Prevailing view of the courts regarding teacher’s free speech in the classroom

Please explain the prevailing view of the courts regarding teacher’s free speech in the classroom. Is this a public concern?

Based on the current US Supreme Court’s verdict concerning public employees’ extent of free speech particularly teachers, respective institutions bear the mandate of regulating this freedom but in line with already set school’s curriculum (Kern & Alexander, 2012). Therefore, teachers are free to express their views concerning certain matters of importance touching on public’s interests like wars but their statements should not bear any detrimental effect on their respective employers’ businesses. Based on Pickering v. Board of Education’s case, the court upholds putting into test effects of statement issued by a certain teacher while in pursuant of his or her duties before the employer comes up with the idea of one’s employment dismissal (Sanchez, 2009).

Suppose the institution is not willing to have certain statements made by their teachers in a classroom setting, then such schools through their educational leaders should issue a notice to teachers and other scholars requested to make speeches early in advance. This is a “public concern” because if handled inappropriately by respective authorities especially by schools’ boards will jeopardize numerous employments of numerous teachers. Since, making a statement or issuing certain utterances people may misinterpret them to lodge pricy and malicious suits against teachers.

What is curricular in nature?

This statement refers to all courses deemed effective and beneficial by respective institutions’ authorities meant to impart knowledge to students while in schools in order to prepare them for outside economic tasks (Kern & Alexander, 2012).
How does what is said and taught in classrooms affect ethical decision-making by educational leaders?

Utterances and varied aspects taught in classrooms by teachers significantly influence educational leaders’ decisions (Kaplin & Lee, 2014). This is especially when deciding who to be in their institutions making varied speeches and teaching students certain subjects, for instance, those touching on political matters. Therefore, educational leaders due to this factor and fear of referred by government or other authorities as supporters of certain political ideals end up being selective on whom to procure his or her scholarly services (Morrison et al. 2013). Scholarly services in this case range from motivational speakers, teachers to specific subjects’ experts in different fields.

In addition, schools’ boards through their educational leaders compel them always to be issuing notices to any speaker intending to talk about certain topics. This is to ensure scholars all through stick to what the school’s authorities have allowed and avoid those statements prohibited from presenting.

References

• Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (2014). The Law of Higher Education: Student Version. Jossey-Bass Inc Publisher.
• Kern, A. & Alexander, M. D. (2012). American public school law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
• Morrison, A. B., Herman, S. N., O’Neil, R. M., Collins, R. L., Richards, R. D., & Liptak, A. (2013). Panel discussion on recent U.S. Supreme court free speech decisions & the implications of these cases for American society. Albany Law Review, 76(1), 781-826.
• Sanchez, J. (2009). Constitutional Cases Involving Teachers. (Cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 90(10), 724-727.