National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4 .docx

National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4
Fall 2014 27
The role of school personnel in educating children has
evolved in the face of civil litigation, which has been
very declarative about the individual rights afforded
to children attending public schools (DeMitchell,
2002; Zirkel & Richardson, 1989). Certified school
personnel acting in loco parentis have been authorized
to exert reasonable control over students concerning
academic expectations and conduct in public schools.
Nevertheless, students enjoy many of the same
constitutional rights as the adults who supervise them.
For that reason, their rights must be acknowledged and
valued by school personnel (Frels, 2000). Accordingly,
public school personnel are tasked with providing safe
and orderly school environments in which children can
learn, without interfering with the personal liberties of
their student populations (Donaldson, 1986; Eberwein,
2008; Reglin, 1992; Taylor, 2010).
The day-to-day operations of schools are becoming
progressively influenced by legal decisions which
have an overall effect on education and the legal rights
afforded to all school stakeholders (Davis & Williams,
1992; Reglin, 1992). Several researchers have noted
that school personnel must remain educated about the
substance and depth of student rights issues in order
to apply them to the day-to-day school operations
(Alexander & Alexander, 2009; Dunklee & Shoop,
1986; Zirkel & Richardson, 1989). There is a need for

all educators to be knowledgeable of laws surrounding
public schools and the impact they have on school
functions (Reglin). Sparkman (1990) emphasized that
the legal landscape for school principals has changed
considerably, and a year does not go by without the
initiation of a legitimate federal challenges with huge
implications for the day-to-day operations of public
schools.
CREATURES OF THE LAW
Public education institutions are considered creatures
of the law, and school principals’ decisions have
legal ramifications that shape the quality of students’
educational experiences within these entities (Blokhuis,
2008; Bolmeier & Hopkins, 1956). The validity of
decisions made by school personnel is dependent
upon compliance with federal and state laws, and the
interpretation of these statutes by state and federal
courts (Bolmeier & Hopkins; Cambron-McCabe et al.,
2009). Notably, the recent trends in constitutional law
that uphold the interests of the students in public schools
are defined by the in loco parentis doctrine, beginning
with the First Amendment through the Fourteenth
Amendment, which protect the students’ freedoms of
expression, religion, speech, and press.
Overview of School Law:
Case Law that Every Administrator
Should Know
Tanjula Petty
Abstract: Principals are faced with legal challenges due to their
lack of knowledge or inappropriate applications of

the law. There is a need for school personnel to be proficient
and knowledgeable of education law and how it effects
daily school operations and decision-making. The purpose of
this literature is to provide educators with a legal
summary of landmark and recent case law. Having knowledge
of these cases may prevent challenges and a myriad
of litigation for school administrators.
About the Author: Dr. Tanjula Petty, serves as the Quality
Enhancement Plan Director of Alabama State University
(ASU). Recently, the recipient of receive the 2013
Distinguished Dissertation Award presented by the Council of
Historically Black Graduate Schools (CHBGS) and
ProQuest/University Microfilms International (UMI).
Keywords: Principal Preparation, Education Law, School Law
28 Fall 2014 National Teacher Education
Journal • Volume 7, Number 4
Principals have a responsibility to supervise school
students and staff, and to lead them through an era of
social change, which often necessitates the fundamental
reorganization of how schools operationally function
(Levine, 2005). Principals in public schools across
the country are legally accountable for conveying and
translating legal procedures to guarantee that policies
are implemented during the delivery of education to
children (Bishop & Miles, 2008). According to the
National Policy Board for Educational Administration’s
(NPBEA) Standard 5, educational leaders must have the
knowledge and ability to encourage the achievement
of all students by “acting fairly, with integrity, and in
an ethical manner” (2008, p. 15). More specifically,

educational leaders must be able to clarify and make
decisions based upon ethical and legal principles.
Administrators are frequently hesitant and indecisive
when making decisions on a daily basis that might have
legal ramifications (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2009).
SCHOOL LEGAL CHALLENGES
Nationally school districts are paying between $45,000
to $400,000 annually for legal expenses incurred in
the aftermath of legal challenges to the actions of their
school personnel (Militello, Schimmel, & Eberwein,
2009; Petzko, 1998; Schimmel & Millitello, 2009;
Underwood & Noffke, 1990). The excessive cost
of education litigation is due, in part, to the decision
making of school personnel who are not only unaware
of the laws, but often are given misinformation about
the protected rights of students and teachers. Public
education has become a hyper-legalized enterprise in
the United States (Hutton, 2009, p.1). Researchers have
reported that, on average, there are 3,000 legal claims
filed annually against teachers and school personnel
(Reglin, 1990, 1992; Stover & Cook, 2009).
The environments in which law and education operate
are undividable (Heubert, 1997; Littleton, 2008). As
society becomes more litigious, public school personnel
are coming to the realization that they are not immune
from litigation (Littleton, Higman, & Styron, 2001).
Education law has become complex, limitless, and ever-
changing (Dillion, 2009). The “volume of education
litigation did undergo a veritable explosion in the 60s
and 70s” (Zirkel & Richardson, 1989, p. 789); however,
the litigation has leveled off over the past 30 years (Imber
& Gayler, 1988; Zirkel, 2006a; Zirkel, 2006b; Zirkel &
Richardson). On the other hand, Stover and Cook (2009)

