no competition among schools and therefore no motivation for one school to do any better than the next school. The only alternative was private school, which many students could not afford. Friedman advocated that school choice should not be limited only to those who could afford it.

The push for greater school choice surfaced again in the 1970s. If schools were going to be desegregated, as required by law, students would need to choose schools outside their local areas. A number of school models emerged in the 1970s that offered families choice beyond the traditional neighborhood school attendance.

Since then, a number of school models have cropped up from discontent around stagnated reform. Three of the biggest alternative systems are:

1. Magnet Schools

Magnet schools were established to attract students to attend a school other than their assigned neighborhood school. Not only did these schools offer a distinctive curriculum; many also offered a first-rate education based on innovative approaches to teaching. Given these educational opportunities, many parents were persuaded to choose magnet schools for their children. There are thousands of magnet schools across the United States. They tend to be more expensive than their traditional public school counterparts to run; however, research indicates they also tend to be more effective. Magnet schools have attracted over 2 million students since their inception. They’ve had a positive influence on desegregation in some school districts, which was an additional goal for the initiation of magnet schools. But in places with deep racial segregation, they haven’t helped with desegregation.

2. Open Enrollment

Another school model that promotes the concept of school choice is open enrollment, enabling students to attend any public school that has vacancies. Minnesota was the first state to introduce the concept of open enrollment in 1988 and was closely followed by a number of additional states. Today, the majority of American states have legislation allowing open enrollment. If school choice is allowed to proceed along its current trajectory, the neighborhood school could very well become a model of the past, or at least be radically altered.

3. Charter Schools

Charter schools operate based on a contract between a school district and the party planning to operate the institution. The contract is in effect for a certain time. If the school performs well, the contract is renewed. Charter schools tend to have some flexibility when it comes to state regulations; hey may not have to follow all regulations required of traditional schools in the state. Most states have student performance expectations that charter schools are required to meet to maintain the charter. Charter schools share other characteristics: they don’t require assessment to gain admission, they are nonsectarian, financial support is in line with student quantity, and existing public schools can adapt to become charter schools.

In 1991, Minnesota became the first state to establish legislation that supported charter schools. While most states have legislation to guide the establishment of charter schools, no charter school legislation exists in Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Even among states that have charter school laws, the number of charters available among the states differs. Other restrictions in terms of the types of charter schools may also exist. For example, some states will not extend charters to virtual charter schools. Still, charter schools currently represent one of the most popular school choice models, with over 4,000 schools nation-wide. Charter schools are the most viable rival to the public school model today.

Charter school models differ from traditional schools within the district, although in many states the district has authority over the charter school. Because charter school initiatives haven’t occurred in all states, it’s difficult to generalize or standardize the entire charter school movement. So charter schools must be discussed in the context of a state and local school district. And although some states introduced strong charter legislation, facilitating more autonomy, legislation in other states was weaker and resulted in less autonomy. “Strong” charter legislation refers to significant levels of charter school self-governance, subject only to appraisals and legalities. “Weak” charter legislation describes situations where school boards have significant control throughout the chartering process.

There are also funding implications with regard to a school’s being under strong or weak charter legislation. Charter schools in states with strong charter legislation receive state money, regardless of the group wishing to establish a charter school (e.g., parents, community organization, or a religious group). In contrast, a school established under weak charter legislation must be approved by a local school district, which may not be motivated to support a school that differs drastically from traditional schools in the district.

The current education system in the United States is the product of many historical reforms. Despite changes in the purpose of schooling and the nature of students over time, the effects of these reforms have persisted. Reforms that continue to influence today’s education system have come from:

1. 20th Century Education Reforms

The reforms of one historical period often stimulate the need for reforms in another. Just as the National Education Association (NEA) commissioned the Committee of Ten in the late 1800s to make recommendations to improve high schools, they established a separate committee in 1915 to address outstanding issues. While the Committee of Ten focused on high school as a place to prepare students for college, the Commission of the Reorganization of Secondary Education had a wider view of the requirements of an education system. They wished to ensure that even students who were not college bound would become part of the national workforce. The vision of providing comprehensive education for society at large through providing an adequate high school education began to take shape.

Rather than a committee of college presidents and professors, the commission included a wide cross-section of individuals, including high school principals, professors, and the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The commission members brought more to the table than simply their educational expertise; they also drew on their personal experiences in the real world, experiences that were not predominantly academic. The commission’s report, Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education, was presented in 1918 and heavily influenced the progressive movement. While the commission’s recommendations for high school included an academic component, the commission also recommended that high schools address more diverse aspects pertaining to the life of a postsecondary education individual: health, home ownership, vocation, citizenship, use of leisure time, and ethical character.

Recommendations to reform and improve the high school also surfaced in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. In the 1930s, the Progressive Education Association (PEA) recommended that high schools should incorporate specific aspects into the curriculum that would develop social qualities and personal development. Recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s resulted in further changes to high schools: increasing the number of electives, introducing guidance counselors into the school system, and broadening vocational education programs.

