Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Monday, February 8, 2021

The "Situation Room" and Middle Schools Set To Open For In-Person Classes on February 25

 

Students socially distance as they wait to go inside the One World Middle School at 3750 Baychester Ave. in
the Bronx on Oct. 1, 2020. 
(Theodore Parisienne/for New York Daily News)

Parents and teachers in NYC will have to reach a level of trust in the information that all measures have been taken to provide health and safety to all who go back to NYC buildings, in this case, all middle schools.

How many parents, teachers, staff have heard of the "Situation Room"? Send me a comment to this blog if you have, and what happens inside. 

Parents we spoke to are skeptical of anything the NYC DOE says. Grades are still being inflated, many students are getting high grades without doing any work, testing is non-existent, and information is too little or none about important information such as whether nurses are available on-site, how many kids do not, will not, or cannot, wear masks and other important topics.

Teachers are also aware of the misinformation coming out of Tweed, the NYC DOE headquarters, that all safety measures have been taken.

The bottom line is, all stakeholders must believe that the city government is not just trying to get funding streams working again.

Whether this will happen is an unknown.

City Has Lost Contact With 2,600 Students Since March

City Has Lost Contact With 2,600 Students Since March

City Has Lost Contact With 2,600 Students Since MarBetsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

Letter from Chancellor Carranza:

Dear Middle School Families, 

 I hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy. I am writing to you today with an exciting update: we will be reopening our middle schools for in-person learning on Thursday, February 25.

 Since the beginning of the school year, I have heard from many of you who are eager to have your child return to a physical classroom. We are pleased that we can now re-open our buildings to students in grades 6, 7, and 8 in a manner that prioritizes health and safety, while offering the educational experience of learning with our dedicated educators in person.

 

We have developed strong practices to help keep school communities healthy and safe, and to maximize in- person learning time for students learning in our buildings. Here is what you need to know about how your school will return to in-person learning:

 

Weekly COVID-19 Testing and Mandatory Consent

 

·       All schools will have 20% of students and staff randomly tested on a weekly basis. 

·       All students who have not already done so are required to provide consent for testing by their first scheduled in-person learning day in order to learn in person.

·       Families are encouraged to submit consent through your NYC Schools Account at mystudent.nyc prior to their child’s first day of in-person learning.

 If you already have a NYCSA account linked to your student(s):

·       Log in, click your student’s name, click “Manage Account,” and then when a dropdown menu appears, click “Consent Forms.”

·       Read the page, and then choose the consent option at the end for your student.

 

If you do not already have a NYCSA account:

·       You can create one right away! If you have an account creation code from your school, you can create a full account in approximately five minutes, and then provide consent as described above.

·       If you do not have an account creation code from your school, you can still provide your consent right away by clicking “Manage Consent” under “COVID-19 Testing” and filling out your and your child’s information to provide consent.

·       You can also print and submit the form attached to this letter.

·       Students who do not submit consent will be immediately transitioned to fully remote learning.

 Learning Preference & In-Person Schedule

Those of you who chose blended learning as your child’s learning preference, either prior to the beginning of the school year or during the November opt-in period, will soon be contacted by your child’s school with their new schedule.

 If you previously selected blended learning but wish to stay fully remote, you may do so by changing your preference as soon as possible at https://www.nycenet.edu/surveys/learningpreference.

 

Attendance

Please note that students in blended learning are required to attend in-person on a consistent basis. Your school

will reach out if your child is not attending in-person regularly, and will transition your child to fully remote learning if irregular in-person attendance continues. This will allow schools to maximize in-person instructional

days for students who are attending in-person.

 

If You Travel

Please remember that students and staff who have recently traveled outside of New York to a place on the

State’s travel advisory list must quarantine for 10 days, or test out of the 10-day quarantine based on the State’s guidance, which can be found at https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/covid-19-travel-advisory.

 ·       DOE students continue to have access to priority testing at H+H sites across the city; a list of sites can be found here: https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-year-20-21/return-to-school-2020/health-and- safety/covid-19-testing.

