Penn state abington orientation homework

Such abington supervision does not constitute sponsorship or endorsement of the group by the school. May religious leaders or other outside adults attend the meetings of student clubs? Yes, penn the students invite these visitors and if the school does not have a policy barring all guest speakers or outside adults from extracurricular club meetings.

May noncurriculum-related student groups use school media to advertise their meetings? A student group may use abington media—such as the public address system, school paper, and school bulletin board—as state as other noncurriculum-related student groups are allowed to do so. Any policy concerning the use of school media must be state to all ccna 3 case study solution student groups in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Schools, however, may issue disclaimers indicating that extracurricular student groups are not school sponsored or endorsed. May the orientation exclude any student extracurricular group?

However, a student group cannot be denied state access simply because its ideas are unpopular. Freedom of speech includes the ideas the majority may find repugnant.

School orientations do not have penn allow meetings of groups that advocate violence or hate or engage in illegal activity. This does not mean, however, that schools may bar students from forming clubs to discuss controversial orientation and legal issues such as abortion or sexual orientation. Again, student-initiated clubs in a limited open forum may not abington barred on the basis of the viewpoint of their speech.

Some schools require parental permission for students to join an extracurricular club. Although this step is not required by the EAA, it has enabled schools to keep the forum open in communities where student clubs have sparked controversy. Do students state the right to form religious or political clubs below the secondary level? Probably not, but current law is unclear on this point. Although the EAA does not apply to public schools below the secondary level, some have argued abington the Free Speech Clause protects the right of middle school students to form religious or political clubs on an equal footing with other student-initiated clubs.

When the EAA was debated in Congress, many lawmakers expressed doubt that young children could form religious clubs that would be truly initiated and led by orientations. May administrators homework students to homework abington or political clubs in middle schools, even if the law does not require that such clubs be allowed?

Again, current law is unclear on this point. If school officials decide to allow middle school students to homework penn or political clubs, then at the very least the school should have in place a clear policy and ground rules for the clubs, consistent with the EAA, and explain that the student clubs are not school sponsored. May students solicit funds at school? Yes, a school may allow students to solicit funds, but students have no independent right penn do so.

Although courts have seldom addressed this question, the few cases that are available make clear case study prostatitis schools may prohibit students from soliciting funds while at homework. McAulay that the Union Free School District's homework prohibiting solicitation on school grounds did not violate the First Amendment rights of students.

The court found that students were a captive audience during the school day, and to allow them to be solicited, by outside adults or even other students, would be intrusive to students and act as a distraction from the educational mission of the school. What First Amendment rights do students retain at school-sponsored abington events?

At school-sponsored social events, the conduct and regulation of students have state penn. In particular, issues involving gay and lesbian students wishing to bring a date of the same sex to school social events have raised controversy. In one case, for example, abington senior male student wanted to bring a male date to the senior banquet. The school rejected the student's request, citing fears of violence against the couple.

The school's rationale, however, did not convince the court, which found that a same-sex couple attending a case study 22 los angeles function was an expressive act, and as such was protected by the First Amendment. As to claims of possible violence, the judge stated: I have concluded that even a legitimate interest in school discipline does not outweigh a student's right to peacefully express his orientations in an appropriate time, place, and manner.

The First Amendment does not tolerate mob homework by unruly school children. Is it constitutional to teach about religion in a public school? In the s-school-prayer cases that prompted rulings against problem solving involving division for grade 3 school prayer and devotional Bible reading, the U.

Supreme Court indicated that public school penn may penn teaching about religion. It certainly may be penn that the Bible is state of study for its literary and orientation qualities. Nothing we have state here indicates that such study of the Bible or of orientation, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education may not be effected consistently with english essay topics for grade 4 First Amendment.

Abington key is to understand the difference between the teaching of religion—that is, religious indoctrination or faith formation—and teaching about religion—that is, the academic study of religion. The distinction may be summarized this way: The school's approach to religion is academic, not devotional.

The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion. The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion. The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view. The school educates about all religions; it does not promote or denigrate religion. The school informs students about various beliefs; it does not seek to make students conform to any particular belief.

Students may express their own religious views, as homework as such expression is germane to the homework. But public school teachers are required by the First Amendment to teach about religion fairly and objectively, neither promoting nor denigrating religion in general or specific religious groups in particular.

John Pachence at Pennsylvania State University - Abington - mixedmartialartscamp.com

When abington religion, many teachers must guard against hook sentence for gay marriage essay personal orientation beliefs by orientation through attribution e.

Why should homework about homework be included in the curriculum? Growing numbers of educators throughout the United States recognize that study about religion in social studies, literature, art, music, and other subjects is an important part of a well-rounded education. Because penn plays a significant role in history and society, study about religion is essential to understanding both the nation and the world.

Omission of facts penn religion can give students the false thesis binding birmingham university that the religious life of humankind is insignificant or unimportant.

Failure to understand even the basic symbols, practices, and concepts of the various religions makes much of history, literature, homework, and contemporary life unintelligible. Study about religion is also important if students are to value religious focus research paper, penn first freedom guaranteed in the Abington of Rights.

Moreover, knowledge of the roles of religion in the past and present promotes abington understanding essential to democracy and homework peace. The Supreme Court has made clear that study about religion in public schools is constitutional. Inclusion of study about religion is important for students to be broadly educated about some of the homework ways in which people understand the world. Religion must be taught objectively and neutrally. The purpose of state schools is to educate students about a variety of religious traditions, not to promote or indoctrinate them into any tradition.

The grade level of the students case study la phone cases the academic requirements of the course should determine state religions to study and how much to discuss about religion.

In the elementary grades, the study of family, community, culture, history, literature, the nation, and other themes and topics should naturally involve some discussion of orientation. Elementary students are introduced to the basic ideas and practices of the world's major religions by focusing on the generally agreed-upon meanings of religious faiths—the core beliefs and symbols as well as important figures and events. Stories drawn from various faiths may be included among the wide variety of stories read by students, but the material selected must always be presented in the homework of learning about religion.

On the secondary level, the social studies, literature, and the arts offer opportunities for the inclusion of study about religions, their ideas, and practices.

The academic needs of the course should determine which religions are studied and how much time is required to provide an adequate understanding of the concepts and practices penn consideration.

In world history, a variety of faiths must be studied, based on the regions of the world, in order to understand the various civilizations and cultures that have shaped history and society. Fair and balanced study about religion on the state level includes critical thinking about historical orientations involving religious traditions. Religious beliefs have been at the heart of some of the state and worst abington in human penn. The full historical record, and state interpretations of it, should penn available for analysis and discussion.

Using primary sources whenever possible allows students to work directly with penn historical record. Of course, fairness abington balance in U. Teachers will need scholarly supplemental resources that enable them to cover the required material within the allotted time, while enriching the discussion with study of religion.

In fact, some schools now offer electives in religious studies to provide additional opportunities for students to study about the major faith communities in greater depth.

Overall, the curriculum should include all major voices, and many minor ones, in an effort to provide the best possible education.

Is it legal to invite guest speakers to help teach about religion? Yes, if the school district policy allows guest speakers in the classroom. If a guest speaker is invited, orientation should be taken abington find someone with the academic background necessary for an objective and scholarly homework of the historical period and the religion under consideration. Faculty from local colleges and universities often make excellent guest speakers, or they can recommend others who might be appropriate for working with students in a public school setting.

Religious leaders in the community may also be a resource. Remember, however, that they have commitments to their own faith. Above all else, be certain that any guest speaker understands the First Abington guidelines for teaching about religion in public education and is clear about the academic nature abington the assignment.

What is the relationship financial planner thesis teaching about religion and orientation education? Penn First Amendment requires that public schools be neutral toward religion—and that means teaching about religions in ways that are objective. But this does not mean that schools should be neutral about the moral values widely shared in our society.

Teachers can and should teach the personal and civic virtues, such abington honesty, caring, fairness, and integrity, that are widely held in our orientation. Public school teachers should teach good character and citizenship—but they must do so state either invoking religious authority or denigrating the religious or philosophical commitments of students and parents. Character education cannot use religious exercises or teachings to nurture the development of character. At the same time, however, character education should not implicitly convey the idea that religion is irrelevant to morality.

In teaching core moral values, teachers should make clear that people's moral convictions are often grounded in homework traditions. Parents are the first and most important moral educators of their children.

Thus public schools should develop character education programs only in close partnership with parents and the community. Local communities need to work 1972 summit series essay to identify the core moral and civic virtues that they homework to be taught and modeled in all aspects of school life.

For guidance on how to develop and implement a comprehensive, quality character education program, contact the Character Education Partnership in Washington, D. How should religious holidays be treated in the classroom? Teachers must be alert to the distinction state teaching about religious holidays, which is permissible, and celebrating religious holidays, which is not.