Public high schools have been influenced by different points of view regarding the purpose and goals at the secondary level of education. Reform of public education is grounded in a set of beliefs held by stakeholders, who can also be referred to as decision makers or policy makers, who can advance change. Successive reform has resulted in a combination of both prior perspectives evident in high schools today: High schools can accommodate college-bound students, while at the same time accommodating non-college-bound students, and include curricula that facilitate personal development of the student.
2. The Main Phases of Education Reform in the 1980s and 1990s

Education reform of the 1980s and 1990s can be viewed as three distinct phases of education reform. Each phase represents a different conception of schools and schooling, as well as different proposals for education reform. The first phase of reforms centered on recommendations designed to maintain America’s strong defense capabilities and competitive position in the international economic marketplace. As a result, students needed a more rigorous education and also needed to acquire abilities and skills that would allow them to interact with industries’ increasing reliance on advances in technology.

Another phase of education reform focused on teacher practice rather than solely on the need to maintain economic and technical competitiveness. This phase is best represented by teachers’ reactions to the standards-based education discussed earlier. Teachers felt powerless to use their creativity, teaching skills, and abilities they believed to be at the center of being a teaching professional. Many teachers felt that teacher practice was being dictated to them, because they were required to address the content embedded in specific standards-based content that would later appear on standardized state tests. But standards-based instruction became an integral component of teacher practice, as well as a central component of pre-service teacher education.

A subsequent phase of education reform occurred at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. This reform was unlike the other two phases and was founded on the principle that not all students could afford a first-rate education. Instead of the school system being just about education, reform was based on the provision of a range of services, including health, counseling, and even parent instruction. Instead of school policy, the focus turned to children’s policy. The resulting school models were referred to as full-service schools.

3. The Holmes Group Teacher Training

The Holmes Group consisted of a consortium of 96 higher education research institutions that offered teacher education programs. The institutions were concerned about reform not only of schools but also of teacher education and the teaching profession. The group was initially concerned that some of the most highly regarded universities in the nation had eliminated their teacher education programs, indicating an apparent low regard for teacher education, favoring the more prestigious professional preparation programs. The Holmes Group believed that prominent institutions needed to be intimately involved in the preparation of the nation’s teachers. In 1986, the group published a report titled Tomorrow’s Teachers, which declared that quality teachers provided the best hope for the success of school reform. The report included suggestions for changes that would strengthen the preparation of teachers. Among the areas addressed were the need to improve the intellectual soundness of teacher preparation programs, the need to develop standards for entry into the teaching profession, and the need to create induction and internship programs for beginning teachers. Many of the goals and principles proposed by this group continue to be a part of the teacher preparation process today.

History has seen several major blocks of change in education. However, in order to remain a competitive system, education will need several periods more of progression and pushing forward. As an educator, you have a chance to influence future trends and become a part of America’s much-needed academic revolution.

The education system of the United States is in grave danger of falling far behind other industrialized nations. But why? Why are our schools lagging behind as compared to our international counterparts?

In 1983, National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, which suggested that the nation’s education system was not reaching the standards of excellence and rigor necessary. It also opined that other problems with the U.S. education system placed the nation at risk of falling well behind other industrialized nations. The “risk” in the title referred to the consequences of a failing education system to the economy, and the ability of the nation to compete with other nations. The Nation at Risk report stated that the nation “in effect [had been] been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”

The National Commission on Excellence in Education attributed the declining state of education to problematic situations in four areas: the high school curriculum, expectations of students, the use of time, and the quality of teachers. According to the commission, the high school curriculum had become diffused and diluted and lacked a central purpose. A decline in expectations of students was exemplified by a reduction in assigned homework, weakened college admissions requirements, and a decline in the expectation that students would enroll in courses in math, science, and foreign language. When the commission analyzed how American students used education-related time compared to that of peers in other industrialized nations, they found that American students spent less time on schoolwork and spent this time ineffectively. The commission proposed that the quality of teaching was in jeopardy, principally because more academically capable students were not being attracted to the teaching profession, and teacher education programs needed to be overhauled. They also mentioned that key subject matter areas (e.g., mathematics and science) had serious teacher shortages.

A Nation at Risk was published in an era of mass discontent with the public education system and had a considerable impact. The nation set about introducing reforms based on the recommendations in the report. Changes included extended school hours and, in some instances, extended school years; the introduction of more challenging learning materials; more careful monitoring of requirements for and progression toward graduation; and teachers’ assigning more homework and examinations. The report also forced many states to improve teacher qualifications and to overhaul teacher education programs that prepared teachers for licensure.

A Nation at Risk precipitated a number of reforms well into the 1990s. Many states adopted standardized academic content within the framework of a curriculum in conjunction with standardized tests to assess student performance. The intent was to increase student performance while preparing them to meet nationally defined standards. The reforms of the 1990s were characterized by the use of high-stakes tests, defined as tests that have specific consequences for the test taker, along with impassioned arguments for and against increased use of standardized tests. An example of a high-stakes test is a state-required test that students must pass before they can receive a high school diploma. Students unable to pass the test are denied a diploma.

These reform efforts were the target of criticism from teachers and other education advocates. Teachers feared that their classroom autonomy was being reduced, because they were now required to conform to national standards. They also criticized the fact that national standards were not necessarily relevant to the learning needs of students in their local communities. Some critics argued that the use of standardized tests adversely affected minorities, because the tests were rarely made culturally appropriate and were written for the majority. Critics maintained these changes would be a detriment to students who did not perform well on standardized tests for any number of reasons. The most negative aspect of standardized testing associated with standards-based education is that it represents a one-size-fits-all approach to measurement and does not account for differences among learners, schools, and districts.