argued that the dynamics associated with the intersection
of education and the law are not expected to dissipate in
the near future, as the list of areas affected by legal issues
expands.
School personnel who are involved in education legal
proceedings have maintained the attention of the
public. Furthermore, litigation within public education
has become so prevalent that it has been compared to
a world religion (Dunklee & Shoop, 1986; Leiberman,
1981). School district personnel strive to understand and
conform to the intricacy of laws and regulations that are
changing rapidly (Stover & Cook, 2009). Some of the
more pressing legal issues that plague school personnel
include issues related to the First, Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution of
1787 (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2009). Courts have
recognized that students who attend public education
institutions are at liberty to have the full gratification
of their constitutional rights. Likewise, the Supreme
Court has held that the students cannot be denied their
Fourteenth Amendment rights (Alexander & Alexander,
2008; Cambron-McCabe et al.; LaMorte, 2008).
Principals are faced with legal challenges due to their
lack of knowledge or inappropriate applications of the
law. There is a need for school personnel to be proficient
and knowledgeable of education law and how it effects
daily school operations and decision-making. The
purpose of this literature is to provide educators with a
legal summary of recent case law that prevent challenges
in which they may face.
Religion. The authority of public school personnel to
limit the influence of religion in the public education
enterprise has been challenged in several religious areas,

including prayers, scripture reading, religious teaching,
and the use of the Bible in school settings (Murray &
Evans, 2000). Religious activity in public schools has
long been a primary legal issue for school personnel
(Mawdsley, 1998). In an attempt to guarantee that state
and church remained separate, the First Amendment of
the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.” The debate in the United
States over religion and schools has been ongoing since
the inception of public education. As society becomes
more culturally diverse, the issue of religion in public
schools increases in complexity (Feldman, 2007; Okun,
1996).
Murray and Evans (2000) noted that over the past
35 years, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in several
challenges that have helped define the appropriate
relationship between religious activity and government-
sponsored schools. Many cases that were heard in the
U.S. Supreme Court relating to religious activities were
decided by interpretations of the Establishment Clause,
which was used to oppose the advancement of religion.
Fall 2014 29
Conversely, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
allows American citizens to determine their beliefs. The
Establishment Clause has been used as the basis for
numerous legal disputes that involve prayer and religion
in public schools (Cambron-McCabe et al., 2009;
LaMorte, 2009; Murray & Evans, 2000).

An important controversy of state and religion was that
of the Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001),
in which the Supreme Court was asked to determine
two important issues: (a) whether a New York school
district violated the First Amendment rights of the Good
News Club by not allowing them to meet on campus
after school hours; and (b) whether the violation by
the school district was justified by its concern for other
Establishment Clause violations. The Supreme Court
overturned decisions of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of New York and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding
that the school district’s actions to prevent the Good
News Club from holding group meetings was a violation
of the student’s First Amendment free speech rights.
Freedom of expression. As the United States fought
in the Vietnam War during the 1960s, the antagonism
and hostility that the public took on about the country’s
participation in the war overflowed into public education,
illuminating students’ rights as they relate to the First
Amendment’s provisions concerning student expression
and speech. The landmark case of Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969), placed
schools around the country in distress as the courts issued
one of the most historic strikes against school personnel.
The Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 ruling, acknowledged
that a student has a right to freedom of speech and to
assemble peaceably, as long as the student’s behavior
is not disturbing to class work. More specifically, the
Supreme Court held that students were protected under
the First Amendment, and that school policy preventing
students from expressing their beliefs or non-beliefs
is a violation of the students’ rights of free speech and
freedom of expression.

Stover and Cook (2009) reported the findings of a
national study with over 200 members of the National
Council of School Attorney’s (COSA), who identified
freedom of expression and speech and school discipline
among the most pressing legal concerns faced by school
personnel. In addition, discipline, including academic
sanctions, suspensions, and expulsion, are also significant
issues for school personnel in their daily management of
school operations (Sparkman, 1990). Cambron-McCabe
et al. (2009) identified student misconduct as one of the
most problematic issues that school personnel have to
confront. Burdensome behaviors by students have
placed school personnel on the defense (Stover & Cook,
2009).
Discipline and due process. School personnel are
responsible for assisting in the development of students
today, who, in turn, it is hoped, will become productive
citizens in the future (Reyes, 2006; Taylor, 2009).
Therefore, developing and adhering to federal and
state law pertaining to student discipline has relevance
to controlling the behaviors of students (Reyes).
Discipline is the authority to manage the behavior
and demeanor of students in schools that were created
under the doctrine of in loco parentis (Gatti & Gatti,
1990). Notably, Gaustad (1992) pointed out that school
discipline entails two major objectives: (a) to guarantee
that schools are safe environments for all stakeholders,
and (b) to establish an atmosphere that is advantageous
for learning to take place. With attention to discipline,
administrators commonly react to students who are
disruptive and require discipline, which could include
corporal punishment, suspensions, and expulsions
(Osher, Bear, Sprague & Doyle, 2010). Russo (2005)
noted that suspensions and expulsions are the most