 

No matter where your child is learning, we are committed to ensuring they receive a strong, supportive education. We know how important school is for your student, whether blended or remote—and our dedication to them remains unwavering during this challenging time.

 

Sincerely,

Richard A. Carranza

Chancellor

New York City Department of Education

NYC Middle Schools Will Restart In-Person Classes February 25

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 
FEB 08, 2021  9:18 AM

New York City middle schools will restart in-person classes on Feb. 25 after more than three months of remote-only school, officials announced Monday.
The public junior highs have been closed for in-person instruction since the middle of November when the entire school system was briefly shuttered because of rising COVID-19 rates.
Officials reopened preschools, elementary schools, and District 75 programs for students with complex disabilities at the beginning of December with increased testing, but said they needed more time to plan the logistics of middle and high school reopening.
Schools with in-person classes are required to test 20% of students and staff on-site each week. Officials say they now have the testing capacity to extend that regimen to middle schools.
Officials said they’ll also add staff to the “situation room” — a clearinghouse for recording school-based COVID-19 cases and relaying information to contact tracers.
Temporary school closures triggered by multiple COVID-19 cases in the same school building have become commonplace since the partial reopening in early December.
Roughly 62,000 students in grades six to eight had signed up for in-person classes before the school system shuttered in November.
Situation Room - NYC DOE Press Release:

City Launches Department of Education COVID-19 Situation Room

September 14, 2020

Multi-agency partnership provides a single point-of-contact for rapid information sharing and response to COVID-19 cases in schools

NEW YORK—Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chancellor Richard A. Carranza today announced the opening of the DOE COVID Response Situation Room—a  multi-agency partnership between the Department of Education, Department of Health and Mental Health, and the Test & Trace Corps—to facilitate a rapid response to positive COVID-19 cases in public schools. The Situation Room provides a single point-of-contact between schools and agency partners responsible for performing both testing, contact tracing, and ensuring the appropriate interventions are being taken by school communities.

“The Situation Room is the precise system we need to identify, trace, and treat positive cases within our school communities,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio.  “My pledge is simple: every case will be met with swift and decisive action to keep transmission low and our kids and teachers safe.”

This unprecedented school year requires all hands on deck, and that’s exactly what we’ll have in the Situation Room, resulting in quick, decisive action for our schools and clarity and transparency for all families,” said Schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza. “ Our principals will now have a one-stop shop to raise concerns and receive rapid, coordinated responses that put the health and safety of our school communities first.”

“Keeping our students and teachers safe requires an unprecedented response to an unprecedented time.  Through our multi-agency partnership, we are ensuring a clear path of communication, decisiveness, and transparency to give Principals and school leaders incorrect information they need in order to lead their communities as well as providing families and staff with the transparency and clarity of action they deserve.  Our focus is the health and wellbeing of our school communities and we will achieve this together.” said Buildings Commissioner Melanie E. La Rocca.

Beginning today, school leaders can call the Situation Room if they receive notice from a staff member, student, or parent/family member of a positive COVID-19 test or if a student or staff member is isolating or sent home with symptoms. School leaders are encouraged to contact the Situation Room if they have any alerts, questions, or concerns related to responding to suspected or confirmed cases.

Upon reporting a possible case to the Situation Room, DOHMH will verify the case and, if needed, trigger a Test + Trace investigation. Case response will begin within three hours for NYC residents, with documented cases being confirmed as quickly as 15 minutes. Schools will communicate to all families and students within school anytime a case is laboratory-confirmed and what next steps need to be taken - including whether or not students and staff need to quarantine or if the school will be temporarily shut down.

The Situation Room will be open Monday through Friday, 5:30 AM – 9:30 PM, and Sunday, 11:00 AM – 9:30 pm. Response to reported cases will follow the previously announced health and safety policies found here.  