There’s no contesting that the scores show that U.S. academics are falling behind international standards. However, the jury’s still out as to what to do to bring those scores up. Standardized testing may be a way to uniformly measure one type of success, but it’s definitely not a final fix, nor a very speedy start. If anything, it’s only highlighted that there is a problem – and education needs to do its homework and find a solution.

Sometimes, students pose a danger to themselves or to others. It’s a situation that most educators hope to never face, yet so many will. It’s important that you understand your district’s policy for dealing with those situations, what your role would be, and what rights the student or students in question would have. This article talks about the legal concerns of two common safety situations:

1. Search and Seizure

Protection against being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures is provided to all American citizens by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Students, as citizens, enjoy that right. School officials are less limited than police with respect to searches and do not have to procure a warrant or a probable cause to initiate search. They can conduct a search based on the presence of reasonable suspicion. With the increasing need to address issues such as the elimination of drugs and weapons, laws with respect to search and seizure have become more diversified. Newer means of detection of banned items have emerged, which has made search and seizure more complicated. On the whole, a search by school officials can be justified as long the following guidelines are adhered to:

• The school employee must have reasonable grounds to conduct the search, and the circumstances have to justify the action at its inception.
• The authorities conducting the search must be careful about the reasonableness of their actions in terms of the situation and the age and gender of the students.
• For any search to take place, a reasonable basis of suspicion against the student must exist. Mere doubts do not give the license to the school authorities to conduct searches.
• The routine search of lockers and desks is acceptable and can be a part of the normal procedure. Parents should be informed about the policy beforehand.
• The more invasive a search, the stronger the probable cause should be.

Authorities must also take certain precautions when conducting a search. For example, a male official cannot conduct a physical inspection of a female student, as that could amount to sexual harassment. If backed by a reasonable cause, searching students’ purses, book bags, lockers, packages, and automobiles parked on school property is completely acceptable. But in the absence of strong suspicion, any search is utterly unacceptable. Personal searches are required to be carried out in private and by an official of the same gender as the person being searched. Also, the provision of alternate clothing for the accused while the search is being carried out is a must. As mentioned earlier, drug testing for student athletes participating in sports activities is a common practice by schools and is legitimized by law. The use of “sniffer dogs” when a reasonable suspicion exists that a student is carrying drugs is allowed.

2. Due Process in Suspension and Expulsion
The right to education for every student is the major consideration of the U.S. Supreme Court when dealing with issues concerning due process and suspensions and expulsions. This was clearly illustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, in which the court ruled that the due process requirement regarding cases dealing with suspensions of 10 days or less must include a proper and timely written or oral communication to the student outlining the charges against him or her. Furthermore, the school must provide the student with the opportunity to present his or her side of the story during any proceedings related to the suspension. The inherent guiding principle is that all students have the right to an education, which is secured for them under state laws. 
While the Goss decision dealt primarily with dismissal from school for disciplinary reasons, the scope should be broadened in the future to outline the due process requirements in cases involving the suspension of students for academic reasons. 
In order for schools to remain within the confines of the law as it pertains to due process, they should adhere to the following guidelines:

• There must be an attempt to reach to a consensus over the real basis of fact.
• The provision for future review of any decision must be present.
• The justness of all procedures appropriated in reaching any decisions regarding the case must be established in entirety.

In real-life situations, however, the essentials listed above translate into the following:

• Provision of a timely notice to the student revealing all charges against him.
• Providing ample opportunity for the concerned student to be able to speak in clarification of the charges against him or her during the hearing.

Take, for example, a situation when a student becomes so rowdy and disruptive that his or her removal from the school becomes necessary. While the school ideally has a policy outlining options in such circumstances—which may range from short-term or long-term suspension to permanent expulsion of the student—it is the institution’s moral obligation to choose the action that most aptly applies to that particular student. For minor disciplinary actions, schools can use their discretion depending on the gravity of the act. Short-term suspensions should be preceded with some sort of a notice to the student and a chance to tell his or her side of the story. This notice must bear tangible proof of being served, in case the student denies the charge. This places the school in a strong position to explain the evidence in the best possible manner.

Long-term suspension or expulsion must be backed with concrete reasons and proof of the student’s offending behavior. It is the school’s responsibility to ensure that the punitive actions imposed do not violate the student’s rights. To guarantee that students’ rights have been protected, educators at a minimum should:

• Provide the student with a written notice of the alleged charges against them.
• Provide a full and detailed notification of the time and place of the hearing well in advance.
• Share with the student a clear-cut description of the procedures to be followed at the hearing.
• Furnish a list of evidence to be presented as well as the names of witnesses who will be called for 
the hearing.
• Make sure the student has an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and can bring his or her own witnesses.
• Keep the option of appealing the final decision open for the student against whom the charges are being put.

Again, laws are not fixed, and amendments are made when needed to adapt to changing social norms, viewpoints, and thought processes. A good example is the way schools have changed in dealing with teen pregnancy, as discussed earlier. While teen pregnancy is still discouraged, school authorities can’ restrict these students’ rights to an education. The underlying assumption is that students, being citizens first, are provided with their substantive and procedural due process rights.