severe punishments that school personnel can legally
inflict upon students.
Court opinions have revealed that education is a
property right that belongs to students, and students
must be provided due process prior to being deprived
of this right (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Due process rights
are embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the U. S. Constitution, which warrants that no state
shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law (U.S. Const. amend. V; U.S.
Const. amend. XIV)”; it includes procedural protections
and substantive protections. Due process warrants that
if a property right is at risk, the student is entitled to
notice and the chance to be heard prior to the right being
restricted or taken away.
Educators must maintain safe and sound schools needed
to provide a disciplined learning environment (Russo,
2006). Gaustad (1992) advised that school discipline
policies must be consistent with the federal and state
regulations and must be provided in written form to
parents and students.
The case of Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
re-established the viability of the in loco parentis
doctrine as mechanism to protect students from
sexually unambiguous and vulgar speech (Alexander
& Alexander, 2009; LaMorte, 2008). The facts of the
case revealed that the plaintiff, Matthew Fraser, was

considered to be an exceptional student at Bethel High
School in Washington. In 1983, Fraser prepared to give a
speech at Bethel High School assembly for the purposes
of being elected to the student government. After being
cautioned by teachers that the speech was inappropriate
because of its sexual content, Fraser delivered the speech
anyway. Following the delivery of the speech, Fraser
was suspended from school for violating the student
handbook policy that prohibited the use of obscene
language in speeches by students delivered to a captive
audience. The student challenged the suspension in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that his First
Amendment rights had been violated. The lower courts
agreed that the plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech
under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
had, in fact, been violated by the school district. The
school district appealed and was granted certiorari by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
In a 7 to 2 decision, the high court reversed the lower
court’s decision by acknowledging that school personnel
may forbid student speech before a student assembly.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1986) wrote the
majority opinion for the Court, holding that “the process
of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools
is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics
class; schools must teach by example the shared values of
a civilized social order” (p. 683). Additionally, the court
held “under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive
form of expression may not be prohibited to adults
making what the speaker considers a political point, but it
does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted
to children in a public school” (p. 676). Chief Justice
Warren justified the rational for the ruling by discerning
between political expressions that are protected and

obscene speech in the presence of other students at a
school assembly. He enunciated that the undoubted
freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views
in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the
society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the
boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the
most heated political discourse in a democratic society
requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of
the other participants and audiences. (p. 681)
Furthermore, the courts recognized “the obvious concern
on the part of parents, and school authorities acting in
loco parentis, to protect children especially in a captive
audience -- from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent,
or lewd speech” (p. 484).
Two years following Bethel, the Hazelwood School
District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) case was heard in the
U.S. Supreme Court. Student writers for the Spectrum
school newspaper in the Hazelwood School District
wrote two articles that included sensitive subject matter
about teen pregnancy and divorce. The principal raised
objections about the articles and voiced concerns about
the appropriateness and concern for the anonymity of
the students who were incorporated into the stories. In
the end, the principal made the decision to delete the
articles from the publication. The plaintiff argued that
the principal’s decision to delete the articles violated the
student writers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of
speech under the Tinker doctrine. For that reason, the
students took legal action against the Hazelwood School
District for allegedly violating their First Amendment
rights. In a 5 to 3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals when it
declared that the rights of public school children are

not necessarily the same as the rights afforded to adults
in other settings. More specifically, the Court declared
that student newspapers were not “forums for public
expression” and, as a result, the students who were
censored by the school principal were not entitled to
traditional First Amendment guarantees. Consequently,
school personnel were not compelled to follow the
standard established in Tinker. In addition, the Court
declared that school censorship will be allowed when
its decision to do so is “reasonably related to legitimate
pedagogical concerns” in their respective learning
communities. The Court reaffirmed that the school
personnel may demonstrate authority over student speech
in school publications, as well as at school activities if it
interferes with the educational process (Gatti & Gatti,
1990; Russo, 2006). Also, schools have an interest in
protecting the identities of the students in the articles,
as well as in upholding the integrity of student speech
allowed in the school newspaper. Justice Byron White
wrote the majority opinion, stating:
A school must also retain the authority to
refuse to sponsor student speech that might
reasonably be perceived to advocate drug
or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct
otherwise inconsistent with “the shared values
of a civilized social order, or to associate the
school with any position other than neutrality
on matters of political controversy. Otherwise,
the schools would be unduly constrained from
fulfilling their role as a principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values, in
preparing him for later professional training,
and in helping him to adjust normally to his
environment. (p. 272)

Nearly two decades after Hazelwood, the U.S. Supreme
Fall 2014 31
Court heard another case involving student speech
rights, Morse v. Frederick (2007). On January 24,
2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed through the city
of Juneau, Alaska as part of the opening ceremony for
the Winter Olympic Games being hosted in Salt Lake
City, Utah. Members of the Torch Relay ran past the
entrance of Juneau-Douglas High School during school
attendance hours. That day, students were excused from
their classes, as a part of an approved field trip, to watch
the relay from the sidewalk outside the school under the
supervision of school personnel. When the relay team
members and the television cameras covering the event
passed the plantiff, he and his friends displayed a large
banner that stated, “BONG HITS 4 JESUS.” Principal
Deborah Morse demanded that the banner be taken
down, but Frederick refused to comply. The principal
eventually removed the banner and suspended Frederick
for ten days for violating Juneau School Board Policy,
which strictly forbade drug use. Frederick appealed his
suspension to the Juneau School District Superintendent,
who, in denying his claim, relied on the Supreme Court’s
decision in Fraser, which rejected speech or action that
is disruptive to the learning environment.
Frederick filed suit in the District Court, alleging that the
school board and Morse violated his First Amendment
rights. The District Court sided with Frederick, ruling that
the school district’s punishment handed down to Fredrick
for the content of his speech was unconstitutional;