In the interest of the health and safety of our entire city, DOHMH recommends that all New Yorkers get tested, whether or not they have symptoms or are at increased risk. School staff and students can receive free, expedited COVID-19 testing at 22 city-run testing locations. Testing is one component of stopping the spread that, when combined with social distancing, face coverings, proper hand hygiene, and staying home when you are sick, can significantly decrease the risk of transmission.

Tuesday, February 2, 2021

MORE Releases A Fall 2020 NYC Department of Education Staff Survey


 

The NYC Department of Education typically denies anything that doesn't suit their "We are doing a Great Job" headline.

The city-wide lack of transparency of COVID data, and the virus infesting on-site teaching and learning, interferes with funding streams. The NYC DOE gets federal funds based upon the number of students present and seated in classrooms. This is called "seat time".

As I have written many times over the past 12 years of this blog, if the Department revealed what is actually going on in NYC schools, parents would withdraw all the kids, at least in the worst offenders of environmental and educational neglect and/or malfeasance.

What is a fact: the public does not know what the data really is inside the DOE for COVID deaths, student absences, teacher malfeasance, and/or teaching assessment

See here:

NYC Department of Education Crashes and Burns With the Case of a Student Given Fake Report Cards But Never Registered

NYC teacher, school secretary added to DOE COVID death toll.

Brooklyn, Bronx educators hardest-hit by coronavirus deaths

Special Education is clearly a mess:

Federal judge orders extra oversight of NYC’s special education complaint process


Betsy Combier


MORE-UFT Releases Fall 2020 Survey Report of 1,143 NYC DOE Staff Members

by morecaucusnyc

(Read the full report: http://tiny.cc/moresurvey )

NEW YORK: In the midst of yet another school reopening plan in December 2020, MORE-UFT rank-and-file members decided to ask NYC DOE schools staff about their experiences with school reopening: neither the UFT nor the DOE had done an official survey of school-based staff. (The DOE released its own Fall 2020 survey on Jan. 19th, 2021 which will collect responses through Feb. 5th.)

1,143 NYC school staff completed the survey. 58.4% of staff surveyed work in a school that offers Pre-K or elementary school, meaning those staff members work in schools that, as of the time of survey collection, offered in-person learning. 40.2% of staff work in middle and high schools and 1.4% of respondents work in transfer of alternative schools.

Key trends we noticed among respondents:

  • School staff do not feel adequately supported this year, in terms of training, learning models, staffing, and resources.
  • Special Education and English Learner violations are rampant in schools this year as a result of inadequate staffing for the Mayor’s reopening plan.
  • A majority of educators are teaching 2 or more learning models.
  • Staff do not feel that the DOE’s COVID testing and safety protocols have been sufficient to detect and prevent cases in their school buildings.
  • Staffing and programming issues related to in-person and remote students, learning models, COVID19 school cases, and classroom/school closures have created significant hurdles for consistent, safe, and effective learning for our students.
  • A majority of staff surveyed are considering leaving the DOE and the profession of teaching.
  • Lack of WiFi and devices remains a significant obstacle to equitable remote learning.

Overall, these results point to significant areas of concern around staff retention and well-being. Additionally, results suggest systemwide failures to prioritize our students with the most significant needs during this pandemic -- including students with IEPs, multi-language learners, and students without secure internet connections or workspaces at home. 

When asked what was needed to support students safely and effectively, staff asked for devices and WiFi for students and staff; support from DOE and UFT Leadership; to address staff shortages; demanded fully remote learning for a number for safety, consistency, and instructional reasons; improvements in physical conditions of buildings; training to support remote instruction; and to support staff and student social-emotional needs.

A high school teacher wrote, “Everyone in the community is dealing with an extraordinary amount of stress right now. Both the teaching load and the emotional-social load of this job have increased exponentially.  It is time-consuming and difficult to reinvent curriculum to make it suitable for remote learning...The DOE needs to face facts, accept that most students are remote learning for this school year, and invest in improving it (tech and WiFi for all; training for teachers).”

