Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

TEMPLATE FOR TEACHERS RIGHTS CASE ANALYSES Identify the section of law in which the case falls by checking the box that applies to the case that is being analyzed. Academic Freedom Given the box you checked, provide legal background on this section of law (you will be paraphrasing the lecture notes) and then narrow down to which test/s or legal principle/s should be applied to this case and describe why. In the case being examined a teacher at Lumpkin County High School was fired for allowing four students to don mock Ku Klux Klan outfits for a final project in her advanced placement course combining U.S. history with film education. The project involved tracing the history of racism in America. A group of five students took on the subject, which included covering the history of the notorious white supremacist group which had large chapters in Stone Mountain, Ga. and Tuscaloosa, Ala. I believe that this case falls under the section of the law classified as Academic Freedom. From its origin in German universities, the concept of academic freedom historically was applied to post secondary education and embodied the principle that faculty members should be free from governmental controls in conducting research and impairing knowledge to students. Public school teachers have asserted a similar right to academic freedom, but courts have not extended the protections found in higher education.(Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 72). Academic freedom includes the right for teachers to speak freely about their subjects, to Experiment with new ideas (this was indeed the issue in this case), and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods. Courts have held that academic freedom is based of the First Amendment and is fundamental to our democratic society. It is, however, most often applied at the college level. Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom). Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized "1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure",teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution. Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes

Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

condemnation from the academic community itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom). In reviewing school board restrictions on teachers classroom activities, the judiciary considers several factors such as: Whether the teachers have been provided adequate notice that the use of specific teaching methodologies or materials will result in disciplinary action, Relevance of the method to the course of study and age maturity of the students, Support of the method by the profession, Threat of disruption posed by the method and Impact of the strategy on community norms. (Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). Other factors mentioned in the lecture notes are: The age of the students and their maturity, The words and materials used, The purpose of the material and its relevance to the curriculum, The opinion of other educators as to the quality of the material and the effect on the class (disruption test). (Trevaskis, 2010). Lawyer for the teacher Copy all parts or points of the test (make sure to include each and every component) and generate the arguments that the parents lawyer could make to win the case. The lawyer on behalf of the teacher could argue that a teacher can not be punished nor prohibited from discussing controversial issues such as slavery and the KKK if it is related to the courses curriculum. Ms. Catherine Ariemma, who teaches an advanced placement (AP) course combining U.S. history with film education was covering an important and sensitive topic in American history with her students. The topic being covered fell with-in the curriculum mandated for her AP course. Ms. Ariemma attempted to make her students learning experience engaging and meaningful, therefore, she allowed her students to take ownership of their final project for her course. In an attempt to experiment with this new idea of making learning engaging and meaningful she allowed a small group of students to don mock Ku Klux Klan outfits and film a documentary at school for their fellow AP classmates to watch. Although Ms. Ariemma mentioned that she might handle things differently in the future she did not violate any school, state nor government policies in regards to this action. State laws and school board policies establish the basic contours of the curriculum, but teachers retain some discretion in choosing strategies to convey prescribed content. (Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). Ms. Ariemma strategy choice of active engagement by allowing students to take ownership of their work was in no violation of school board policy; although one parent whose child attends the school, but was not enrolled in the AP course found the incident unjust and decided to complain. In accordance to our text, Educators are no legally vulnerable when they are teaching the prescribed curriculum, even though their superiors instruct them to honor request from school patrons, such as parents in this case.(Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). Courts have held that academic freedom is based of the First Amendment and is

Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

fundamental to our democratic society. It is, however, most often applied at the college level. In the U.S. today AP courses are seen and honored as colligate level courses. A primary consideration in reviewing the legitimacy of classroom activities is whether instructional strategies are related to course objectives.(Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). In this case the activity allowed by the teacher related directly to course objectives. The students in the AP class were age appropriate, as well as age and academically mature enough to handle such an activity and they all could interpret its relevance to course objectives. The project involved tracing the history of racism in America. A group of five students took on the subject, which included covering the history of the notorious white supremacist group which had large chapters in Stone Mountain, Ga. and Tuscaloosa, Ala. Ariemma noted the class has 15 students of multiple races, but no black students. According to Superintendent Dewey Moye, Ariemma has no disciplinary history at the school. Nonetheless, school district administrators of the roughly 90% percent white school system are taking the incident seriously. This stuff happened in history. Do you ignore it? No, he said. But you certainly dont walk the hallway in the garb. (http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=78) Although we may have our own opinions about what is acceptable in society and what is not; Superintendent Dewey Moye made a valid point in regards to historical events, Do you ignore it? No, therefore, as noted Mr. Moye is in support that the controversial topic must be covered and emphasized, however, instead of walking the school corridors in the garb; possibly keep things more contained in a classroom; Ms. Ariemma clearly noted that allowing the students to film at school was poor judgment as well, yet is poor judgment is not crime or violation of any school board policy. So, was Ms. Ariemma truly in violation of any offense if the courses objective stated this controversial topic had to be covered, NO! Ms. Ariemma is only at fault of displeasing a parent. In accordance to the text, Teachers cannot be forced to discontinue instructionally relevant activities solely because of parental displeasure. The Fifth Circuit ruled that a teachers use of a simulation to teach about post-Civil War U.S. history was related to legitimate educational objectives, and therefore dismissal for refusing to stop using the simulation impaired the teachers academic rights. .(Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 75). In the case being examined Ms. Ariemmas choice to allow a small group of students in her AP course to don mock Ku Klux Klan outfits and film a documentary at the school for their fellow AP classmates to watch in class. Although the video/film was not a simulation; the film was not an action intended to possess a threat of disruption, but instead an action to enrich students understanding of U.S. history and film education. Lastly, no one on the school board stated that an activity in this degree in regards to this particular teaching methodologies nor the KKK materials used would result in any known disciplinary actions. As noted in the Keefe v Geanakas case, (1969) which was reviewed by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a teachers use of creative instruction which extends beyond the curriculum to enhance students learning in AP/collegiate level courses a punishable offense; if the lesson being taught in conformance with boardapproved objectives? The answer is NO, and the Keefe v Geanakas case bears proof.

Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

Lawyer for the school Copy all parts or points of the test (make sure to include each and every component) and generate the arguments that the schools lawyer could make to win the case. The lawyer on representing the school would argue that the lesson carried out by Ms. Ariemma was not board-approved and according to the lecture notes, in a 1995 Virginia case, even at the potential of further disruption, a teacher was fired (Trevaskis, p.26). In conjunction with reviewing school board restrictions on teachers classroom activities, the judiciary considers several factors such as: Whether the teachers have been provided adequate notice that the use of specific teaching methodologies or materials will result in disciplinary action, Relevance of the method to the course of study and age maturity of the students, Support of the method by the profession, Threat of disruption posed by the method and Impact of the strategy on community norms. (CambronMcCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). Ms. Ariemma was well aware that the use of mocked Ku Klux Klan outfits in the school building was unacceptable and against school board policies due to the associated threat of disruption that could possibly follow such an incident. In accordance to our textbook, although reasoning that teachers possess academic interest, courts have refrained from establishing precise legal principles in this domain. Instead, courts have balanced teachers interest in academic freedom against school boards interests in assuring an appropriate instructional program and efficient school operations. (Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 72). Upon balancing the teachers interest and the school boards interest it is evident that due to the uproar caused by the instructional activity that the school boards interest was blatantly ignored by Ms. Ariemma upon planning and allowing such an activity to take place in the school during school hours without formal notice to help adequately inform passing students, parents and other educators of the intent and purpose of the activity and its relevance. Students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) courses have differentiated age levels as well as maturity levels. Although students are academically inclined to take such collegiate level courses it doesnt mean they are at the maturity level of a college student, since most students enrolled in high school AP course are between the ages of 15-17 years old. In accordance to the textbook, Public school teachers have asserted a similar right to academic freedom, but courts have not extended the protections found in higher education.(Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 72). Therefore, although these students are enrolled in a higher education class they are not college students and therefore, teachers must follow the same public school levels of academic freedom and Ms. Ariemma failed to do so when she decided on her own to allow a small group of students to don mock Ku Klux Klan outfits for a final project in her advanced placement course combining U.S. history with film education without requesting nor even asking for consent of her fellow professional community to support the method. According to Superintendent Dewey Moye, Ariemma has no disciplinary history at the school. Nonetheless, school district

Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

administrators of the roughly 90% percent white school system are taking the incident seriously. This stuff happened in history. Do you ignore it? No, he said. But you certainly dont walk the hallway in the garb. (http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=78) This is a direct statement from a professional in Ms. Ariemmas community and his direct quote supports that he himself did not support the teaching method carried out by Ms. Ariemma. Lastly, Although the classroom activity was related to the course objectives the method behind the delivery of the instruction is unacceptable and not supported by the school nor its community. No film company has professional rated the film that Ms. Ariemma intended to show, therefore, how can one truly determine that the content was not Rated R. Ms. Ariemmas action clearly posed a threat of disruption to the operation of the school especially since the incident occurred in a public area (the schools corridor). Luckily the incident at Lumpkin County High School only sparked a few complaints however, it is evident that situations similar to this have happened at other public institutions that have sparked huge uproars. Your overall assessmentWho has the stronger case? Justify your opinion always basing it on legal principles (so although it is your assessment, it should have some grounding in the law). Solely based upon the facts presented in the article, the textbook and the lecture notes in regards to Academic Freedom it is clear to me that the school has the stronger case; being that the article failed to mention if Ms. Ariemma was tenured or not. I am treating the case as though she was not a tenured teacher, since the caption stated to assume she was fired. I would believe it would be impossible to fire a tenured teacher in Georgia based on the above documented action due to state tenure laws. In reviewing school board restrictions on teachers classroom activities, the judiciary considers several factors such as: Whether the teachers have been provided adequate notice that the use of specific teaching methodologies or materials will result in disciplinary action, Relevance of the method to the course of study and age maturity of the students, Support of the method by the profession, Threat of disruption posed by the method and Impact of the strategy on community norms. (Cambron-McCabe, et al., 2009 p. 74). 1. Was Ms. Ariemma provided adequate notice that the use of the mentioned specific teaching methodologies or KKK materials would result in disciplinary action? This information was not provided in the article however, Ms. Ariemma was aware that any activity that could potentially pose a threat of disruption to the operation of the school would result in disciplinary action. Situations like this were not unfamiliar in the education arena, especially since, in a 1995 Virginia case, even at the potential of further disruption, a teacher was fired (Trevaskis, p.26).

Darry Saunders EDU-702 7/20/11

2. In regards to the relevance of the method to the course of study and age maturity of the students it is obvious that racism is a topic in U.S. history that can not be ignored and it is relevant to the course of study, however the teachers strategy and method for teaching the concept was inappropriate based upon the age level and maturity level of high school students. Ms. Ariemma also attested to the fact that the students who wore the sheets were shaken when they realized that other students were upset, this further validates the high school students are not mature enough to encounter such an activity. 3. Ms. Ariemma failed to gain support of the method by the profession. According to the Superintendent Dewey Moyes statement, This stuff happened in history. Do you ignore it? No, he said. But you certainly dont walk the hallway in the garb. This statement validates the fact that Ms. Ariemma failed to gain support of the method by her profession. The administrative staff at her school also do not support the teaching method used by Ms. Ariemma and therefore are taking the incident seriously. 4. The method used posed a huge threat of disruption for it made many students upset and left others shaken. Ms. Ariemma also attested to the fact that the students who wore the sheets were shaken when they realized that other students were upset. 5. The strategy posed a high impact on community norms for slavery is no longer accepted in todays society, yet in states such as Georgia organizations such as the KKK still exist and are actively engaging in hate crimes against African Americans. Racial incidents at public institutions can easily be escalated into community wide conflict such as the Jenga Six incident that happened in Louisiana. Although only one parent complained in this case it still made national news and therefore, teaching incidents like this are unacceptable and should not be tolerated by any school system. In closing based solely on the facts presented I feel that the school board has a stronger case and their decision will not be over turned unless possibly if Ms. Ariemma was a tenured teacher. References Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Thomas, S. B. (2009). Legal rights of teachers and Students, 2nd edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. http://legalclips.nsba.org/?p=78 Trevaskis, D. (2010). Module 6, lecture on teacher rights, part 1. [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from:http://www.slideshare.net/hhanson1/module-6teachers-rights-part-1-2010.