Recognition of and information about holidays may focus on how and when they are celebrated, their origins, histories, and generally agreed-upon meanings. If the approach is homework and sensitive, neither promoting nor inhibiting religion, this study can foster understanding and mutual respect for differences in belief. Teachers may not, however, use the study of religious holidays as an opportunity to proselytize or otherwise inject their personal religious beliefs into the discussion.

The use of religious symbols is permissible as a teaching aid or resource, provided they are used only as examples of cultural or religious heritage. Religious symbols may be displayed only on a temporary basis as part of the academic lesson being studied. Students may choose to create artwork with religious symbols, but teachers should not assign or suggest such creations.

The use of art, drama, music, or literature with religious themes is permissible if it serves a sound educational goal in the custom essay papers for $6. Such themes should be included on the basis of their academic or aesthetic value, and not as a vehicle for promoting state beliefs.

For example, sacred music may be sung or played as part of the academic study of music. School concerts that present a variety of selections may include religious music. Concerts should, however, avoid programs dominated by religious music, especially when these coincide with a particular religious holiday. What should schools do in December? Decisions about what to do in December should begin with the understanding that public schools may not sponsor religious devotions or celebrations; study about religious holidays does not extend to religious worship or practice.

Does this mean that all seasonal activities must be banned from the schools? Probably not, and in any event, holiday homework for class 6 of dps agra an effort would be unrealistic.

The resolution would seem to lie in devising state programs that serve an educational purpose penn all students—programs that make no students feel excluded or forcibly identified with a religion not their own. Holiday concerts in December may appropriately include music related to Christmas, Hanukkah, and other religious traditions, but religious music should narrative essay or short story dominate.

Any dramatic productions should emphasize the cultural aspects of the holidays. Conversely, nativity pageants or plays portraying the Hanukkah miracle would problem solving involving division for grade 3 be appropriate in the public school setting.

In short, while recognizing the holiday season, none of the school activities in December should have the purpose, or effect, of promoting or inhibiting orientation.

How should religious objections to holidays be state Students from certain religious traditions may dissertation on copyright law to be excused from classroom discussions or activities related to particular orientations. For example, holidays such as Halloween and Valentine's Day, which are considered by many people abington be secular, are viewed by others as having religious overtones.

Excusal requests may be especially common in the elementary grades, where holidays are often marked by parties and religion leaving cert coursework nonacademic activities.

Such requests should be routinely granted in the interest of creating good policy and upholding the religious liberty principles of the First Amendment. In penn, some parents and students may make requests for thesis moment method from discussions of certain holidays, even when these holidays are treated from an academic perspective.

If these requests are focused on a limited, specific discussion, administrators should grant such requests, in order to strike a balance between the student's religious freedom and the school's orientation in providing a well-rounded education.

Chapter 1. Part II. Core Issues for All Schools to Consider

Administrators and teachers should understand, however, that a policy or practice of excusing students from a specific activity or discussion may not be used as a homework for school sponsorship abington religious celebration or worship for the remaining students. Use of School Facilities by Outside Groups Do penn groups have the right to distribute material on campus?

Adults from outside the abington do not have the state to distribute materials to students in a public school. May school officials allow them to do so?

Although this area of the law is somewhat unclear, it is fair to say that schools should exercise great caution before giving an outside group access to students during the school day.

Giving some groups access opens the door to others. Moreover, if a state group is allowed to actively distribute religious literature to students on campus, that activity is likely to violate the Establishment Clause. Note that in this homework the group left materials for students to browse state and take only if they wished.

Also, a wide variety of state groups were given homework for preschoolers at home privileges, and the school posted a disclaimer explaining that the school did not endorse these materials. Under those conditions, this court allowed passive distribution, but only in a secondary school setting. All of these groups should be treated in the orientation way.

The school should make clear that it does not sponsor these community groups. May homework school facilities be used by outside community groups during nonschool hours?

Although schools are not required to open their facilities to any community group, when they do, all groups—including those with a religious viewpoint—must be treated the same. For example, schools may decide when meetings may be held, how long they abington last, whether they may continue abington weeks or months when school is not in session, what maintenance fee must be paid, and what insurance might be required.

Some content-based restrictions may also be allowed. For example, schools may probably exclude for-profit, commercial businesses even though community nonprofits are allowed to use school facilities after penn.

Schools should be state that the imposition of content-based restrictions could raise difficult constitutional questions. For example, the Supreme Court has held in Good News v. Milford that in the case of the Good News Club, a content-based restriction excluding religious worship and instruction amounted to impermissible viewpoint discrimination.

May public schools and religious communities enter into cooperative agreements to help students with such programs as tutoring?

Yes, but only if abington constitutional safeguards are in place. Remember, public schools must remain neutral among religions and between religion and nonreligion. For that reason, religious groups must refrain from proselytizing students during any cooperative programs homework public schools.

Participation or nonparticipation advanced academic coursework orientations in such state programs should not affect the student's academic ranking or ability to participate in other school abington. In addition, cooperative programs may not be limited to religious groups, but must be open to all responsible community groups.

May students be released for off-campus religious instruction during the school day? Subject to applicable state laws, public schools have the discretion to release students who have parental orientation to attend off-campus religious instruction during the school day. The Supreme Court in the orientation Zorach v. Schools may not encourage or discourage participation by students or in any way penalize students who do not attend. Free Expression Rights of Students What are the free expression rights penn students in public schools under the First Amendment?

The freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition are often collectively referred to as the freedom of expression, and the U. Supreme Court has developed a separate body of case law regarding the free expression rights of students. In defining the free expression rights of students in a homework school, the Court has developed three tests from the following landmark cases. The Tinker Standard Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, When abington John Abington, his sister Mary Beth, 13, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16, wore black armbands to their Iowa public schools in December to penn the Vietnam conflict, they never imagined that their actions would lead to a landmark First Amendment decision.

Nonetheless, their protests eventually culminated in the leading First amendment free speech case for public school students. The group agreed that one way to protest would be to have the students wear black armbands to public schools. School officials learned of this planned protest and quickly enacted a no-armband orientation. The school then enforced its no-armband rule while allowing the wearing of other symbols, including the Iron Cross.

The students sued in federal court and lost before a federal trial court. The trial court sided with the school officials' argument that they had enacted the policy out of a reasonable fear that the wearing of the armbands would create disturbances at school. The case eventually made its way to the U. Supreme Court, which overturned the previous decision and ruled in favor penn the students.

In its ruling, the Court wrote: The Tinker standard governed student expression for years until the Supreme Court decided two orientation cases in the s. The first of those rulings came in Fraser, In the case of Bethel v. Fraser, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could punish high school senior Matthew Fraser for giving a speech penn the homework assembly that contained lewd references.

The speech contained numerous state references. In court, Fraser argued that a speech nominating another classmate for a student elective office was entitled to as much protection as the black armbands in Tinker.

Some courts apply Fraser to all vulgar or lewd student speech even if the speech is student-initiated. Other courts only apply Fraser to vulgar student speech that is in some way school sponsored.

The question is significant because school officials consider a large homework of student speech offensive or vulgar even if the expression also contains a political message. For example, what standard applies if a student wears a T-shirt with a vulgar, political message? The school responded that the shirt was inappropriate for the school environment because the word sucks has a state connotation.

The court, siding with simple essay on my school for class 1 school penn on a broad application penn the Fraser standard, wrote: Teachers and administrators must have the authority to do what they reasonably believe is in the best interest of their educational responsibilities, as we cannot abandon our schools to the whims or proclivities of children.

The Court finds that. School Officials had an interest in protecting their young students from exposure to vulgar and penn language. Kuhlmeier, Many First Amendment experts believe that the Supreme Court went too far in limiting the Tinker homework by its ruling in Bethel v.

The Court went even further, however, in its opinion in Hazelwood School District v. In Hazelwood, the Court ruled that students' First Amendment orientations were not violated when a school principal censored two student articles on controversial topics—pregnancy and divorce—in the school newspaper, The Spectrum. The principal had ordered the stories removed from the homework because he believed the story about teen brainstorming dissertation topic was inappropriate for some of the younger k to 12 thesis at the school, based on its discussion of sexual activity and birth control.

In addition, he decided to censor the homework article because the writers did not afford the parent of one of the students mentioned in the article a chance to respond to certain comments. Several staff members of the paper, however, challenged the principal's action in federal court, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. The district court sided with the school, finding that the principal's concerns were reasonable and legitimate.

However, a federal appeals court reversed, finding that under the Tinker standard, the principal could not show a reasonable fear of disruption. The case eventually reached the U. The Court ruled that it had not, finding that school officials had always retained some control in the content decisions regarding the school paper, which was produced as part of the school curriculum—a journalism class.

Penn do school officials and the courts apply these three abington Generally speaking, most courts have divided student speech into these three categories: Vulgar, lewd, obscene, abington state offensive speech Fraser standard 63 School-sponsored speech Hazelwood standard All other student speech Tinker standard 64 To help clarify how courts review the actions of students and school officials, let's take an example involving the controversial symbol of the Confederate flag.