however, the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court’s
decision and the case was granted certiori by the U. S.
Supreme Court. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court
upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court when it
declared that public school personnel have the right to
censor student speech that explicitly encourages illegal
drug use. Chief Justice John G. Roberts delivered the
Court’s opinion; however, Justice Clarence Thomas
rendered a meticulous concurring opinion that provided
an overview of the in loco parentis doctrine and of his
views of Tinker. Justice Thomas explained that “the
Court today decides that a public school may prohibit
speech advocating illegal drug use.” In a scathing rebuke
of settled case law, Justice Thomas consented that Tinker
utterly ignored the history of public education, as courts
(including this one) routinely find it necessary to create
ad hoc exceptions to its central premise. This doctrine
of exceptions creates confusion without fixing the
underlying problem by returning to first principles. Just
as I cannot accept Tinker’s standard, I cannot subscribe
to Kuhlmeier’s alternative. (p. 408)
Justice Thomas further surmised that in light of the
history of American public education, it cannot seriously
be suggested that the First Amendment “freedom of
speech” encompasses a student’s right to speak in
public schools. Early public schools gave total control
to teachers, who expected obedience and respect from
students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’
authority to make rules and to discipline students for
violating those rules. Several points are clear: (1) under
in loco parentis, speech rules and other school rules
were treated identically; (2) the in loco parentis doctrine
imposed almost no limits on the types of rules that
a school could set while students were in school; and

(3) schools and teachers had tremendous discretion in
imposing punishments for violations of those rules. (p.
421)
Justice Thomas also commended Justice Hugo Black’s
warning in his dissenting opinion in Tinker. More
specifically, he asserted that Tinker has undermined
the traditional authority of teachers to maintain order
in public schools. Thomas also asserted that “society
once respected the authority of teachers, deferred to their
judgment, and trusted them to act in the best interest of
school children, now society accepts defiance, disrespect,
and disorder as daily occurrences in many of our public
schools” (p. 423). Justice Thomas summed up his views
of Morse by concluding that “if parents do not like the
rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress
in school boards or legislatures; they can send their
children to private schools or home school them; or they
can simply move” (p. 422).
Yet, in the online age, the Supreme Court has declined
to make decisions that involve free speech that involve
internet speech (Serman & Smith, 2012; Walsh, 2012).
A joint appeal was filed from two school districts in
Pennsylvania that imparted questions pertaining to
the First Amendment rights of students and school
personnel’s authority to regulate student online speech.
In Blue Mountain School District v. Snyder (2012),
students made mockery of their principal online via the
social media site, MySpace. The student accused the
principal of being a sex addict and a pedophile. The
federal court asserted that if there was not substantial
disruption in school and if the speech occurred off
campus, the school authorities could not discipline
the student. In Layshock v. Hermitage School District
(2011), the 3rd Circuit Court reversed the district court

ruling in the discipline of a student who created a bogus
MySpace profile for his principal. The fake profile
identified the principal as having an interest in “big”
things, such as smoking a big blunt, being a big steroid
freak, having stolen a big keg, and having been drunk
a big number of times. Ruling similarly as in the Blue
Mountain School District case, the U.S States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that if the profile did
not create a substantial disruption in school functions,
then school personnel could not suspend students.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken to the First
Amendment rights for student speech that occurs off
school premises and/ or online. In an appeal to the
Supreme Court, Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools
(2012) was denied certitori. The case involved a West
Virginia student who was suspended for creating a
MySpace page and making accusations that another
student had herpes. The student was suspended for
using speech against another student via online media,
which was a violation of the school’s policies. The 4th
Circuit Federal Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals
in Richmond, Virginia upheld the decision of school
personnel to suspend the student, thus supporting the role
of the school administrator in disciplining the student
and acting in loco parentis. The court acknowledged
that the challenges school personnel face have become
a spectacle and are concerning. Additionally, the court
argued that the Constitution is not written to thwart
school personnel’s’ attempts to deal with bullying and

harassment problems in schools.
There have been drastic changes in the interpretation
of Constitutional rights of students. In the past, school
personnel acted upon the doctrine of in loco parentis
while the child was under their authority; however,
the Supreme Court’s decision in Goss v. Lopez, 1975,
changed the stance of discipline as it was once known
(Alexander & Alexander, 2009; Doverspike & Cone;
Gaustad, 1992; LaMorte, 2008; Mahon; McCarthy,
1976; Permuth & Mawdsley, 2001; Stover & Cook).
Corporal Punishment. Corporal punishment is another
hotly contested constitutional issue that has prevented
school personnel from standing in loco parentis
(Doverspike & Cone, 1992; Gatti & Gatti, 1990).
Historically, corporal punishment was used frequently
by school personnel, with courts using in loco parentis to
justify the punishment rendered to students (Alexander
& Alexander, 2009; Doverspike & Cone, 1992; Gatti
& Gatti, 1990; Greenlee, 2006). Corporal punishment
signifies the use of physical strength for the reason of
bringing about physical pain (Gatti & Gatti; LaMorte,
2008), such as hitting, paddling, or using force to hit
the buttocks of students (Greenlee, 2006). Greenlee
accredited corporal punishment to the biblical scripture
of, “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but
the one who loves their children is careful to discipline
them” (NIV Bible, Proverbs 13:24). After decades of
routine use, corporal punishment as form of discipline
was challenged in the case of Ingraham v. Wright (1977).
There were two central challenges in the Ingraham
case. The first challenge was whether the corporal
punishment administered by the school personnel was
considered cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S.

Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court addressed if
notice and a hearing were required for students prior to
being paddled. The plaintiffs were two Florida students
who were paddled in school because they were slow
to respond to the instructions of school officials. The
plaintiffs filed suit against the school district in Federal
Court arguing that the paddling was “cruel and unusual
punishment” (p. 430). According to plaintiff testimony,
Ingraham received over 20 thrashings with a paddle
while being held over a table in the principal’s office
by the assistant principal. The paddling injured the
plaintiff, leaving injuries that required him to receive
medical attention and spend several days absent from
school. The second plaintiff also received a paddling
leaving injury to his arms, thus depriving him of the full
use of his limbs for over a week.
The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 split decision, ruled
that the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel
and unusual punishment did not apply to the corporal
punishment administered to children in public schools.
They also concluded that students who were disciplined
in school were not denied their due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found
that the punishment administered in Ingraham was not
a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Furthermore,
the Supreme Court held that school personnel had the
authority to maintain discipline in school, and corporal
punishment is an authorized method of punishment (Gatti
& Gatti, 1990). The Justices were concerned exclusively
with the punishments in the context of criminal justice
situations and argued that the Eighth Amendment would
not be applicable to the discipline administered in public
schools.
In Cunningham v. Beavers (1989), the Supreme Court

upheld a district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s
action in seeking damages over a spanking administered
by school officials. A Texas public school principal saw
two kindergarten students snickering in the hall of the
school and issued each child two smacks on the buttocks
with a wooden paddle. Once the principal saw that the
children continued to snicker, she removed them from
their class and issued them three smacks on the buttocks
with a wooden paddle. The parents of the plaintiff
noticed bruises on the buttocks of the children and sought
medical attention. The medical practitioner revealed that
the students had been paddled too hard. The defendant,
Superintendent Beavers, conducted an investigation
into the incident and did not discipline school personnel
for their actions. The parents sued the school district,
Fall 2014 33
arguing that their due process and Constitutional rights
had been violated. The district court dismissed the case,
citing that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that
their substantive due process had been violated.
Search and Seizure. Researchers noted that New Jersey
v. T. L. O. (1985) was one the most well-known Supreme
Court cases involving education law, yet maintaining
the status of the in loco parentis doctrine (Alexander
& Alexander, 2009; Bracy, 2010). The Constitution
prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, with the
exception of certain situations in which there is not a
conflict with the safety of the student body of the school
and a student’s privacy (Taylor, 2001a). Particularly,
if school personnel had a logical suspicion or evidence

that a student has violated a rule, then search and seizure
becomes authorized (Alexander & Alexander; Bracy)
in New Jersey v. TLO, a teacher in a New Jersey high
school discovered two students smoking in the restroom
on the school campus, a violation of school board
policy. TLO, the plaintiff in the case, was taken to the
office, where she denied that any smoking occurred in
the restroom. After searching through TLO’s purse, the
assistant principal discovered the following items inside
the purse: a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a pipe,
marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills, and two letters that
seemed to indicate that TLO was involved in marijuana
trafficking at the high school. Once TLO was taken to the
police station, she admitted that she sold marijuana at the
school, and the juvenile court sentenced her to a year’s
probation. However, the New Jersey State Supreme
Court overturned the decision, stating that TLO’s Fourth
Amendment rights had been violated. Subsequently, the
State of New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court.
The issue at hand was questioned if students in school
have the same rights under the Fourth Amendment as
adults. New Jersey school officials argued that school
officials act in loco parentis for students who attend
public schools, and in light of that, school officials should
not need a warrant to make searches or to seize evidence.
Based on TLO’s actions, the search and seizure was
warranted with reasonable cause for the search of her
purse; therefore, the exclusionary rule does not apply.
However, TLO’s argument was that school personnel
are employees of the State and not representatives of
parents. As a result, school personnel are duty-bound
to respect the rights of student, including the right to
privacy. In fact, TLO argued that school personnel do
not have the right to act in place of the parents. The
Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of New Jersey.

Justice Byron White wrote the Court’s opinion, asserting
today’s decision sanctions school officials to conduct
full scale searches on a “reasonableness” standard whose
only definite content is that it is not the same test as the
‘probable cause’ standard found in the text of the Fourth
Amendment. In adopting this unclear, unprecedented,
and unnecessary departure from generally applicable
Fourth Amendment standards, the Court carves out
a broad exception to standards that this Court has
developed over years of considering Fourth Amendment
problems. Its decision is supported neither by precedent
nor even by a fair application of the “Balancing test of
power” it proclaims in this very opinion. (p. 354)
In an attempt to balance the rights of students and the
authority of school personnel, the decision in TLO
confirmed that there is a minimum level of doubt that
the decision lessened the anxiety in school personnel
to act in loco parentis (LaMorte, 2008). Because the
courts did not dissipate in loco parentis and school
personnel relationships, the court’s ruling suggested that
that school personnel were not in loco parentis, indeed,
school personnel were obligated to the state and to the
Constitution’s boundary against unreasonable searches
(LaMorte, 2008; Lewis, 2002). Researchers have noted
that the high court did not say that school personnel
are never to act in the place of parents (Alexander &
Alexander, 2009; DeMitchell, 2002; LaMorte).
The courts again used the doctrine of in loco parentis
in Veronia v. Acton (1995). A public high school in
Oregon, in the Veronia school district, was faced with
a drug crisis. The district developed a policy in which
all athletes had to be drug tested prior to participating
in extracurricular activities. The Acton family opposed