Thursday, January 28, 2021

Public School Education Will Change. How and To What is Up In The Air

 


The information about public school education and in particular, the NYC Department of Education, is bad for the children who are entering or in the system already. This is a fact, and all the attempted coverups by the Chancellor, Mayor, Diana Ravich, and parent leaders who get public money or have a vested interest in supporting the NYC DOE cannot hide from parents that the NYC DOE does not provide what their children need and indeed, may even lead to their harm.

See here:

DOE assigns top Manhattan students to troubled schools — and now parents want out

NYC Department of Education Crashes and Burns With the Case of a Student Given Fake Report Cards But Never Registered


We have been speaking out from the inside as parent and teacher advocates for many years about this. My four children attended the NYC public schools from 1996 to 2010 as I uncovered the bad stuff at the NYC DOE and there were several terrible retaliatory actions taken against them that I had to fight.

We have written on this blog about the lack of transparency, environmental hazards, wrongful terminations, and missing resources many times, so any reader will recognize where we stand. But no matter what anyone in New York City or the world believes, there is a certain fact that is universal: change is happening.

The post below about parents withdrawing their children from the NYC DOE is a beginning of a New Way, whatever that may end up to be. What happens when there are fewer seats filled in classrooms (called "seat time")? ...the funding to the school dries up. Teachers have to be let go. How are tenured teachers removed from payroll? A buy-out or disciplinary charges (3020-a arbitration). Most often, a principal chooses the latter and finds a child who will complain that a teacher touched him/her, verbally abused him/her, or did something terrible and affected his/her emotional state. Getting a teacher reassigned is actually very easy.

The hard part is building a system that has billions of dollars AND adequate safeguards and accountability to make sure that all dollars are spent on the "right people, places, and resources."

We are far from that goal.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog

Chancellor Richard Carranza

City Says 43,000 Students Have Left NYC Public School System This Year


Gothamist, January 27, 2021

Enrollment in New York City’s public schools this year has dropped 4% with the exodus of about 43,000 students from the system, including a 9% decrease in kindergarten enrollment alone, according to the city’s Department of Education.

In a pattern seen in many major school districts across the country, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the ongoing decline in public school enrollment in New York City, which also reflected falling birth rates, the DOE said in a press release Wednesday.

While New York City still has the largest school district in the country, enrollment now stands at 960,000 students compared to the reported 1.1 million students in the 2018-2019 school year. Other school districts have seen similar declines in enrollment -- Dallas public schools were down 4% in December, according to the New York Times. In October, Washington state reported a 2.82% decrease in enrollment statewide, with a 14% drop in kindergarten, NPR reported.

Enrollment is a crucial factor in determining funding for the city's schools, particularly when it comes to state aid. But education department officials said, with federal funding and the state budget still in flux, it's too soon to tell how it will affect how much money goes to the city's public schools next year. Still, the declining enrollment numbers will mean many schools will have to return part of their budgets this year if enrollment is less than they expect, though some school leaders are now asking to maintain funding because of additional pandemic costs such as hiring more substitute teachers.

The biggest decline has been in the early childhood education sectors, with 3K enrollment down 8% and pre-K enrollment down 13%. While Mayor Bill de Blasio has made universal Pre-K for every family in the city a major part of his legacy, in New York City school is only mandatory starting in first grade, and earlier programs are optional.

“Similar to other large school districts, non-mandatory early childhood grades are mostly responsible for the enrollment shifts this year. The drop in this grade band represents ~10,000 students, or one percentage point, out of the citywide decline. Last year, DOE enrolled ~14,400 new pre-K students over the summer and early fall, compared this year to ~10,800 students enrolled after the application period. This could be COVID-19 related enrollment loss as these grades are not mandatory and families may be trying to limit travel and socially distance,” the DOE said.

The city was also rolling out more 3K programs though the expansion was paused last year because of budget issues from the pandemic. Interested parents still have time to enroll in 3K and pre-K programs for this year, the DOE said.