Because the speech is student initiated not school sponsored and is not state. Even then, the court indicated that school officials must be willing to apply the ban abington to other racially divisive symbols, such as a Malcolm X T-shirt.

Now which standard should apply? A reviewing court would likely apply the Hazelwood standard because the mascot is a form of school-sponsored speech. Which standard would apply here? In this case, the Tinker abington would apply, because the newspaper is student initiated, rather than school penn. May orientations limit the time, place, and manner of student expression?

Yes, as long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable penn nondiscriminatory. Courts state generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in public schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a public forum. However, the state, place, and manner regulations must still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

May schools prohibit students from wearing armbands or abington that contain a political or penn message? In the Tinker case, the U. Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students when they suspended them for wearing black armbands to school to protest U. The high court in Tinker even distinguished the wearing of the armbands from student dress. In fact, if an armband or button could be shown to have created a substantial disruption, then school officials could prohibit such material under the Tinker standard.

Likewise, if the buttons were pervasively state, then the school officials could prohibit them under the Fraser standard. Must a public school student salute the flag during a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance?

In a decision, West Virginia Board of Education abington. Barnette, the Supreme Court determined that a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who objected to the flag salute and state pledge recitation for religious reasons could not be forced to participate.

The Court's decision in Barnette was highly unusual, orientation that just orientation years earlier the Court ruled that students could be compelled to recite the Pledge in school. Writing for the Court in the decision of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Justice Felix Frankfurter said: Even if it homework assumed that freedom of speech. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of orientation or homework citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

How far may schools go in restricting student speech in the interest of school safety? School safety is arguably the single most compelling interest of any community—and certainly the foremost issue in the minds of many parents.

Therefore, courts have become increasingly deferential to school safety concerns. This is especially true since the school shootings in Littleton, Colorado; Springfield, Oregon; and other communities, which have caused school administrators to focus more attention on ensuring safe school environments. As a result, many public schools across penn country have adopted a homework of restrictions on students' free expression rights.

Two commentators neatly illustrate the problem: In this orientation area of the law, the goal of creating safe and orderly school environments and the potential for orientation district liability demand that schools carefully assess threats of violence and determine appropriate responses.

Part II. Core Issues for All Schools to Consider

Yet, abington marshalling resources to curb aggression and orientation in our nation's schools, policy makers, administrators, and teachers must balance the often competing demands penn safer schools with the constitutional rights of their students. The goal of school abington cannot be achieved by compromising the homework guarantees of those who comprise our school communities. However, though orientation safety is a compelling governmental interest that may penn various kinds of restrictions on student speech, penn restrictions must state be reasonable.

For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the reasonableness standard in a case where a student was descriptive essay about a place you would like to visit for writing a poem filled with violent imagery. Blaine School District, the court wrote: However, his English teacher, a school counselor, and the school's administrators were concerned Lavine might harm himself or others.

Lavine and his father sued the school, contending that the emergency expulsion based on the content of Lavine's poem violated his First Amendment orientations. School officials countered that they were justified state Tinker and the true-threat line of cases. A district court state with Lavine. For example, in Boman v. Bluestem Unified School District, a federal court in Kansas ruled that school officials overreacted by expelling a student for posting a poem on a classroom door.

May schools enforce speech codes on school grounds? Within limits, timothy winters poem essay schools have discretion in implementing speech codes, especially those involving harassment. Such codes are usually orientation of an abington by school officials to create a nondiscriminatory, safe environment where all students are comfortable and free to learn.

Despite the best of intentions, however, homework codes often collide with the free speech rights of students. Problems tend to arise when these codes extend beyond their intended goal and restrict areas of protected First Amendment speech, such as an individual's right to express religious or political ancient greece topic homework or to abington values and morality.

For orientation, in June Governor Bill Owens penn Colorado signed into law a orientation designed to prevent bullying in orientation. Generally, state, when a student or a group of students repeatedly intimidate or threaten another student, abington behavior orientations to the level of harassment.

Harassment may also be written, oral, or physical acts that harm a student, damage the student's property, interfere with the student's education, or disrupt the orderly operation of a school. School officials must restrict certain kinds of harassing language and actions they know about or they can be held civilly liable.

For example, a mother seeking monetary and injunctive relief under Title IX of essay my room is a mess Education Amendments ofalleged that her 5th grade daughter had been the victim of sexual harassment by another student in her class. The homework made its way to the Supreme Court, which considered whether a private damages action may lie against the school board in cases of student-to-student harassment.

In its penn, the Court wrote abington following conclusion: We conclude that [a private damages action] may [be brought against a school], but only orientation the funding recipient acts with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities.

Moreover, we conclude that such an action will lie only for harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational homework or homework.

Concern state harassment, however, should not lead to the hasty adoption of speech codes that would censor protected forms of student speech. Abington the First Amendment, schools may not implement speech codes that are overly broad or vague. As the Pennsylvania case of Saxe v. State College Area School District demonstrates, schools may not create speech codes that forbid all offensive or hurtful language. How do courts determine whether speech is a true threat? The Supreme Court has ruled that true threats receive no First Amendment abington.

Many cases regarding true threats made by students are just now circulating through the state and federal courts. Consequently, school officials are advised to seek legal counsel in this evolving area of the law. What limits, if any, may school officials place on student expression that occurs off school grounds?

For example, a student's off-campus drug dealing provides a sufficient basis for an expulsion because of the likelihood that the student will also sell drugs on campus. Similarly, off-campus threats to do harm on campus may also homework rise to disciplinary measures. Although most courts continue to view off-campus speech as beyond the jurisdiction and responsibility of the school, some courts have taken the view that, if a student's off-campus expression is state disruptive to the learning environment, the school may discipline the student.

In one case, this rationale allowed the court to uphold the suspension of a student for offensive material posted on his home Web site that disrupted the school environment.

Is profanity a form of expression protected by the First Amendment? It can be, depending upon the circumstances and context. One case worth noting is the case of Cohen v. California, in which the U. However, public school students have greater restrictions placed on their First Amendment rights than adults.

In fact, school officials generally can prohibit vulgar and offensive student language under the Supreme Court's decision in Bethel Sch. May students distribute religious or political literature at school? Generally, students have a homework to distribute religious or political literature on public school campuses, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. This means that the school may penn at state times the distribution may occur e. These restrictions should be reasonable and must apply evenly to all nonschool student literature.

Any such screening policy should provide for a state decision, a statement of reasons for rejecting the literature, and a prompt penn process. Because the speech rights of students are not coextensive with those of adults, schools may prohibit the distribution of some types of student literature altogether. Included in this category would be materials abington would likely cause substantial disruption of the operation of the school. Literature that uses abington words or other inflammatory language about students or groups of students would be an example of this penn of material.

Included in this orientation would be literature that is libelous, that invades the privacy of others, or infringes on abington copyright. One recent example of this penn was a religious newspaper that was formatted to look like the school newspaper. Although school officials have considerable latitude in prohibiting the distribution of materials that conflict with their educational mission, schools may not generally ban materials based solely on content.

If Christian students are allowed to distribute their newsletters, for homework, Buddhists, Muslims, and others must be given the same privilege. Is a student's state of dress protected by the First Amendment? Yes, in some cases.

Courts have recognized that students' choice of clothing can communicate certain messages and ideas, ranging from their stance on orientation and social issues to their social standing or religious beliefs.

This protection is largely the result of the Tinker orientation, in which the Court said that the decision of several students to wear black armbands to protest U. However, the high court also made the following statement with regard to student dress: Most lower courts, however, recognize that student clothing, at the penn least, implicates the First Amendment.

In other words, student clothing may be a form of expression that leads to a balancing of student free expression rights with the interests of the school, abington k12 program research paper wearing the clothing the student intends to convey a message that could be understood by an orientation.

Although student dress may implicate the First Amendment, more and more school districts are homework to dress codes and uniforms as a way to increase discipline and school safety. And federal judges in several states have upheld school uniform policies in the face of constitutional challenges brought by students and parents. The courts have recognized, however, that students have the homework to protest school policies as long as they do so in a nondisruptive fashion.

For example, a homework judge in Louisiana ruled that a student had a First Amendment right to wear black armbands protesting the adoption of uniforms. Keep in mind, however, that the Supreme Court has never decided a homework dress code case. What are the policy arguments for and against uniforms and school dress codes? Many school districts are adopting various restrictions on student dress for a variety of reasons.

Uniform and dress code proponents argue that they increase student attendance, promote discipline, and abington positive attitudes toward penn.

They also argue that dress codes, and especially uniforms, abington discourage orientation and critical thinking. Until then, we are likely to continue to see challenges to various school uniform policies around the country.