Search, seizure, and suspension are all serious issues that can be emotionally and mentally difficult to face. Still, you owe it to your students and yourself to be thoroughly educated on the process for each. Should the worst happen, you’ll want to have the procedural knowledge right at your fingertips, for everyone’s sake.

The practical interpretation of the First Amendment is a contentious topic across the nation, year after year. In schools, the issue crops up commonly in the form of disputes of what can be read and said. Time and time again, teachers must deal with how the First Amendment dispute affects:

1. Student access to books.

The 1982 case of The Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Steven A. Pico is an example of a case dealing with student rights to gain access to books. This case involved the suitability of books in a high school library and the school district’s school board’s suggestion that certain books with inappropriate content be removed from the library. This suggestion followed a conference of a politically conservative organization of parents in New York. The case clearly grappled with balancing the right of students to access books in the school library with the school board’s right to decide on which books to introduce and which books to leave out of the library. The final decision favored the school board, and nine books were removed from the library. These books included Best Short Stories of Negro Writers: An Anthology from 1899 to the Present, edited by Langston Hughes; Down These Mean Streets, by Piri Thomas; Go Ask Alice, of anonymous authorship; Soul on Ice, by Eldridge Cleaver; A Reader for Writers: A Critical Anthology of Prose Readings, by Jerome Archer and Joseph Schwartz; Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.; A Hero Ain’t Nothing but a Sandwich, by Alice Childress; The Fixer, by Bernard Malamud; and Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris.

The U.S. Supreme Court fully recognized the role of school authorities in deciding what to teach students and suggested that the matter be kept out of the courts. But the verdict noted that any kind of suppression of ideas advocated by political groups would not be tolerated. One could say that this case fell into this category, because action was taken following the list, which was forwarded by a political organization. This created an air of ambiguity in the matter. The court ultimately decided against the removal of all the books, and only a few very controversial ones were removed. In short, the stand on avoiding the suppression of ideas by any means was adhered to.

2. Student rights to free speech.

Apart from the Fourth Amendment, the most important amendment pertaining to student rights is the First Amendment. The Free Speech Clause prohibits any new law that might curb the students’ freedom of speech. In practice, the issue was illustrated through Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case involved the sensitive issue of the conflict in Vietnam. Certain students decided to put forth their objections to the war by wearing black armbands. This apparently was not received well by school authorities, and they decided to take the strict action of suspending any student who wore a black armband. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter was groundbreaking, and the school’s stand was criticized outright. At the same time, the court ruled that the right to free speech could be exercised, provided it did not disrupt the educational process in any way. Any protest or activity that interferes with normal school activities, or disrupts the peace of the school, even in the slightest manner, can be curbed lawfully.

This form of censorship was legitimized by law on the basis that it would ultimately be in the student’s favor, because it would help him understand other students’ feelings and have more respect for them. In the 1988 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case, for instance, the court ruled that school administrators have every right to control and check the content published in school-sponsored newspapers and magazines. The justification given was that these form a part of the curriculum and everything that could possibly influence students deserves to be scrutinized by school authorities. The case involved a newspaper published by the journalism class at Missouri’s Hazelwood High School. The articles published discussed issues such as divorce and pregnancy, content school authorities determined was inappropriate for high school students. Authorities also feared that the fictitious names used in the articles were not sufficient to guard the privacy of the students whose opinions were published. The court concurred.

While students are, without a doubt, endowed with freedom of speech by the First Amendment, this does not mean that they can behave in any manner they please. It’s very much within the jurisdiction of the school authorities to prevent or prohibit students from indulging in activities that may potentially pose a threat to a school environment conducive to learning.

The Tinker case discussed is pertinent here. The school was denied the right to prevent students from wearing black armbands as a mark of their protest, but at the same time, the school was free to suspend or take suitable punitive action against students who acted in a manner that was disturbing the positive learning atmosphere. If the school caught students indulging in activities such as igniting political commotion or voicing their opinions in a manner that disrupted teaching and learning, the school could justly suspend them.

Similar decisions were made in the case of the Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, in which the court took the clear stance that students’ use of fighting words and threats was prohibited in schools. The category included racial epithets, lewd and offensive speech, immature conduct, or true threats that could possibly lead to harming another person.

Exercising free speech is not just limited to student behavior. It extends to the realms of student newspapers, plays, and literature. While students do enjoy their due rights, teachers have some control. The following falls within the school’s authority to curb freedom of expression that may be disruptive to the learning environment:

• Teachers or school authorities are required to collect concrete proof against students indulging in indecent speech, potential disruption, or other unacceptable activities before taking action against them.
• Students must be provided with due process when any sort of punishment is involved.
• The banning of indecent, inappropriate, and unacceptable material is acceptable by the school when such material contradicts the mission of the school.
• School authorities have the final word on deciding the time and place of the distribution of certain materials.
• The school newspaper must be run subject to legally defensible guidelines.
• The nature of the school newspaper must be decided beforehand. If it’s decided to be an open forum rather than a curriculum-based letter, the students should be provided with due rights to express their opinions.
• A well-established procedure for reviewing newspaper submissions should exist to make the process smoother.

