#teacherthoughts

Until next time, may you find a little wonder in the ordinary.

Where One Teacher Ends, Another Begins

One of the humbling realities of teaching is accepting that we are often only one chapter in a student's story.

We meet students at different points in their journey. Some arrive confident and ready to soar. Others arrive carrying challenges that cannot be overcome in a single school year. We teach, encourage, redirect, and believe in them anyway.

What we do today may not reveal its full impact tomorrow, next month, or even next year.

A struggling reader may discover a love of books later. A quiet student may find their voice in another classroom. A child who doubts their abilities today may one day draw strength from words they barely seemed to hear when they were spoken.

Education is a continuum of care.

One teacher plants. Another nurtures. Another challenges. Another inspires. Together, we become part of a larger story of growth that extends far beyond any individual classroom.

Perhaps that is one of the most beautiful aspects of teaching: understanding that our responsibility is not to control the harvest, but to faithfully prepare the soil for whatever comes next.

What is a lesson, piece of advice, or act of kindness from a teacher that stayed with you long after you left school?

I know this is my weightloss journey but sometimes you have to just go blah.

School Improvement Funds are grants that are authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. These funds are dispersed to schools to provide an adequate amount of resources in order to increase the achievement level of the school. School Improvement funds were also put into place in order to help low performing schools raise their proficiency levels. From further research, I have found that the school improvement funds should support the school improvement plan that is created at the beginning of each year. Before money is dispersed, the School Advisory Council meets to decide how the money will be spent. The money must be on projects or programs that were outlined in the School improvement Plan, as well as approved by the SAC. In my opinion, School Improvement Plans are beneficial when used properly. The thought of receiving funds are great; but too often money is being spent on things that are not important necessities to the success of our students. I believe that when we being looking at how the money is being spent, we need to look at the long-term effects of what we are purchasing and most importantly, look at how it is helping to reach the goals outlined in the improvement plan. When thinking long-term, it is important to consider what is going to be of continued use and not discontinued hastily. As stated before, the School Improvement Funds are essential to the ongoing success of our students and schools; only when used properly.

Freedom of Speech falls under the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The freedom to express a particular opinion, whether verbally, by publishing literature, or even wearing clothing that convey certain messages and opinions.  Throughout the course of the years there have been many restrictions added to the use of Freedom of Speech; especially within the school setting. As a result, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantee each student freedom of speech and expression in the public schools. However, because of the irregular setting and needs of the school environment, the Supreme Court has permitted more restrictions on student speech than would be permitted outside of school.

           The influential case involving student freedom of speech rights is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, decided by the Supreme Court in 1969. The Tinker case arose during the peak of the Vietnam War when a group of public high school and elementary school students were suspended for wearing black arm bands to school to protest the war. School officials discovered the plan prior to the day the students intended to wear the arm bands and forbade the students from wearing them, allegedly fearing that the demonstration would cause a disturbance. The students rebelled against this prohibition, and, although only a few students objected to the arm bands, school officials suspended them. The Supreme Court then ruled that given that the students did not cause a disturbance or interrupt the school day, they should have not been suspended and the school had indeed violated their First Amendment rights. This led to the ruling that students “Do not shed their constitutional rights at the front gate”. This also clarified the acceptability of the forms of speech students could partake in. In this case it was symbolic speech.

           Additionally, the Tinker case was used for several court hearings and deliberations. It helped to shape the restrictions of Freedom of Speech. Student speech may be suppressed only if the speech materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the schools; invades or collides with the rights of others; is vulgar, lewd, obscene, or plainly offensive; or is school-sponsored. Furthermore, as with free speech rights in any context, school officials may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on student speech.

School Related Speech

           Freedom of Speech as it relates to school newspapers and yearbooks, it was interesting to learn that school officials has authority to regulate any school sponsored publication. This means that administration must grant approval of articles and topics before printing and publication. They also have the ability to limit certain topics from being discussed or certain verbiage from being used if they feel it would cause a disturbance to the school and/or neighboring community. The restriction of Freedom of Speech in school sponsored publications came about in 1988, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that public school officials can censor school sponsored student expression as long as they have a valid educational reason for doing so. Within this case, the school official decided that it was best to censor two stories about teenage pregnancy and the divorce of another student’s parents. They believed these stories to be embarrassing and since the father of the Divorce article could not be interviewed to tell his side of the story, the article was pulled.

           Consequently, since there have been many restrictions regarding Freedom of Speech in schools, many states have acquired “Anti-Hazelwood laws” which gave greater free expression protection to students. This lead paved the way to many underground newspapers being produced where students had the flexibility to write about controversial topics. This has form of publication is protected under the Supreme Court because the expression is student initiate rather than being sponsored by the school.

           All in all, Freedom of Speech is restricted in the school setting. As stated before school officials have the right to censor certain articles if they deem it to be inappropriate or see a potential cause for disruption.