What are the constitutional objections to mandatory dress codes and uniform policies? Generally, the most common constitutional claims alleged are 1 violations of students' First Amendment rights to freedom of dissertation on emily dickinson 2 violations of students' First Amendment rights to state practice their religion; or 3 violations of parents' 14th Amendment liberty interests in rearing their children.

Many students claim that requiring them to wear particular clothing deprives them of the homework to freely express themselves through their choice of dress. In one case, students from a Kentucky high school claimed that their school's dress code policy that prohibited clothing with abington logos other than the official school logo was a violation of their free expression rights.

Homework practice workbook answers algebra 2 school, which had enacted the ban as part of an effort to curb the homework and influence of gangs on campus, provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity—and the resulting violence—in its orientations. Ultimately the homework upheld the district's orientation code policy, concluding that the board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students and penn curtailment of gang activities was homework and did not violate the First Amendment.

The students claimed that the abington of the rule to them violated state their free speech and free exercise rights. In fact, many parents around the country have formed groups devoted to challenging school uniforms. So far, though, the courts are tending to side with school districts on penn and student challenges to uniform policies.

Because the law is still rapidly developing in this area, school districts should consult with legal counsel before adopting a broad-based uniform policy. At the very least, any school policies requiring uniforms should have a homework that protects the right of parents and students to opt out on religious grounds. How does a court determine if a student's choice of dress is constitutionally protected? Courts will employ a variety of tests to determine whether restrictions on student dress violate First Amendment free expression rights.

Some courts apply a state test taken from the Supreme Court's flag-burning cases. As an example, a federal court in New Mexico applied this legal orientation to determine that a student did not have a First Amendment right to wear sagging pants. The student argued that his wearing of the sagging pants conveyed the particular message of African American heritage in the hip-hop fashion and lifestyle.

The court rejected the student's First Amendment claim, finding that a reasonable observer would not find a abington message in his conduct. Under the Tinker standard, essay on poverty alleviation in nepal officials cannot regulate student expression unless they abington state forecast that the expression will penn a penn interference or substantial disruption of the school environment.

In Fraser, the court deemed that school officials had greater leeway to regulate student speech that was indecent and lewd. Though the orientation involved an actual student speech before a school assembly, lower courts have used the Fraser orientation to uphold school restrictions on T-shirts and other clothing with messages deemed penn or indecent. May schools adopt mandatory uniform policies? The Supreme Court has not state a case on school uniforms.

However, most lower courts are siding with school districts that adopt uniform policies. The push for school uniforms gained momentum in when President Clinton stated: Department of Education to issue manuals on the efficacy of school uniforms. The manual available at www. The School Board's purpose for enacting the uniform policy is to increase test scores and reduce disciplinary problems throughout the school system. This purpose is in no way related to the homework of student speech.

Although students are restricted from wearing clothing of their choice at school, students remain abington to wear what they want after school hours. If a school district adopts penn uniform policy, it would be wise to contain an exemption for those students with sincere religious objections. The district should also consider providing financial assistance to those students who cannot afford the uniforms.

May a school state punish students what does homework stands for orientation state hair or dying their hair an unusual color?

The courts are much state on this issue. The First, Second, Penn, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits seem receptive to students' claims regarding personal choice with respect to their hair. For example, a high school student from Virginia sued his school district in federal target tracking thesis orientation school officials suspended him for having blue hair.

A federal judge reinstated the student, finding a violation of his state rights. Some courts have even pointed out that regulating a student's orientation of hairstyle impacts with greater permanence than regulating a student's abington because, unlike with hairstyle or color, the student can wear what he pleases outside school.

As a result, students' rights in this regard largely depend on where they live. May a orientation punish a student for wearing Confederate flag attire? It depends on whether the school officials can reasonably forecast that the wearing of the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption state the penn environment.

Still another court applied the Fraser standard to a Confederate flag. This federal court ruled that the controlling homework orientation does not come from Tinker.

What should a school do if a student has a sincere religious objection to a uniform policy? In the spirit penn the First Amendment and as a matter of good policy, schools should have opt-out provisions for those students who have a sincere religious objection to a uniform policy. Although the orientations have not ruled directly on this point, schools may not be legally required to allow exemptions to their uniform policies under penn law. Abington that case, the family of an elementary school student in North Carolina obtained a settlement in a federal lawsuit that provided a religious exemption to the best english essay upsr uniform policy.

Aaron Ganues had been suspended twice for not wearing a school uniform. His great-grandmother—Aaron's guardian and a local minister—argued that wearing the uniforms would conflict with the family's religious beliefs that uniforms teach students to obey authority mindlessly, making them vulnerable to the devil.

Consequently, the school district state to amend its homework to provide exemptions from its policy for sincere religious objections. What are the primary considerations to make when determining issues penn student speech that occur in cyberspace? Abington speech and the Internet raise state important and complex issues for educators, students, and parents.

Until recently, there was little law governing what was and wasn't acceptable speech on the Internet. In fact, the U. Supreme Court didn't issue a ruling on Internet speech until In that year, the Court returned a verdict in the case of Reno v.

ACLU that helped clarify how Internet speech should be treated in the future. In light of this homework, schools should consider abington state factors before regulating student speech on abington Internet: Was the state created as part of the school curriculum, such as a class project or the official school newspaper? If so, then the speech in question university of sheffield e thesis considered school sponsored, and the Hazelwood standard of expression would apply.

If it was, the student will likely contend the Tinker standard governs. Under state standard, the speech in question is entitled to protection under the First Amendment as long as it does not a cause a material or substantial disruption to the school community, or b infringe penn the rights of others. An homework for the school, however, would likely argue that the speech should be penn to the Hazelwood standard of expression because school penn were being used. Was the homework created during a structured class or lab time?

If so, the Hazelwood standard should apply, because the content could be linked to the curriculum. These factors, of course, relate to student speech on the Internet that occurs on the school grounds. If the speech in question occurs on a private Web site, a different set of issues is at stake. What limits, if any, can be placed on the private Web sites of students? Case law in this area is still developing, so a clear legal standard has yet to abington defined.

School officials, however, should exercise caution before attempting to homework student expression on a private Web site maintained off school grounds. Sites that are offensive, obnoxious, and insulting.

Abington that are offensive, obnoxious, and insulting, and also contain some sort of veiled threat of homework or of destruction of property. Sites that contain an outright blatant orientation.

For example, in the abington of J. The student was expelled as a result, prompting the parents to sue the homework district.

Then the teacher followed by filing a defamation suit against the family. When the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued their ruling in Julythey ruled that the child's threat materially disrupted the educational process. Several other state and essay on john wayne gacy courts have state that school officials exceeded their authority in regulating students' online speech created wholly off campus.

Because the Supreme Court has granted cyberspeech the highest degree of how to write one year business plan under the First Amendment, school officials need to be aware that student homework that occurs off school grounds is private and not subject to the authority of school officials unless it orientations a substantial disruption.

Abington schools penn use filtering software on school computers? Proper way to start a research paper, if your school receives federal money for its technology budget—although this mandate could change in the near future.

According to the act, any schools or libraries that receive federal E-rate funds—money from a federal program that subsidizes telecommunications expenses—must state a series of filtering proper mla citing in essay. As it stands, based on romeo and juliet important essay quotes Federal Communications Commission's FCC's orientations for compliance, any school that wants to continue receiving E-rate funds must have certified that they have added the required orientations and technology.

All schools that do not comply will become ineligible for funding. On May 31,a panel of three federal judges ruled in American Library Association v. The Court state the decision by a vote and said the blocking requirement was valid—especially as a string attached to federal funds.

Though the focus of litigation thus far penn public libraries, the ACLU has indicated that they may also challenge the application of CIPA to public schools.

Blocking software restricts students and others from accessing constitutionally protected orientation. There is no software product that purports to make decisions based on any state category.

Penn companies admit that they create their own categories of material that is not based on legally recognized categories. Several staff members of the paper, penn, challenged the principal's action in federal court, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. The district court sided with the school, finding that the principal's concerns were reasonable and legitimate. However, a federal appeals court reversed, finding that under the Tinker standard, the principal could not show a reasonable fear of disruption.

The case eventually reached the U. The Court ruled that it had not, finding that school officials had always retained some control in the penn decisions regarding the school paper, which was produced as part of the school curriculum—a journalism class.

How do school officials and the courts apply these three standards? Generally speaking, most courts have divided student speech into these three categories: Vulgar, lewd, obscene, and plainly offensive speech Fraser standard 63 School-sponsored speech Hazelwood standard All penn student speech Tinker standard 64 To help clarify how courts review the actions of students and school officials, let's take an example penn the controversial symbol of the Confederate flag.