3. Student prayers.

In 1996, a New Jersey Highland Regional High School student sued the school because of its decision to have a prayer before graduation. The court found that it was unjust to violate the religious rights of students who did not want a prayer at their graduation. In Doe v. Madison School District no. 321, an Appeals Court ruled in favor of a policy of the Madison School District of Rexburg, Idaho, allowing the top four graduating students to make speeches that included recitation of prayers. The difference here was that the control of religious content was in the hands of the individual students, and not the school. The court ruled that because selection of student speakers was based on their academic standing, complete discretion should be awarded to the students to choose the content of their speech.

Another important question related to religious rights is whether it’s legal to allow religious groups to use public school facilities to propagate their religious beliefs. Answering this question is not an easy task. To better understand the concept, let’s take a look at current practice. New York City allows the rental of schools for community activities, which include religious discussions. But the use of school facilities for religious services is prohibited. The court validated this stance by asserting the premise that public schools wish to distance themselves from being identified with a particular religious service and appearing to be advocating one religion or another.

In another instance, the Supreme Court ruled against having student prayers at football events because that violated the Establishment Clause. A particular school district’s decision to conduct a student vote on the issue didn’t meet with the approval of the law. The court maintained that it couldn’t allow such sponsorship of any kind of religious activity. The decisions reached in these court cases shouldn’t lead us to believe that the law is completely against the practice of student prayers. Provisions are made to safeguard the interests of those who practice religion. A section of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 entitled “School Prayer” ensures that the U.S. Department of Education plays an active role in making sure that school districts allow for school prayer within the boundaries of the law.

The issue of religion in schools also emerged around the question of whether or not public schools were propagating a religion—that of secular humanism. The issue was raised by those of a different religious allegiance, who contended that they found such a propagation offensive. This was clearly a case of affiliation to strongly held religious values. Christian schools with core fundamentalist Christian values were at the center of the conflict. When state lawmakers required Christian schools to conform to minimal education standards set up by the state, the schools complained that following state curriculum guidelines would be tantamount to teaching secular humanism to their students. Christian schools maintained that the Christian fundamentalist dictum relied heavily on the authority of the scriptures, and not on secular humanism, which was the religion of public schools. The law stood firm. The state minimum standards had to be included in all schools accredited by the state.

Do you know how the free speech argument plays out in your district? Check with your administrators on what current policy is. As an educator, it is your job to make sure that your teaching upholds the highest constitutional standards and allows the greatest access to knowledge.

How the legal system has dealt with student sexuality has rapidly changed over the years. While the goal at the heart of the rules and regulations around students and their sexual behavior has always been to protect students and keep their learning the central focus of school, how the legal system has gone about doing so has progressed and improved over the years. Three major areas that have seen recent growth include:

1. Pregnant students’ educational access.

In the past, pregnant students were not allowed to attend regular public schools after their pregnancy became obvious. They were denied access to educational institutions because they were believed to be a morally corrupting influence on their peers. In view of the fact that segregation of pregnant girls from their peers hampered their education and constituted a violation of their “right to education,” the law has taken steps to prevent this discrimination. All school rules that prevent pregnant students from attending school, or promote discrimination against them at one level or another, have been quashed by several courts. The judgments passed in several court cases reveal the law’s stand on the issue. 
In McLeod v. State ex. Rel. Comer, the court ruled that unless students are found to be guilty of immorality, misconduct, or bearing negative impact on other students, they can’t legally be banned from attending school. Several other cases later affirmed the rights of pregnant or married students to attend public schools. The accepted rules and guidelines for pregnant students, married students, or students with children follow:

• All courts have unanimously invalidated rules that prohibited married or pregnant students from attending educational institutions.
• It’s mandatory for schools and colleges to ensure that married or pregnant students have the same rights as other students in school and that no discrimination is practiced against them at any level.
• The right to decision-making on whether or not and when exactly a pregnant student should withdraw from school rests entirely with the student’s physician.
• The law mandates that schools provide homebound instruction for students who withdraw from school due to pregnancy.
• The only conditions under which a school can deny married or pregnant students participation in school activities and events are when their behavior or presence is established to have a disruptive, interfering, or negative influence on the other students.

2. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students.

Recently, the law has come down more strongly in favor of the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. For example, a 2012 case in which a school computer system filtered out all search results that might include supportive information on LGBT (though it allowed anti-LGBT results) was decided in favor of the students. The school was forced to remove the discriminatory filter. 
In a case in 2011 that received national, a graduating student, Ceara Sturgis, decided to wear a tuxedo instead of the traditional “drape” for her yearbook photograph. The school then omitted her photograph entirely from the publication. In November 2011, the school caved, settling the case and revising its policies to be more in line with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

3. Sexual harassment and discrimination.

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear as early as 1992 that students who were sexually harassed by school personnel could sue for monetary damages. In Franklin v. Gwinnett, a Georgia high school student alleged that a teacher had sexually harassed her. The Supreme Court upheld the student’s claims and maintained that the practice of supervisors harassing subordinates is unlawful, and that the student–teacher relationship is no different.