the policy, arguing that it violated their son’s privacy.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the drug testing
policy was constitutional, and that a student willingly
surrenders their privacy to become an athlete. Similarly,
in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held that that random
drug test of student athletes was constitutional because
the board identified a special reason for testing students
who participated in extracurricular activities in the
Board of Education of Independent School District #92
of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) landmark case.
The Supreme Court held that the Board of Education
policy constituted a reasonable search because it fulfilled
the policy’s purpose to prevent drug use among the
students.
According to Bishop and Miles (1998), Alabama follows
the TLO decision when conducting search and seizures
of students. Furthermore, Bishop and Miles provided
chronological steps in which Alabama school personnel
are to follow in event the reasonable cause for search and
seizure occurs. The steps are as follows: (1) distribute
the local board policy on search and seizure, (2) stay
away from sweep searches of all lockers of all students,
(3) document each time and the rationale for search
and seizure, and (4) corporate fully if authorities are
involved.
The Court’s decision would serve as a standard in future
cases, such as Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986).
One year following TLO, the Supreme Court concluded

that school personnel officially act in loco parentis to
protect and keep students safe. Ultimately, the viability
of in loco parentis continues to exist, and Supreme
Court decisions have enhanced the power behind the
line of reasoning when in loco parentis is put to use
(De Mitchell, 2002). Since the decision in TLO, school
personnel have had the legal authority to search students’
outer clothing garments, but the Constitutionality of
school strip searches has been in an indeterminate state
(Torres, Brady, & Stefkovoich, 2011).
In a 7 to 2 decision in Safford v. Redding (2009), the
Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs and asserted
that the strip search of the student was unjustified and
violated a student’s Fourth Amendment rights. Parents
of a student filed a suit against principal, an assistant,
and a nurse in the school district, claiming that a strip
search violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The defendants held suspicions that the plaintiff had
possession of drugs on the school premises, which the
school policy prohibited. Based on the suspicion, the
student’s backpack, outer clothing, and undergarments
were searched. The plaintiffs argued that the search
of the student’s undergarments was constitutionally
unreasonable. The Supreme Court agreed that the strip
search violated the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights.
CONCLUSION
The landmark case, Tinker et al. v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District (1969),
recognized students’ rights to freedom of speech and
expression. Yet, the decisions in Bethel School District v.
Fraser (1986), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007) formulated legal
standards that principals are required to adhere to when

dealing with matters relevant to student expression and
speech. Given that changing cultural and social norms
will continue to serve as the foundation for more civil
challenges to existing law, the need for school personnel
to be knowledgeable and trained about the legal
responsibilities of schools, and the rights of teachers and
students, remains critical (Davis & Williams, 1992).
Reglin (1992) warned that school personnel who are
negligent or unprofessional with the laws that surround
schools should take notice because they could be
subjected to financial penalties. Similarly, LaMorte
(2008) argued “those educators who fly by the seat of
their pants or who act on the basis of what they think
the law states may be in difficulty if sufficient thought
is not given to the legal implications and ramifications
of their policies or conduct” (p. xxv). For that reason, it
is imperative that school personnel remain aware of the
laws that should shape their policies and decision making
intended to safeguard student rights and avoid costly
litigation (Schimmel & Millitello, 2009). Furthermore,
Sparkman stated:
Public schools will continue to be influenced by
the law. School leaders must prepare themselves
by developing a basic understanding of the
legal framework of public education. They
also must have a working knowledge of and an
appreciation for the legal rights of teachers and
students. (p. 59) .
Fall 2014 35

Aiken, J. (2006). Schools of education. In F. W. English
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational leadership
and administration (Vol. 2, pp. 915-919).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American
public school law (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth
Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S.
675 (1986).
Bishop, H. L. & Miles, A. S. (1998).Due process handbook
for Alabama public school principals: A guide
to preventive law. Montgomery, AL: Alabama
State Department of Education.
Blokhuis, J. C. (2008). Channel One: When interests
and the public interest collide. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 343-363.
Blue Mountain School v. District Snyder, U. S.LEXIS
726 (2012).
Bolmeier, E. C., & Hopkins, G. F. (1956). What
are the important legal aspects of school
administration? NASSP Bulletin, 40(219), 162-
167.
Bracy, N. L. (2010). Circumventing the law: Students’
rights in schools with police. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(3), 294-
315.
Calabrese, R. L. (1991). Principal preparation: Ethical
considerations for universities. NASSP Bulletin,

75(539), 31-36.
Caldwell, M. T. (1986). Virginia principals and school
law (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 8718990)
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., &
Thomas, S. B. (2009). Legal rights of teachers
and students (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Cunningham v. Beavers, 858 F.2d 269 (5th Cir. 1988).
Davis, B., & Williams, J. (1992). Integrating legal issues
into teacher preparationprograms. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED347139)
DeMitchell, T. A. (2002). The duty to protect:
Blackstone’s doctrine of in loco parentis: A
lens for viewing the sexual abuse of students.
Brigham Young University Education and Law
Journal, 2002(1), 17-52.
Dillion, N. (2009). Hiring an attorney? American School
Board Journal, 196(2), 22-25.
Donaldson, G. A. (1986). Principals need more than
higher expectations. NASSP Bulletin, 70(490),
103-105.
Doverspike, D. E., & Cone, H. W. (1992). The principal
and the law: Elementary principal Series No. 7.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education
Foundation.