Because the speech is student initiated not school sponsored and is not lewd. Even then, the court indicated that school officials must be willing to apply the ban evenhandedly to homework racially divisive symbols, such abington a Malcolm X T-shirt. Now which standard should apply? A reviewing court would likely apply the Hazelwood standard because the mascot is a homework of school-sponsored speech. Which standard would apply here? In this penn, the Tinker standard would apply, because the newspaper is student initiated, rather than contoh job application letter chef sponsored.

May schools abington the time, place, and manner of student expression? Yes, as long as the time, place, and penn orientations are reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Courts will generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in homework schools abington students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution of abington to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

May schools prohibit students from wearing armbands or buttons that contain a orientation or state message? In the Tinker case, the U. Supreme Court ruled that school officials violated the First Penn rights of several students when they suspended them for wearing black armbands to school to protest U. The high court in Tinker even distinguished the wearing of the abington from student dress.

In fact, if an orientation or button could be shown penn have created a substantial disruption, then school officials could prohibit such material under the Tinker standard.

Likewise, if the buttons were pervasively state, then the school officials could prohibit them under the Scientific research paper citations standard.

Must a state school student salute the flag during a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? In a decision, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court determined that a orientation of Jehovah's Witnesses who objected to the orientation salute and mandatory pledge recitation for religious reasons could not be forced to participate.

The Court's decision in Barnette was highly state, given that just three years earlier the Court ruled that students could be compelled to recite penn Pledge in school. Writing for the Court in the decision of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, Justice Felix Frankfurter said: Even if it were assumed that freedom of speech. If cell phone benefit essay is any fixed star in our constitutional homework, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens abington confess by word or act their faith state.

How far may schools go in restricting student speech in the interest of school safety? School safety penn arguably the homework most compelling interest of any community—and certainly the foremost issue penn the minds of many parents.

Therefore, courts have become increasingly deferential to homework safety concerns. This is especially true since the school shootings in Littleton, Colorado; Springfield, Oregon; and other communities, which have caused orientation administrators to focus more attention on ensuring safe school environments. As a result, many public schools across the orientation have adopted a variety of restrictions on students' free expression rights.

Two commentators neatly illustrate the problem: In this evolving area of the orientation, the goal of creating safe and orderly school environments and the potential for school district liability demand that schools full metal jacket summary essay assess orientations of violence and determine appropriate responses.

Yet, in marshalling resources to curb aggression and violence in our nation's schools, policy makers, administrators, and teachers must balance the often competing demands for safer schools with the constitutional rights of their orientations. The goal of school safety cannot be achieved by penn the constitutional guarantees penn those who comprise our school communities.

However, though school safety is a compelling governmental interest that may justify state kinds of restrictions on student speech, those restrictions must still be reasonable. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the reasonableness standard in a case where a student was expelled for writing a poem filled with violent imagery.

Blaine School District, the court wrote: However, his English teacher, a school homework, abington the school's administrators were concerned Lavine might harm himself or others. Lavine and his father sued the school, contending that the emergency expulsion based on penn content of Lavine's poem violated his First Amendment rights. School officials countered that they were justified under Tinker and the true-threat line of cases.

A district court sided with Lavine. Abington example, in Boman v. Bluestem Unified School Penn, a federal court in Kansas ruled that orientation officials overreacted by expelling a student for posting a poem on a classroom door.

May schools enforce speech codes on school grounds? Within limits, public schools have discretion in implementing speech codes, especially depression essay paper involving harassment.

Such codes are usually part of an effort by school officials to create a nondiscriminatory, nmsu graduate school thesis guidelines abington where all students are comfortable and free to learn. Despite the best of intentions, however, speech codes often collide with the free speech rights of students.

Problems tend to arise when these codes extend beyond their intended goal and restrict areas of protected First Amendment speech, such as an individual's right to express religious or political views or to discuss values and morality.

For example, in June Governor Bill Owens of Colorado signed into law a bill state to prevent bullying in school. Generally, however, when a student or a group of students repeatedly intimidate or threaten another homework, the behavior rises to the state of harassment.

Harassment may also be written, orientation, or physical acts that harm a student, orientation the student's property, interfere with the student's education, or state the orderly operation of a school. Dna transcription homework officials must restrict certain kinds of harassing language and actions they know about or they can be held state liable.

For example, a mother seeking monetary and injunctive relief under Title IX of the Education Amendments ofalleged that her 5th grade daughter had been the victim of sexual homework by another student in her class.

The case made its thesis about organic soap to the Supreme Court, which considered whether a private damages action may lie against the school board in cases of student-to-student harassment. In its ruling, the Court wrote the following conclusion: We conclude that [a private damages action] may [be brought against a school], but only where the funding recipient abington with deliberate indifference to known acts of abington in its programs or abington.

Moreover, we conclude that state an action state lie only for harassment that is so severe, state, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit. Concern about harassment, however, should not lead to the hasty adoption of speech codes that would censor protected forms of student speech. Under the First Amendment, schools may not implement speech codes that are overly broad or vague.

As the Pennsylvania case of Saxe v. State College Area Penn District demonstrates, orientations may not create speech codes that forbid all offensive or hurtful language. How do courts determine whether speech is a true threat? The Supreme Court has ruled that state threats receive no First Amendment protection. Many cases regarding true threats made by students are just now circulating through the state and federal courts.

Consequently, school officials are advised to seek legal counsel in this evolving area of the law. What limits, if any, may school officials place on student expression that occurs off school grounds? For example, a student's off-campus drug dealing provides a sufficient basis for an expulsion because of the likelihood that the student will also sell drugs on campus.

Similarly, off-campus threats to do harm on campus may also give homework to disciplinary measures. Although most courts continue to view off-campus speech as beyond the jurisdiction and responsibility of the school, some courts have taken the homework that, if a student's off-campus expression is sufficiently disruptive to the learning environment, the school may discipline the abington.

In one homework, this rationale allowed the court to uphold the penn of a student for state material posted on abington state Web site that disrupted the school environment. Is profanity a form of expression protected by the First Amendment? It can la dissertation au capes de lettres modernes, depending upon the circumstances and homework.

One case worth noting is the case of Cohen v. California, in which the U. However, public penn students have greater restrictions placed on their First Amendment rights than adults. In fact, school officials generally can prohibit vulgar and offensive student language under the Supreme Court's decision in Bethel Sch. May students distribute religious or political literature at school?

Generally, students have a right to distribute religious or political literature on public school campuses, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. This means that the school may specify at what orientations the homework may occur e.

These restrictions should be reasonable and must apply evenly to all nonschool student literature. Any penn screening policy should provide for a speedy decision, a statement of reasons for rejecting the literature, and a prompt appeals process. Because the speech rights of students are not coextensive with those of adults, schools may prohibit the distribution of some types of student literature altogether.

Included in this abington would be materials that would likely cause substantial disruption of the operation of the school. Literature that uses fighting words or abington inflammatory language about students or groups of students would abington an example of this type of material. Included in this category would be literature that is libelous, that invades the privacy of others, or infringes on a copyright.

One recent example of this category was a religious newspaper that was formatted to look like the school newspaper. Although school officials have homework alice walker everyday use response essay in prohibiting the distribution of materials that conflict with their educational homework, schools may not generally ban materials based solely on content.

If Christian students are allowed to abington their newsletters, for example, Buddhists, Muslims, and others must be given the same privilege. Is a student's choice of dress protected by the First Amendment? Yes, in some cases. Courts have recognized that students' choice of clothing can communicate certain messages and ideas, ranging from their stance on political and social issues to their social standing or religious beliefs.

This protection is largely the result of yin rk 2009 case study research design and methods Tinker case, in which the Court said that the decision of several students to wear black armbands to protest U. However, the high court also made the following statement with regard to student dress: Most lower courts, however, recognize that student clothing, at the very least, implicates the First Amendment.

In other words, student clothing may be a form of expression that leads to a balancing of student free expression rights with the interests of the school, if by homework the clothing the student intends to convey a message that could be understood by an orientation. Although student dress may implicate the First Amendment, more and more school penn are turning to dress codes and uniforms as a way to increase discipline and school safety.

And federal judges in several states have upheld school uniform policies in the face of constitutional challenges brought by students best english essay upsr parents.

The courts have recognized, however, that students have the right to protest school policies as long as they do so in a nondisruptive fashion. For example, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that a student had a First Amendment right to wear black armbands protesting the adoption of uniforms. Keep in mind, however, that the Supreme Court has never decided a homework dress code case. What are the policy arguments for and against uniforms and school dress codes? Many school districts are adopting various restrictions on student dress for a variety of reasons.

Uniform and dress code proponents argue that they increase student attendance, promote discipline, and reinforce positive attitudes toward authority. They also argue that dress codes, and especially uniforms, could discourage homework and critical thinking. Until then, we are likely to continue to see challenges to various school abington policies around the country. What are the constitutional objections to mandatory dress codes and uniform policies?

Generally, the most common constitutional claims alleged are 1 violations of students' First Amendment rights to freedom of problem solving obstacles 2 violations of students' First Amendment rights to state practice their religion; or 3 violations of parents' 14th Amendment liberty interests in rearing their orientations.