Elementary grades also all registered declining enrollment this year: Kindergarten enrollment declined by 9%, 1st grade declined by 6%, 2d grade declined by 8%, 3nrd grade declined by 4%, 4th-grade enrollment declined by 6%, and 5th-grade enrollment declined by 5%.

Middle school enrollment varied by grade level: 6th-grade enrollment declined by 3% and 7th-grade enrollment declined by 5% while 8th-grade enrollment remained the same.

High school enrollments showed slight fluctuations: 9th-grade enrollment declined by 4%, while 10th grade and 11th-grade enrollment both increased by 2%, and 12th-grade enrollment declined by 1%.

"Given the current circumstances of pandemic it is no surprise that we are seeing greater fluctuations in enrollment this year. However, no school district has stabilized its school system the way we have, which means that we can and will continue to offer the gold standard in health, safety, and learning in a completely transformed educational environment to our students," said DOE spokesperson Katie O’Hanlon in the release.

Thursday, January 14, 2021

Freedom of Speech Rights in School: Morse et al., v Frederick

 


The bottom line of all the case law stored in any database on the issue of "What are student/teacher First Amendment rights in school" is that you do not leave your protected right to freedom of speech, assembly and petition at the door.

What they don't say is after you walk in that door, a judge can decide that for a random and  arbitrary reason -depending on your argument and your circumstances - you are denied the rights you thought that you had.

Betsy Combier

First Amendment Educational Resources

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2006
MORSE V. FREDERICK


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MORSE et al. v. FREDERICK

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007—Decided June 25, 2007

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. 

Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick’s right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse’s position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional.

Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp. 5–15.

   (a) Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5–6.

   (b) The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. Pp. 6–8.

   (c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.393 U. S. 503, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment, id., at 504, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser478 U. S. 675, however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,” id., at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. 478 U. S., at 679–680. This Court reversed, holding that the school was “within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions … in response to [the student’s] offensively lewd and indecent speech.” Id., at 685. Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. See, id., at 682–683. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights … at the schoolhouse gate,’ … the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton515 U. S. 646, 655–656, and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important—indeed, perhaps compelling” interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation’s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The “special characteristics of the school environment,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8–15.

439 F. 3d 1114, reversed and remanded.

   Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

Talking Points - Morse v. Frederick

Question: Do school authorities violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by restricting student speech at a school-supervised event when the speech may be viewed as promoting illegal drug use?

1. Do school officials have the authority to restrict student speech that they perceive as harmful to other students?

Morse

Affirmative. Yes.

Although students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” school administrators must have the ability to restrict speech that is harmful to other students, in this instance promoting illegal drug use. Frederick displayed his banner at a school event. It was the duty of the principal to take action against him.

Frederick

Negative. No. 

Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Here, a student was punished only because his message was deemed unpopular/controversial by school principal Morse. The banner did not disrupt the school-related event. The principal’s actions were based solely on opposition to the content of the banner, and the First Amendment protects against such acts of censorship.

2. If the banner could be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use, do schools have a compelling interest in preventing such messages at school-supervised events?

Morse

Affirmative. Yes.

Illegal drug use can have serious adverse consequences on users, including death. The school has a responsibility to discourage the use of illegal drugs. Frederick was advocating illegal drug use. The state has a compelling interest in preventing such messages. Even if Frederick’s message were nonsensical, it could easily be interpreted as promoting illegal drug use – “bong hits.” Thus, the school’s compelling interests remain.

Frederick

Negative. No. 

The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner did not explicitly promote illegal drug use. It is a nonsensical phrase. Any interpretations are a result of the viewer’s perceptions. Even if the banner did have a pro-drug message, Frederick, was not engaging in illegal conduct. The state may not censor his message simply because it is unpopular. Afterall, how could one advocate for change in the law if one cannot advocate for making something legal that currently is illegal?

3. Should student speech be restricted if it can be interpreted as a distasteful, school-endorsed message?

Morse

Affirmative. Yes.