Dunklee, D., & Shoop, R. (1986). Teacher preparation
in a litigious society: Implications in times of
reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5),
57-60.
Eberwein, H. J. (2008). Raising legal literacy in public
schools, a call for principal leadership:
A national study of secondary principals’
knowledge of public school law (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3325154)
Feldman, N. (2007, August 26). The way we live now;
Universal faith. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com
Frels, K. (2000). Balancing students’ rights and school
responsibility. Houston Law Review, 37, 117-
123.
Garrison, X. L., & Hardin, E. (1973). The principal and
school law. NASSP Bulletin, 57(376), 48-54.
Gajda, R. (2008). States expectations for teachers’
knowledge about school law. Action in Teacher
Education, 30(2), 15-24.
Gatti, D. J., & Gatti, R. D. (1990). The educator’s
REFERENCE

encyclopedia of school law. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gaustad, J. (1992). School discipline: ERIC Digest,
Number 78. ERIC Clearinghouse in
Educational Management. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED350727)
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S.
98 (2001).
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975).
Greenlee, B. J. (2006). Corporal punishment. In F. W.
English (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational
leadership and administration (Vol. 1, pp. 219-
220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260
(1988).
Heubert, J. (1997). The more we get together: Improving
collaboration between educators and their
lawyers. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3),
531-582.
Hutton, T. (2009). Need to know: Legal literacy in
school districts. Leadership Insider Practical
Perspectives on School Law & Policy.
Imber, M., & Gayler, D. E. (1988). A statistical analysis
of trends in education-related litigation since
1960. Educational Administration Quarterly,
24(1), 55-78.

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651 (1977).
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, U. S. LEXIS 693
(2012)
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining
sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-
610.
LaMorte, M. W. (2008). School law: Cases an concepts
(9th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 650 F.3d 205 (3
rd Cir. 2011).
Leiberman, J. K. (1981). The litigious society. New
York: Basic Books.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington,
DC: The Education Schools Project.
Lewis, N. A. (2002, June 28). The Supreme Court:
Student rights; Court’s stance on searches
evolves. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/28/
national/28SEAR.html
Littleton, M., Higham, R., & Styron, K. (2001,
November). Analysis of legal knowledge of
school officials in Texas. Paper presented at
the 47th Annual Meeting of the Education Law
Association, in Albuquerque, NM.
Littleton, M. (2008). Teachers’ knowledge of education

law. Action in Teacher Education, 30(2), 71-78.
Mahon, J. P. (1979). Beyond judicial intervention:
Student discipline and the courts. NASSP
Bulletin, 63(424), 68-73.
Mawdsley, R. D. (1998). The principal and religious
activity. NASSP Bulletin, 82(599), 10-17.
McCarthy, M. M. (1976). School law: A growing
concern. Teacher education forum. Bureau of
Educational Personnel Development, 4(1).
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED128296)
Militello, M., Schimmel, D., & Eberwein, H. J. (2009).
If they knew, they would change: How legal
knowledge impacts principals’ practice. NASSP
Bulletin, 93(1), 27-52.
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393 (2007).
Murray, K. T., & Evans, C. S. (2001). U. S. Supreme
Court revisits school prayer. NASSP Bulletin,
84(620), 73-82.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
(2008). Standards for advanced programs
in educational leadership for principals,
superintendents, curriculum directors, and
supervisors. Retrieved from http://www.
npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.
pdf
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U. S. 325 (1985).
Okun, S. J. (1996). Religion in the public schools: What

does the First Amendment allow? NASSP
Bulletin, 80(581), 26-35.
Fall 2014 37
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, D.
(2010). How can we improve school discipline?
Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58.
Permuth, S. & Mawdsley, R. D. (2001). The Supreme
Court on education: Five defining cases.
Principal Leadership, 1(8), 22-33.
Petzko, V. (2008). The perceptions of new principals
regarding the knowledge and skills important
to their initial success. NASSP Bulletin, (92)3,
224-250.
Reglin, G. L. (1990). Worried about litigation? Test
your knowledge of school law.The Executive
Educator, 12(3), 21-22.
Reglin, G. L. (1992). Public schools educators’ knowledge
of selected Supreme Court decisions affecting
daily public school operations. Journal of
Educational Administration, 30(2), 26-30.
Reyes, A. (2006). Discipline in schools. In F. W. English
and administration (Vol. 1, p. 294). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Russo, C. J. (2005). The educational rights of parents