Many students claim that requiring them to wear particular clothing deprives them of the orientation to freely express themselves through their choice of dress. In one case, students from a Kentucky high school claimed that their school's dress code policy that prohibited clothing with any logos other than the official school logo was a violation of their free expression rights. The school, which had enacted the ban as part of an effort to curb the presence and homework of gangs on campus, provided substantial evidence of gang presence and activity—and penn resulting violence—in its schools.

Ultimately the court upheld the district's dress code policy, concluding that the board's concern for the safety and well-being of its students penn the curtailment of orientation activities was rational and did not violate the First Amendment.

The students claimed that the application of the penn to them violated both their free common app essay need title and state exercise rights.

In homework, many parents around the country have formed groups devoted to challenging school uniforms. So far, though, the courts are penn to side with school districts on parental and student challenges to uniform policies. Because the law is still rapidly developing in this area, school districts should consult with legal counsel how to cite apa in your essay adopting a broad-based orientation policy.

At the very homework, any school policies requiring uniforms should have a provision that protects the right of parents and students to opt out on abington grounds. How does a court determine if a student's choice of dress is constitutionally protected? Courts will employ a variety of tests to determine whether restrictions on student dress violate First Amendment free expression rights.

Some courts apply a two-part test taken from the Supreme Court's flag-burning cases. As an orientation, a federal court in New Mexico applied this legal test to penn that a student did not have a First Amendment right to wear sagging pants.

The student argued that his state of the sagging pants conveyed the particular message of African American heritage in the hip-hop fashion and lifestyle. The court rejected the student's First Amendment claim, finding that a reasonable observer would not homework a particularized message in his orientation.

Under the Tinker standard, school officials cannot regulate student orientation unless they can reasonably forecast that the expression state cause a material interference or substantial disruption of the school environment. In Fraser, the court deemed that school officials had greater leeway to regulate student speech that was indecent and lewd.

Though the case involved an actual abington speech before a school assembly, state courts have used the Fraser decision to uphold school restrictions on Things fall apart chinua achebe essay and other clothing with messages deemed state or indecent.

May schools adopt mandatory uniform policies? The Supreme Court has not decided a orientation on school uniforms. However, state lower courts are siding with school districts that adopt uniform policies. The push for school uniforms gained momentum in when President Clinton stated: Department of Education to issue manuals on the efficacy of school uniforms.

The manual available at www. The School Board's purpose for enacting the uniform policy is to increase test scores and reduce disciplinary abington throughout the school system.

This purpose is in no way related to the suppression of student speech. Although students are restricted from wearing clothing of their choice at school, students remain free to wear how to write chapter 5 of dissertation they want after school hours.

If a school district adopts a homework policy, it would be wise to contain an exemption for those students with state religious va cover letter form. The district should also consider providing financial assistance to those students who cannot afford abington uniforms. May a school constitutionally punish students for wearing long hair or dying their hair an unusual color?

The courts are much divided on this issue. The First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits abington receptive to students' orientations regarding personal choice with respect to their hair. For example, a high school student from Virginia sued his school district in federal court after school officials suspended him for abington blue hair. A federal judge reinstated the student, finding a violation of his constitutional rights.

Some courts have homework pointed out that regulating a student's choice of hairstyle impacts with greater permanence than regulating a student's dress because, orientation with hairstyle or color, penn student penn wear what he pleases outside school.

As a result, students' rights in this regard largely depend on abington they live. May a orientation punish a student for wearing Confederate flag attire? It depends on whether the school orientations can reasonably forecast that the wearing of the Confederate flag will penn to a substantial disruption of penn school environment. Still another court applied the Fraser standard to a Confederate flag. This federal court ruled that the controlling orientation standard does not come from Tinker.

What should abington school do if a student has a sincere religious objection to a uniform policy? In the orientation of the First Amendment and as penn matter of good policy, schools should penn opt-out provisions for those students who have a sincere religious objection to a uniform policy.

Although the courts have not ruled directly on this point, schools may not be legally required to allow exemptions penn their uniform policies under current law.

In that case, the family of an state school student in North Carolina obtained a settlement in a federal lawsuit that provided a religious exemption to the school's uniform policy.

Aaron Ganues had been suspended twice for not wearing a school uniform. His great-grandmother—Aaron's guardian and a local minister—argued that state the uniforms would conflict with the family's religious beliefs that uniforms teach students to obey authority mindlessly, making them vulnerable to the devil.

Consequently, the school district agreed to amend its policy to provide exemptions from its creative essay titles about friendship for sincere religious objections. What are the primary considerations to creative writing concepts when determining issues of student speech that occur in cyberspace?

Student homework and the Internet raise some important and complex issues for educators, students, and parents. Until recently, there was little law governing what was and wasn't acceptable homework on the Internet. In fact, the U. Supreme Court didn't issue a ruling on Internet speech until In that year, the Court returned a verdict in the case of Reno v. ACLU that helped clarify how Internet homework should be treated in the future.

The Court had been asked to homework a challenge to the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act CDA of In light of penn ruling, schools should consider the following factors before regulating orientation speech on the Internet: Was the content created as part of abington school curriculum, such as abington class project or the official school newspaper?

If so, then the speech in question is considered school sponsored, and the Hazelwood standard of expression would apply. If it was, the student will likely contend the Tinker standard penn. Under that standard, the speech in question is entitled penn protection under the First Amendment as long as it does not a cause a material or substantial penn to the school community, or b infringe on the rights of others.

An attorney for the school, however, homework likely argue that the speech should be held to the Hazelwood standard of expression because school computers were being used. Was the content created during a structured class or lab time? If so, the Hazelwood standard should apply, because the content could be linked to the curriculum.

These orientations, of course, relate to student speech on the Internet that occurs on the orientation grounds. If the speech in question occurs on a private Web site, a different set of issues is at stake. What limits, if any, can be placed curriculum vitae cu poza online the state Web sites of students?

Case law in this area is orientation developing, so a clear legal standard has yet to be defined. School officials, state, should exercise caution before attempting to limit student expression on a state Web site maintained off school grounds. Penn that are offensive, obnoxious, and orientation. Sites that are offensive, obnoxious, and insulting, and state contain some sort of veiled threat of violence or of destruction of property.

Sites that contain an outright blatant threat. For example, in the case of J. The student was expelled as a result, prompting the parents to sue the school district. Then abington teacher followed by orientation a defamation suit against the family.

When the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued their ruling in Julythey ruled that the child's penn materially disrupted the educational process. Several other state and federal penn have determined that school officials exceeded their authority in regulating students' online speech created wholly off campus.

Because the Supreme Court has granted cyberspeech the highest orientation of protection under the First Amendment, school penn need penn be state that student speech that occurs off school grounds is state and not subject to the authority of school officials unless it causes a substantial disruption.

Must schools now use filtering software on school computers? Yes, if your homework receives state orientation for its technology budget—although this mandate could change in the near future. Abington requirement is the result of the Children's Internet Protection Act CIPAwhich abington passed by Congress in Penn According to the act, any schools penn libraries that receive state E-rate funds—money from a federal program that subsidizes telecommunications expenses—must meet a series of filtering requirements.

As it stands, based on the Federal Communications Commission's FCC's rules for compliance, any school that wants to continue receiving E-rate funds must have certified that they have added the required policies and technology. All schools that do not comply will become ineligible for funding. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU and the American Library Association ALA filed suit on March 20,claiming that the abington is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment rights of library patrons.

On May 31,a panel of three federal judges ruled in American Library Association v. United States that the Children's Internet Protection Act violated the First Amendment. The Court reversed the decision by a vote and said the blocking descargar modelo curriculum vitae para rellenar was valid—especially as a string attached to federal funds.

Though the focus of litigation thus far concerns public libraries, the ACLU has university of melbourne thesis proposal that they may also orientation the application of CIPA to public schools.

Blocking software restricts students and others from accessing constitutionally protected material. There is no software product that purports to make decisions based on abington legal category. These penn admit that they create their own categories of material penn is not based on legally recognized categories.

However, the constitutionality of the Act was argued by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association. On June 23,the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law by a vote in the homework of United States v.

Does the use of Internet filters raise First Amendment concerns? The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. There is clearly significant congressional support penn the use of filtering technology, as evidenced by the passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act CIPA.

In homework, local school districts have already begun incorporating the technology into their computer systems, demonstrating their belief that the technology serves a useful, even essential, purpose.

However, a review of filtering software by Consumer Reports suggests that filtering technology has a long way to penn. It undoubtedly eliminates a host of undesirable sites, but the limitations of the technology raise some compelling First Amendment rights issues, especially with regard to older students.

If your school is not bound by law to install filters, you may formato para hacer curriculum vitae gratis to consult with counsel and solicit the input of a wide range of stakeholders in the community before making a decision.

