-- E Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (p.265)

--E Jones v. Clear Creek ISD (p.265)

If the senior class votes in the affirmative, then an invocation and benediction may be given by

a student volunteer. However, the message must be nonsectarian and nonproseltyzing

--F Lee v. Weismann (p.255, 265)

Religiously oriented baccalaureate ceremonies may be held off school

grounds and without school sponsorship.

--G Zorach v. Clauson (p.254)

Schools may release students for off-campus religious instruction.

-- Bown v. Gwinett (p.264)

Schools may set aside time for silent meditation or prayer

--D Hall v. Board of School Commissionsers of Conechuh County (p.263)

Students may not be allowed to conduct devotional readings over the

school's public address system.

--C Doe v. Duncanville ISD (p.263)

Neither the public school nor its employees may sponsor prayer at school or at

extracurricular activies and athletic events

(C Doe v. Duncanville ISD) (p.263)

Athletes may pray before or after a game but the activity must no suggest that school

officials are sponsoring or participating in the prayer

--A. Bauchmann v. West High School (p.279)

School choirs and bands may perform religious music and the programs may be performed in churches and other religious

venues

--H Santa Fe v Doe (p.269)

Invocations at school sporting events are not permissible

Pierce v Society of Sisters (p 25 & 44)

Private SchoolState cannot “force” a child to attend public

school. Parents can use private school.

Edgewood v. Kirby (p 36-39)

School financeCourt mandated “equitable” school financing

Robinhood: “recapture” from property wealthy schools.

San Antonio v. Rodriguez (p. 34, 35, 39)

School financeDisparity in tax base gives poorer

children less money

Brown v. Georgetown

Verbal agreements may not be legally binding.

Wright v. Jackson

Require to live in district (city)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (p.243)

School officals have broad censorship powers over student newspapers provided

their actions are based on "legitimate pedagogical concerns"

Kirkland v. Northside ISD (p.229)

• Teachers are not free to totally dictate/control curriculum

•Instructional materials/activities must comply district guideline

Pickering v. Board of Education (p.214)

Upheld teachers' freedom of expression provied remarks not made recklessly, with knowledge of their

falsity, not resuling in impaired performance of teacher, or that superiorsuborinate relationship is undermined.

Texas Whistleblower Act (p.223)

Governmental bodies prohibited from retaliating against an mployee who reports a violation of law to the appropriate law enforcement authority if

the report is made in good faith

Tinder v. Des Moines School District (p.239-240)

•Neither student nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse door.• However, need for specific message-strong likligood that

message will be understood.•Must not be disruptive or involve invading the rights of others

Shelton v. Tucker (p.236)

•Guarantees teachers' freedom to associate• May join organizations/not required to

identify all organizations with which associated.

Owasso ISD v. Falvo (2002) -

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed in 2002 that FERPA does not apply to student grading of each other's

papers in class. The grades on students papers in class. The grades on students papers are not covered under FERPA until

the teacher has entered the grades into the grade book.

Veronia School District v Acton (2002)

Voting 5-4, the US Supreme Court upheld drug testing beyond the context of competitive athletics to students participating in extracurricular activities to students participating (choir, band, academic team, national honor society…) However, students are able to refuse taking the drug test and drop out of the

extracurricular activity as opposed to failing the drug test and risking expulsion from school. They did not endorse a drug testing program for all students.

Jones v Houston ISD

Upheld that administrators were immune from liability for circulating a memorandum within the district relating

to the alleged deficiencies of a substitute teacherTEC 22.051