and students: An American perspective. R. CEJ
Brasilia, 9(31), 43-52.
Russo, C. J. (2006). Student rights. In F. W. English (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and
Administration (Vol. 2, pp.982-984). Thousand
Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U. S.
1130 (2009).
Schimmel, D., & Militello, M. (2007). Legal literacy for
teachers: A neglected responsibility. Harvard
Educational Review, 77(3), 257-284.
Schimmel, D., & Millitello, M. (2009).The dangers of
not knowing: Why your teachers should be
legally literate. Leadership Insider Practical
Perspectives on School Law & Policy.
Retrieved from http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Governance/Policies/Newsletters/
Insider-May-09.pdf
Sparkman, W. E. (1990). Schools and law: A basic
foundation for administrations. NASSP
Bulletin, 74(529), 59-64.
Stover, D., & Cook, G. (2009). The legal list: Top 10
issues. American School Board J o u r n a l ,
196(2), 12-21.
Sughrue, J. A., Goldenberg, D. H., & Permuth, S.
(2006). Language and writing in school law. In
S.Permuth & R. D. Mawdsley (Eds.), Research
methods for studying legal issues in education
(pp. 185-210). Dayton, OH: Education Law

Association.
Sweeton, N., & Davis, J. (2004). The evolution of in loco
parentis. Retrieved from
http://www.sahe.colostate.edu/Data/Sites/1/documents/
journal/Journal2003_2004vol13/Loco_
Parentis.pdf
Taylor, K. R. (2001). What about legal literacy. Principal
Leadership, 2(2), 66-70.
Taylor, K. R. (2009). Back to basics. Principal
Taylor, K. R. (2010). Legal literacy 101. Principal
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District, 393 U. S 503 (1969).
Underwood, J., & Noffke, J. (1990). Good news: The
litigation scales are tipping in your favor.
Executive Educator, 12(3), 16-20.
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U. S 646 (1995).
Zirkel, P. A., & Richardson, S. N. (1989). The “explosion”
in education litigation. West’s Education Law
Reporter, 53(3), 767-791
Zirkel, P. A. (2006a). Paralyzing fear? Avoiding distorted
assessments of the effect of law on education.
Journal of Law & Education, 35(4), 461-495.
Zirkel, P. A. (2006b). Trends in law. In F. W. English

and administration (Vol. 2, p. 560). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Copyright of National Teacher Education Journal is the property
of National Teacher
Education Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Final Exam, Part 2: Essay (SLOs A, B, C, D, & E)
· Format: Double-spaced, 12pt font., .doc, .docx, rtf, and .pdf
only.
· WARNING: DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. If you read any sources,
even our textbook, properly cite anything you use in your paper.
I will check each essay for plagiarism so don't risk it! Feel free
to ask me questions about proper citations.
Critical Formal Analysis of Get Out
Write a 3-5 page (750-1500 word count) essay in response to
the prompt below. Value: up to 150 pts.
Throughout the semester you have studied the main aspects of
formal film analysis: style and form (repetition/variation,
motifs, functions, etc.), narrative form, mise-en-scene,
cinematography, editing, sound, and types. These are the basic
tools with which filmmakers tell stories. Each director
highlights one or more formal categories to express the a given
film's thematic content. For example, Baby Driver and The
Conversation both utilize film sound as the primary expressive
technique while also making particularly great use of mise-en-
scene and editing. Similarly, Rashomon clearly broke the mold
with its narrative, but also presents highly stylized mise-en-

scene and cinematography. In all of these cases, specific formal
properties are employed to express the film's major themes.
For your part 2 of your final exam, write a critical formal
analysis of Get Out. Your goal is to explain what the film's
major themes are and how those themes are expressed through
specific formal properties. But, there's a catch! You may only
work with mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, and/or
sound.
Be sure to:
1. Explain the film's themes. What is it about or what is the
"main point?" How would you characterize the implicit and
symptomatic meanings? (See Chapter 2 for a refresher on these
terms.)
2. Identify the formal techniques that express those meanings
most effectively. Working only with mise-en-scene,
cinematography, editing and/or sound, explain which categories
are most prominently used to convey the film's ideas.
3. Explain how your chosen techniques are used to express the
film's meanings. In order to do this you will need to define
terms (techniques) and then demonstrate how those techniques
create meaning. Additionally, you need to refer to copious
examples in detail to prove your point. For each example be
sure to use specific terms. Instead of referring to
"cinematography," demonstrate how shot distance (i.e., LS,
XLS, CU, etc), angle (i.e., high, low, straight-on, canted),
height (i.e., low, eye-level, high), movement (i.e., handheld,
track/dolly, etc), focus properties (i.e., racking, selective, etc),
lens manipulations, etc., work to create meaning. Screenshots
are highly recommended.
4. Compose an essay explaining/demonstrating all of the above;
be sure to incude a thesis statement, supporting paragraphs, and
a conclusion.
Some additional recommendations:
· Do not provide a summary. You do not need to summarize the
film for this essay. Write as though your reader is very familiar
with the film (which I am, obvs).

· Use Chapter 8 "Style as Formal System." All of our
discussions have been mini version of this assignment (so
examples of formal analysis of meaning generation are evident
across our work this semester) but you may benefit from seeing
the example presented in Chaptter 8.
· Revise and proofread.

National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4 .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4 .docx

Similar to National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4 .docx (20)

More from hallettfaustina

More from hallettfaustina (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

National Teacher Education Journal • Volume 7, Number 4 .docx