Laws that address sexual harassment of one student by a fellow student are also clear. Teachers or schools cannot be held liable for the actions of one of its students, but in some circumstances, schools can still be sued for sexual harassment of one student by another student. A school was held liable in a case where school authorities neglected to inform the harassed student of the right to file a sexual harassment grievance under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and in a case where the school neglected to eliminate the harassment after it had been reported to the school. Although it’s difficult to hold schools liable for student-to-student harassment, ambiguity persists because of the cases where students have been provided with damages in student-to-student harassment lawsuits.

Make sure you’re familiar with the real-time changes happening to student rights and regulations around sexuality and sexual behavior in school. Educators need to stay up-to-date on the latest ways they can support their students and keep school a safe place for them, no matter what.

There is often conflict between students’ right to privacy and a school districts’ responsibility to keep their students safe. However, most districts now have a set of rules from local, state, and national authorities governing the resolution of that tension.

Personal histories and records exist for every student and teacher at a school. This history, in the form of school records, test scores, and the opinions of teachers and mentors, can have a huge impact on students’ futures. On the basis of these assessments about students’ potential and overall disposition, life-changing decisions are made. Students’ history could determine what colleges they are admitted to, the privileges that they are allowed, or even the jobs they may eventually be able to attain.

Consequently, the proper exchange of this information is very important; the information must be exchanged through transparent and impartial means. This is even more relevant considering the fact that the kind of information that exists in school records may not be completely true and bears the risk of being misinterpreted if it falls into the wrong hands. This was realized in the 1970s, when instances of parents and students being denied access to their school records became public.

The immediate response to this problem was the passing of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, or the Buckley Amendment, as it is popularly known) by the U.S. Congress in 1974. The act makes clear who may have access to a student’s records and who may not. The move was largely beneficial for parents who were previously denied access to records that were very likely to affect their children’s lives. The act made it mandatory for schools to share all information about students with their parents, when requested. It also required schools to explain or interpret the recorded observations to parents, with the failure to do so resulting in federal funds being denied to the school. At the same time, the act serves in the best interests of teachers. It clearly denies parents the right to inspect a teacher’s or an administrator’s unofficial records.

The Buckley amendment applies to all schools that receive federal money. The act has been a promising step in ensuring transparency in dealing with and handling student’s records. Aspects of the act, such as the confidentiality granted to both parties, make it stand out as a reformative measure in ensuring the right to privacy for individuals wanting to be educated.

Here is how FERPA empowers parents and guardians and puts them in a better position than they were previously:

• Parents and guardians can inspect their child’s school records.
• The act ensures that information about students under 18 years of age can’t be passed on without parental consent.
• Parents have the right to challenge the accuracy of information at any point in time and to request a hearing to contest such information.
• A legal route to correct children’s school records and to place a statement of disagreement in student records is now open to parents.
• Parents can singlehandedly decide who can access the information about their child.
• In cases where parents find any discrepancies, they can always file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education to seek relief in the civil courts.

Student Privacy and Drug Testing

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of the
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v.
Earls et al., examined the validity of the 1998 Student Activities Drug Testing Policy of
the Tecumseh, Oklahoma, school district. This policy asked students to undergo mandatory urine analysis for illegal drugs like cocaine, marijuana, and opiates before participating in competitive activities in school such as choir, athletics, cheerleading, and other extracurricular activities. Offended by this policy, and considering it to be a violation of their privacy, two students named Lindsay Earls and Daniel James of Tecumseh High School took the school authorities to court. Their point was that, in view of the students’ Fourth Amendment rights to protection from “unreasonable searches” and the requirement of “probable cause,” their being subjected to such examinations was a violation of their lawful rights. The premise put forth was that there existed no “probable cause” of drug usage by students participating in extracurricular activities, and consequently the urine analysis that was being imposed on them was an “unreasonable search.”

With respect to “unreasonable search,” the right to privacy of the individual concerned is of key concern for the courts. The court ruled that because students in public schools are in “temporary custody of the state,” their right to privacy is limited in this case. The court also ruled that, in this case, urine analysis is acceptable because the manner in which the school district collected the urine sample was not an invasion of privacy. As for the issue of drug testing and the presence of a “probable cause,” the court’s stance is clear. Several court cases have ruled that a warrant and the presence of a “probable cause” is not required for students in public schools, because that requirement would complicate the matter and interfere with disciplinary procedures. This means that school authorities can search any student who participates in extracurricular activities, without need for a concrete “probable cause.” The only requirement is that the search be carried out in a reasonable manner.

In Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al., the court ruled that any public school district can formulate a student drug-testing policy for itself, and that this would not in any way interfere with the Fourth Amendment rights of students. The Office of National Drug Control Policy even went so far as to issue a booklet to local school districts propagating drug testing for students. This has proven to be a great drug-taking deterrent for students in schools. Still, many groups, such as the National Education Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, were not satisfied with the court’s verdict, as they were concerned about privacy issues and that students could find such testing invasive. Despite this, most school districts have adopted the Tecumseh School District’s stated policies in an effort to stay out of legal troubles.

While students may feel that their school or teacher is just trying to impose rules for no reason, educators know that their boundaries are set for the students’ benefit. As an educator, you must make sure you understand your school’s policies surrounding student privacy and know how to implement those policies in the kindest, most professional way possible.