Perceptions by others can have a role to play in restricting speech. The term “bong hits” is usually associated with illegal drug use and schools have a compelling interest in preventing a student from advocating illegal drug use. The fact that Frederick displayed the banner at a school event gives the school reason to remove it so that no one would think that the school either explicitly or implicitly endorsed its message.

Frederick

Negative. No. 

Speech should not be restricted simply because it can be misinterpreted by others. If this is the criteria for restricting speech, then all speech can potentially be restricted since speech can easily be misconstrued. This interpretation would drastically undermine the protections of the First Amendment. No third party would seriously think that the school was endorsing Frederick’s message.

4. Does the First Amendment only protect the expression of coherent or rational thoughts?

Morse

Affirmative. Yes.

The First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech is meant to promote the spread of ideas. As such, it only protects coherent or rational thoughts. Nonsensical speech is not protected by the First Amendment or, at least, is given less protection than rational speech. Even if Frederick’s speech were simply nonsensical, Morse could have restricted it without violating the First Amendment.

Frederick

Negative. No. 

Nonsensical speech is protected by the First Amendment. The principal does not have the right to determine what speech is or is not protected by the First Amendment. Under most circumstances, the First Amendment gives individuals the right to say whatever they wish so long as they are not harming others or interfering with their rights. No one was harmed by Frederick’s actions.

5. Should school officials be immune from legal liability when they take actions in good faith to protect other students from what they consider offensive speech?

Morse

Affirmative. Yes.

School principals have to act in real-time and respond to events as they arise. A principal is not a constitutional lawyer and does not know the nuances of the First Amendment. Even if Frederick’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, when a principal acts in good faith to protect other students, the principal should be given immunity from civil suits for such actions.

Frederick

Negative. No. 

Those who violate the constitutional rights of others, even inadvertently, must not be immune from the consequences of their actions. Such violations restrict constitutional rights and violators must be held accountable. Therefore, Morse should be held accountable for violating Frederick’s rights and compensate him as the law demands.

Law School Case Brief

Morse v. Frederick - 551 U.S. 393, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007)

RULE:

The Supreme Court has held that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings and that the rights of students must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Consistent with these principles, the Supreme Court holds that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.

FACTS:

At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event--respondent Frederick--refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The District Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick's speech rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Accepting that Frederick acted during a school-authorized activity and that the banner expressed a positive sentiment about marijuana use, the court nonetheless found a First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption. It also concluded that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick's right to display the banner was so clearly established that a reasonable principal in Morse's position would have understood that her actions were unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Did the school officials violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the Frederick?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick.

A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendmentid., at 504, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school," id., at 513, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549, however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing "an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor," id., at 678, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had  found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. This Court reversed, holding that the school was "within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions . . . in response to [the student's] offensively lewd and indecent speech.Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that "the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." Id., at 682, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Tinker,supra, at 506, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731. Second, Fraser established that Tinker's mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the "substantial disruption" analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that "while children assuredly do not 'shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate,' . . . the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school," Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 655-656, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564, and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an "important--indeed, perhaps compelling" interest, id., at 661, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564. Drug abuse by the Nation's youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school's job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The "special characteristics of the school environment," Tinker, 393 U.S., at 506, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, distinguished.



First Amendment, Rule of Law, and Separation of Powers Have
Something for Everyone

Need help talking with students about current events? Find classroom-ready resources that are immediately useable in the distance learning environment. Resources include videos and discussion-starter questions.

The First Amendment

·  What Does the First Amendment Mean?

·  The First Amendment in Your Life: Protests

·  Does the First Amendment Protect Lies?

The Rule of Law

·  What’s the Rule of Law Got to Do with Anything?

·  The Rule of Law in Your Life: Unpopular Speech

·  The Rule of Law and Alexander Hamilton

The Separation of Powers

·  Separation of Powers: What Difference Does It Make?

·  The Separation of Powers in Your Life: Texas v. Johnson

How the Separation of Powers Protects the Bill of Rights

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. 
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).