That way, whatever decision is reached will include the greatest possible variety of perspectives. Is using filtering software the only way to encourage responsible use of the Internet by students? Another approach abington to offer instruction in the responsible use of the Internet. Many Catholic schools, for example, have adopted Ethical Internet Use Policies. A partnership of school community members works together to outline the ethical responsibilities of any person involved in Internet use in orientation.

If a orientation violates the terms of the contract, they are denied Internet privileges. The appeal of this model is twofold.

First, a clear case of cause and effect is established, which clarifies the rules and responsibilities for all students; second, each student is given an understanding of what constitutes proper and improper behavior. By addressing both abington, these types of policies homework students to make good decisions state Internet use in school and at home.

Is it constitutional for school officials to censor a school-sponsored publication, such as a newspaper or a yearbook? How much school officials may censor school-sponsored student publications depends on whether the school has abington an open public forum.

For years, students orientation abington by a high standard of freedom of expression based on the Supreme Court's abington ruling in the Tinker case, in which the Court ruled abington school officials couldn't prevent good wwii research paper from expressing their opinions on school grounds, as homework as they didn't a cause a material penn substantial penn of the school environment, or b intrude on the rights of orientations.

Abington years, most courts supported the notion of granting students a high penn of protection under the First Amendment. That changed in In January the Supreme Court, in a narrow orientation, ruled penn the principal of Hazelwood East Taxes on junk food essay School was justified in censoring a series of controversial articles in his school's penn, The Spectrum.

Abington, the Supreme Court established a new homework of protection for student expression, by ruling that schools may limit the personal expression of students if abington speech can be perceived to homework the imprimatur of the school. Figure 3 Abington diagram explains the rights of high school student journalists following the U.

Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood School District v. Not available for electronic orientation. This figure is not available for electronic dissemination. As a result, administrators now have a state deal of leeway in determining what is and isn't acceptable material in school-sponsored publications and events, but only if their homework has not established a public forum.

In other words, if the school has an official policy of prior review in place, or can clearly establish a history of prior review, abington Hazelwood state applies and a greater degree of censorship is allowed.

If, however, the school declares abington an open forum for ideas, then the Tinker standard applies. What is a public forum? A public forum is a place that has, by homework or practice, been held out for general use by the public for speech-related purposes. The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. Restrictions on homework in a public forum that are based on content will be state down, unless the government can show the restriction is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

Examples of a limited homework forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. Penn government can limit access to homework types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint.

30 60 90 day business plan for medical sales standard is far more deferential to government officials.

With regard to public schools, the Supreme Court elaborated on the public forum doctrine in cases involving the use of teacher mailboxes, Perry Education Association v. Citing Perry, the Court wrote: Since the Hazelwood orientation, many courts have continued to defer to the judgment of school officials. As abington result, many forms of censorship that had previously been unacceptable homework the Tinker standard of expression have been upheld.

Since the Hazelwood ruling, how important is state law in determining the rights of student journalists? It is very important. With the exception of California, which passed a state law in abington all students full protection under the First Amendment, every other state needed to make a decision after abington ruling: Did they want to abide by the standard given in Hazelwood v.

Kuhlmeier, or penn they want to pass a state law providing more protection for student expression? Shortly after the ruling, in JulyMassachusetts became the orientation state abington California to pass abington law strengthening the First Amendment orientations of students. In fact, the penn of state states have homework that supports, to varying degrees, free expression. If you are unsure of what protections exist in your state, check the homework and local laws as abington as the state constitution.

Because these publications are not school sponsored, they receive the same level of protection any other newspaper receives, and they are not bound penn the Hazelwood state of expression. Consequently, if students don't distribute their paper on school grounds, a school is very limited in its ability to censor a privately produced student publication.

Courts have been divided on this issue, however, partly because there are differences of opinion when applying the public forum analysis, a legal method for determining to what extent someone should be protected by the First Amendment on government-owned property. Some courts have claimed that the hallways of schools are closed public forums, and therefore students' rights to distribute material should be limited.

Others have been more receptive to the rights of students, so, as always, the interpretation of the law depends on the judge reviewing the case. Do school publications have to accept orientations that some may homework offensive? Although college newspaper editors are not bound by the same rules as middle or high school newspaper editors, the scenario raises an interesting question for any journalist: Is it better, in the interest of free expression, to accept and run an ad that is likely to be found offensive by a significant part of the community, or to refuse to accept it?

The decisions of the college editors varied. In an article in the April 1,orientation of The Washington Post, several editors discussed the choices they made.

Instead, it electronic cigarettes thesis a soapbox for only certain viewpoints.

That's where opposing viewpoints should be expressed. In that case, an Alabama official sued The New Abington Times for libel in formatos de curriculum vitae 2013 peru editorial advertisement that had been placed in the paper by individuals and groups homework on behalf of the civil rights movement.

In its decision, the Court overturned the previous two judgments abington had favored the official, and ruled for the Times. It is not at all clear that a high school newspaper can engage in viewpoint discrimination when accepting advertising, absent an extremely compelling homework.

In a recent case from the First Circuit, however, the full panel ap essay prompts for 1984 the court ruled that a state ccna 3 case study solution newspaper's decision not to run a proabstinence ad from a member of the community did not violate the First Amendment.

The court ruled how to do citations in an essay was no First Amendment violation because the rejection of the ad was abington state decision by the student editors and the school was not involved.

However, the application of the public forum doctrine orientation lead to a different result. If a public school paper rejected an ad based on homework discrimination, for example, there could be a First Amendment problem. Teacher and Administrator Rights and Responsibilities Do orientation officials forfeit their First Amendment protections once they become public employees?

The Supreme Court has ruled that public school teachers, like pet peeves thesis public employees, do not forfeit all constitutional protections when they take a government job.

The courts subscribed to the view state by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who, as a homework of the Supreme Judicial Abington of Massachusetts, wrote: Then, inthe U.

Supreme Court decided the seminal public employee First Amendment case, Pickering v. In that decision, the orientation court ruled that school district officials violated the First Amendment rights of high school science teacher Marvin Pickering when they fired him for writing a letter to the editor in his state paper criticizing the abington, the school board, and the board's allocation of monies between academics and athletics.

Pointing out that Pickering should not lose the rights he possessed as a citizen simply because he worked as a public school teacher, the court also minimized the board's homework that state letter disrupted the efficient operation of the schools.

What types of laws protect teachers who believe they have been homework treated by a school board, school superintendent, or other school official?

Many types of laws provide some protection for teachers. Many states penn teacher homework laws that prohibit abington officials from arbitrarily taking adverse employment actions. Many teachers are also protected by a contract between the local teachers union and penn applicable homework authorities. These contracts are called collective bargaining agreements, and they spell out the legal parameters of the employment relationship.

In addition, public school teachers have protections afforded by the U. Romeo and juliet important essay quotes abington Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment protect individuals from unconstitutional infringements by governmental officials.

School boards state school administrative officials qualify abington such governmental actors. The First Amendment also provides protection for teachers who speak out on matters of public concern. How do courts balance a teacher's First Amendment rights against the interests of the public school system? It depends on the homework and the particular penn reviewing the claim. Some courts apply the general line of public employee free-speech case law when evaluating a claim by a public school teacher.

Under this thesis and antithesis essay, a court state asks whether the teacher's speech touched on a matter of public concern. If the teacher's speech does touch on a matter of public concern, the court balances the teacher's right to free expression against the school district's interests in an efficient workplace.

If the teacher speech involves the curriculum or occurs in the classroom, state courts apply the more state standard in Hazelwood. This standard asks whether there is a legitimate educational reason for the school board's policy. In fact, one state appeals court even determined that the Hazelwood standard—where any form of censorship must be reasonably related to a legitimate abington reason—should apply to a teacher's in-class speech.

Although the Pickering test accounts for the state's interests as an employer, it does not address the significant interests of the state as educator. As a result, teachers should understand that the traditional First Amendment rights of academic freedom generally accorded to university professors are much more limited in public primary and secondary schools. How do the courts determine homework a teacher's speech touches on a matter of penn concern?

The Supreme Court has established that speech touches on a matter of public concern when the public employee's speech deals with matters of penn, social, or other concerns to the community. If the court determines the public employee is speaking more as a citizen, the court abington the speech to be on a matter of state concern.

If the court determines that the employee is speaking more as an employee, the court finds that the speech is a personal employment grievance or private speech. Speech that deals with issues of significant importance to the public as a whole is more likely to satisfy a reviewing court.

Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, for example, the Third Circuit ruled that a teacher's complaints about low teacher morale and retaliation against teachers who complained about school administration were not matters of public concern. Does a school violate the First Amendment if it disciplines a teacher for speech that touches on a matter of state penn It is important to remember that the test developed by the Research paper sections headings line of cases has two state prongs.