Students are the focus of school operations, but they are also the most vulnerable population within school districts. Students are minors, which gives them the least legal independence of any school population, and also means they require the most protection from outside authorities. However, the rights of a student as an individual can also cause tension when butted against the rights a district, or a teacher, does or does not have to impose rules and regulations on a student’s day.

School dress code is an ongoing issue in American schools, and one that often poses a conflict between a student’s rights and the school district’s policies. Many schools have dress codes that prohibit wearing certain types of clothing to school. Inappropriate garments may include tank tops or tube tops, low-riding, hip-hugging pants, Capri pants, overalls, pajama tops or bottoms, sweatpants, shirts with slogans or offensive illustrations, athletic jerseys, hats, and hooded sweatshirts, to name a few.

To avoid problems pertaining to dress codes, many school districts have introduced school uniforms. New York, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, and Los Angeles currently have school districts with uniform policies. As might be expected, requirements to wear school uniforms have not been well received by many students, and in several cases students sued school authorities over this issue. Some students view the imposition of uniforms as an abridgement of their First Amendment rights to free expression, as in Blau v. Fort Thomas Public School District, Breen v. Kahl, and Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board. In each of these cases, the judge asserted the school districts’ right to create and enforce a school uniform policy.

Zero-tolerance policies have won favor from certain sectors of society and have been praised for bringing greater order and discipline to schools. These polices have also faced a degree of criticism. Recently there have been a number of highly publicized incidents, including one where a second grader was suspended by school authorities for biting his pop tart into the shape of a gun. Incidents such as these have led the public to question the wisdom of the policy, particularly when decisions based on zero-tolerance policies have severed students’ rights to access to an education for seemingly frivolous infractions. It has been suggested that school policy should never substitute for an educator’s common sense when dealing with students.

Disciplinary problems have posed the greatest nuisance for school authorities since the establishment of education outside of the home. The problem has escalated recently, with issues like teen dropouts, drug abuse, and the rise of school violence. These issues require schools to be on their guard at all times, and to implement stricter rules for management. School authorities and staffs must also keep in mind that certain students are more demanding (physically, psychologically, or both) and might need special attention and care.

Schools are, however, not powerless in the face of student misbehavior and have several disciplinary alternatives provided by law. These include in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, or expulsion. The degree of punishment in all three alternatives varies. Schools can deliver punishment that is appropriate for the severity of the misbehavior, to maintain a safe learning environment. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools, published by the U.S. Department of Education, is helpful to both school authorities and students for understanding the legal issues involved in dealing with behaviors believed to be disruptive to safe learning environments and those likely to attract some type of reprimand.

To learn more about the rights of students and how that affects your authority as an educator, check out our other articles on the topics of today’s students and their legal standing.

While they may not be as present in the classroom, the importance and influence of parents to schools is still a major factor that plays into legal strictures. Just like students and educators, parents have school-related rights as well.

Censorship, secular humanism, and evolution are among the key areas that have recently been at the center of discussions on parents’ rights. The foremost question has been whether or the scope of parents’ rights includes protecting children from exposure to school services and other academic material that parents may find objectionable. This question was asked in Newkirk v. East Lansing Public Schools. The student attended school in Michigan’s East Lansing school district and apparently had problems interacting with other children and teachers. Despite the parent’s refusal to give permission for the student to receive counseling, school authorities sent the student to the school counselor. The parents sued the school district, alleging that exposure to counseling sessions and related psychological tests caused their child to have panic attacks and separation-anxiety attacks. The stance of the U.S. Supreme Court was that the school had not done anything wrong and that the Newkirk’s parental rights had not been violated in the process.

Echoing similar sentiments was the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Curtis v. School Committee of Falmouth. The Falmouth School District adopted a policy of making condoms available to junior and senior high school students, along with AIDS-prevention pamphlets. Condom vending machines were installed in the restrooms. Some parents objected to the policy, alleging it to be violation of the Free Exercise clause of the U.S. Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”). The court asserted that as long as students were not being forced to take the condoms, and parents were not compelled to advise their children to take part in a personally objectionable proposition, then the objection to the public school programs was unacceptable.

A similar situation was faced in a Chelmsford, Massachusetts, high school, where the parents of two students took the school to court, outraged that they were not allowed to prevent their children from attending the AIDS Prevention and Awareness assembly organized by the school. The court’s verdict was again in the school’s favor, and the parents’ appeal in support of alleged breach of their rights was rejected outright.

Be sure you understand what rights parents in your district have. Parents may turn to you as a resource for understanding their own legal recourse, or you may need to use your knowledge in order to protect your students, or yourself. The more you know about the legal in’s and out’s, the better prepared you’ll be should an issue with a parent arise.

The question of “religion and public schools” is one that still rages hot across the country. How to talk about religion (or whether to talk about religion) brings up the questions around reconciling the internal conflict of the First Amendment. Should more be allowed, or less? What does “being just” really look like in this situation?

Allowing students religious freedom is part of ethical teaching. A great deal of importance was not attached to religious freedom until public schools made it mandatory for students to take part in religious practices such as saying prayers. This was in fact constitutional until Abington School District v. Schempp case brought the issue to the forefront and the Supreme Court ruled that forcing Bible reading and prayer on students was unconstitutional. This verdict came after the Engel v. Vitale verdict, in which recitation of a nondenominational prayer and Bible reading were regarded as violating the clauses of the First Amendment. According to the ruling, the distinction between compulsory and voluntary participation in religious activities was blurred, and that could not be tolerated in the legal sense. Students could under no circumstances be pressured into participating in such activities.

The law’s stance on recitation of prayers in public schools was tested in the Supreme Court in the Lee v. Weisman case. The case involved a student who opposed the recital of a benediction and invocation by a rabbi at a middle school graduation function. The court made its decision based on more than one factor in this case. First, it considered the fact that exercises like graduation ceremonies are not obligatory for students in terms of attendance and, as such, a student may choose not to attend on the basis of his or her opposition to the benediction. The court also considered that a graduation is such a huge event in a student’s life and represents the culmination of many years of hard work, so in that context, it is hardly only voluntary. The case was not decided solely on this point, however. The court concluded that including clergy and prayers as part of public school graduation ceremonies was unconstitutional. And because the religious inclinations of the particular school official in this case directed his decision, he was to be held responsible for the unlawful act.

Another consideration in this discussion pertains to situations where students, and not school officials, select the prayer or the person who is to deliver the prayer at after-school events. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe sheds light on this situation. The court ruled in this particular case that even student-initiated prayers at football games were a violation of the law, for the same reason indicated in the Lee v. Weisman case. In the court’s opinion, the public event required the mandatory presence of a large number of students, and thus could not be used as a means for religious expression. Extracurricular religious clubs operating in American public schools are, however, legal in the eyes of the law. While a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did contest the decision in one case, the Supreme Court decided that the existence of these clubs in American public schools is acceptable. As a result, under the Equal Access Act, there is nothing unlawful in schools providing a venue for student religious groups for their meetings. Two premises add weight to this view:

1. The school is providing a limited public access for other noncurriculum student groups, which makes access for these groups completely just.

2. The act does not lead to the violation of the constitutional separation of church and state in any manner.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School District supports the Equal Access Act. The case revolved around the running of a private Christian organization’s activities for children in a school building after school hours. The court maintained that because the school district had already adopted a policy of broad community access to its schools, the operations of the Good News Club on school premises was acceptable. The verdict also made it clear that the decision would stand despite the fact that adults and teachers, and not students, in this case directed the club. 
The use of religious texts has also been a concern when looking at religious freedom. It has been clearly asserted that while religious texts could not be used for teaching or advocating religion per se, they could be used to shed light on the relationship between religion and other areas of study such as literature and history. This decision was made in view of the fact that religion plays a part in learning about social life, literature, history, and politics in different historical periods.

So what about
religious freedom and secular humanism?

The perception among many Christian groups that public schools propagate secular humanism is more than just a superficial belief. The public school as a site of secular humanism is very controversial, with a plethora of issues that find their way into many aspects of schooling, including the curriculum. For example, there have historically been debates on what should be taught about the origins of the human race in public schools. One of the most famous of these cases was the 1927 Scopes case in Tennessee, in which John Scopes, a biology teacher, was charged with breaking a state law by teaching the theory of evolution to students. Scopes was found guilty. However, the verdict was overturned on a technicality, and he never served jail time for breaking the law.

Rather than make teaching evolution theory unlawful, states moved to have both evolution and creationism taught in public schools. The 1981 passage of the Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act in Arkansas and Louisiana required public schools to teach both creationism and evolution side by side. The laws were contested as unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court of Arkansas’ ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education declared that creation science was a religion and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court later concluded that Louisiana’s Balanced Treatment Act also violated the Establishment Clause. Efforts to have multiple views of the origin of the human race taught in public schools have not subsided. Today, debates take place on whether evolution and intelligent design should be taught in public schools alongside each other, or whether evolution should be taught alone. While evolution theory is devoid of religious connotations, it has been argued that intelligent design is a circuitous way of substantiating the existence of God (because God is believed to be the intelligent designer) and having this view presented in schools.

Because debates on whether evolution, creationism, or intelligent design should be taught in public schools have not abated, it’s likely that we haven’t seen the final legal contests and decisions on this issue. Contention still exists between those who believe public schools have become anti-religious and are promoting secularism and those who are opposed to schools’ teaching a religious point of view.

In 1997, the White House directed the Department of Education to issue a directive on religion in the public schools as a step to settle the matter. The guidelines state:

1. Public schools should remain detached and secluded from the religious beliefs of students or their families.

2. The mode of conduct in public school environments should accord respect to each religion and should allow all forms of religious expression that are permissible by law and do not hurt anyone’s religious sentiments.

3. Under no circumstances should teachers or school officials advocate any particular religion in the school premises.

4. Routine student prayers are not acceptable, but the provision of a moment of silence before the school begins in the morning should be made to students for silent prayer. School religious clubs are legitimate and can hold meetings on the school premises. And expression of their religious sentiments through, for example, school newspapers and bulletin boards is acceptable.

These guidelines have succeeded in finding a new common ground between religious expression and religious freedom and have done much to correct the perception that schools are hostile to religion.

Figuring out how to best incorporate the beliefs of students and their families into a public school setting is a process that will take time. In the mean time, teachers should be aware of what their school’s specific guidelines are, and should do their best to support all students in being themselves and learning to their fullest potential.