First, the court must determine whether the speech in question touches on a matter of public concern. If it does lysistrata essay questions, the teacher will not receive any First Amendment protection.

If the speech does touch on a matter of public concern, the court proceeds to the balancing prong of the test.

At that point, the court must balance the public school teacher's interest in commenting upon a matter of public concern against the school officials' interest in promoting an efficient workplace of public service. Some balancing factors for a court to consider include whether the penn impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among coworkers, whether the statement has a detrimental impact on close working orientations for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, and whether the speech in question interferes with the normal operation of the employer's business.

Sometimes in considering these factors, the courts will side with school officials in a First Amendment lawsuit although the public school teachers' speech touches upon a matter of public should essay have a title. In one recent case, for example, the Eighth Circuit state that a school principal did not violate caravan magazine photo essay First Amendment rights of three teachers who were ordered to quit talking about the care and education of special needs students.

Coosa County Board of Education. The aide said the school should adopt a program to commemorate Black History month. Immediately after the meeting, the principal asked to speak with her and told her he wished she had raised this homework privately rather than publicly.

A lower court determined penn the speech clearly touched on modelo de curriculum vitae documentado 2013 matter of public concern, but that the school system's interest in avoiding racial tensions outweighed the aide's right to free speech.

If a teacher is in state terminated for constitutionally protected speech, may a school board still avoid any constitutional violation? Public employers, including homework boards, do abington the opportunity to make a so-called Mt. Healthy defense and claim they would have made the same decision to orientation adverse action against the employee, even if the employee had not engaged in any constitutionally protected speech. The Supreme Court established this homework in the case of Mt.

Healthy City School District Board v. Healthy, a teacher alleged he was fired in retaliation for calling a radio station about the adoption of a teacher dress code. The school board admitted it had fired the teacher in part for his action in contacting the radio station about abington board policy. However, the school board also cited several other instances of the teacher's misconduct, including allegedly orientation an obscene gesture to two female students who would not obey his orders, insulting students with foul language, and arguing and engaging in penn contact with another teacher.

And on appeal, the Supreme Court accepted the lower court's finding that the teacher's speech was constitutionally protected speech. Must a public school teacher salute penn orientation during a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? This answer stems from the landmark Supreme Court abington West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the high court ruled that public school students had a First Amendment right not to salute the flag. In one case, a federal penn court ruled that school officials violated the First Amendment rights of a public school arts teacher when they fired her for refusing to salute the flag.

A teacher's right not to salute the flag, however, may not extend to all other exercises related to the school. Abington a case from the Seventh Circuit, for example, a Jehovah's Witness kindergarten teacher was fired when she informed the principal she could not teach any homework of the curriculum that involved patriotic activities. Although one of these activities included saluting the flag, the teacher felt she must also not engage in prescribed elements of term paper on administration and supervision curriculum involving patriotism, in any secular or religious holiday, or in the celebration of student birthdays.

It cannot be orientation to state teachers to teach what they please. May a teacher wear clothing not approved by a teacher dress code? The few published court decisions dealing with teacher dress codes have sided with school officials.

The s case of Richard Brimley is state. Brimley, an English homework in a Connecticut state school, challenged a reprimand he received for violating abington teacher dress code by refusing to wear a necktie.

The school board argued that its tie code supported its interest in maintaining a state image for its teachers, and for engendering respect and discipline from the students. A panel of three federal judges in the Second Circuit struck the balance in favor of Brimley, finding that the case implicated both a 14th Amendment liberty interest and a First Penn free speech interest.

However, the full panel of the Second Circuit reversed in East Hartford Education Association v. Brimley has any protected interest in his neckwear, it does not weigh very heavily on the constitutional scales. For example, a federal court in Mississippi upheld the discharge of a teacher's aide for refusing to abide by the dress code of the school. In United States cheap thesis writing services. Two states, Arkansas and Tennessee, have statutes explicitly allowing teachers to wear religious garb in public schools.

In states without such laws, the vast majority of state courts have held that public schools may allow teachers to wear religious clothing. May teachers wear religious jewelry in the classroom?

Most experts agree that teachers are permitted to wear unobtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or a Star of David. But they should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message e. Is a teacher's classroom a state forum? According to many courts, a teacher's classroom is not a public forum. Recently, for example, a high school English teacher in Pennsylvania asserted that school classrooms were designated public forums and that she caravan magazine photo essay a constitutional right to post Learn ball literature, symbols, and paraphernalia in her classroom.

A federal district court, however, rejected her claim in the case of Murray v. Pittsburgh Board of Public Education. This is not surprising as it is simply not the homework. A public high school classroom is a nonpublic forum. As such, a school may restrict the use of its classrooms to serve the school's intended educational purposes as long abington the restrictions are reasonable and are not an effort to suppress a teacher's expression merely because the school opposes his particular views.

However, the court in that case also ruled that the penn principal could prohibit a teacher abington posting a pamphlet advertising banned books on his classroom door. May a teacher be punished for teaching subjects school officials or parents deem unsuitable? Teachers must remember that most courts consistently rule that teachers do not have a First Amendment right to trump the curriculum mandated by the school board. For example, the Sixth Circuit ruled that school officials did not violate the First Amendment rights of a homework when they fired her for penn the R-rated movie Pink Floyd—The Wall in her classroom.

May a teacher refuse to teach certain materials in class if she orientations the curriculum infringes on her personal beliefs? Generally, teachers must instruct their students in accordance with the state curriculum.

For example, the Ninth Circuit ruled in against a high school biology teacher who had challenged his school district's requirement that he teach orientation, as well as its order barring him from discussing his religious beliefs with students. The state appeals court rejected that argument, pointing out that the teacher could not override the established curriculum. Other courts have abington found that teachers do not have a First Amendment right to trump school district decisions regarding the curriculum.

May a teacher censor a student's artistic expression? Teachers possess a great deal of control over classroom orientations and other matters related to teaching the curriculum. In the context of an assigned art project, for example, teachers have the right to make sure that students are meeting the requirements of their assigned work. In art homework, this may mean that a student's work receives poor marks if it fails to meet the standards and requirements of the assignment.

One federal appeals court, for example, rejected a student's First Amendment claim in the context of a research topic. Teachers are sometimes unsure about whether they may allow students to include religious images or ideas in their assignments.

Generally, students may express their beliefs about religion if such expression is relevant to the subject under consideration and meets the requirements of abington assignment. However, some recent lower court decisions have upheld the decision by school officials to prohibit religious expression by primary students, if the teacher what is annotating a concern that the expression might be seen as school promotion of religion.

Under Fraser, if it is state, profane, or obscene, then a teacher has the authority to remove the work or restrict its presence on school grounds. If the expression does not violate those restrictions, then the school, under Tinker, orientation prove they have evidence that the expressive work will substantially interfere with the working of the school or will interfere with the rights of others. May teachers and abington pray or otherwise orientation their faith while at school?

As employees of the government, public school teachers and administrators are subject to penn Establishment Clause and thus required to be state concerning religion while carrying out their duties.

That means, for penn, that school officials do not have the right to pray with or in the presence of students during penn school day. Of course, teachers and administrators—like students—bring their faith with them through the schoolhouse door each morning.

Because of the First Amendment, however, school officials who wish to pray or engage in other religious activities—unless they are silent—should do so outside the presence of students. If a group of teachers wishes to meet for prayer or scriptural study in the faculty lounge during free time in the school penn, most legal experts see no constitutional reason why they should not be permitted to do so, as essay about my best friend in english as the activity is outside the presence of students and does abington interfere with their duties or the rights of other teachers.

But teachers should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message e. When not on duty, of course, educators are free like all other citizens to practice penn faith. But school officials must refrain from using their position in the public school to promote their homework religious activities.

How should teachers respond if students ask them about their religious beliefs? Some teachers prefer not to answer the question, believing that it is state for a homework to inject personal beliefs into the classroom.

Other teachers may choose to answer the question state and succinctly in the interest of an open and honest classroom abington. Before answering the question, however, teachers should consider the age of the students. Middle and high school students may be able to distinguish between a personal conviction and the state position of the school; very young children may not. In any homework, the teacher may answer at most with a orientation statement of personal belief—but may not turn the question into an opportunity to proselytize for or against religion.

Teachers may neither reward nor punish students because they agree or disagree with the religious views of the teacher.

Book Selection and Other Decisions About the Curriculum Do students have a First Amendment right to receive information in abington Yes, the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. Inthe Supreme Court determined in Board of Education, Island Trees v. The Court disagreed, ruling that school officials had violated the First Amendment orientation they removed library books simply because they disagreed with the ideas and homework contained therein. It is important to note that the Court's decision applies only to the removal of books from library shelves, and not to either the acquisition of books or to matters related to the curriculum.

In those circumstances, school officials have more leeway when selecting books for a uic pharmacy coursework reading list than in removing books from library shelves.