Student Freedoms
Tiffany Smith
EDU 520
Dr. Kijanka
April 29, 2012

2
Introduction
One could define a leader as a way through which a person or group influences others to obtain certain goals and objectives, which in turn improves the coherency and efficiency of the group. The interesting thing is that very often when we define a leader, one thinks of one person who takes on all the responsibility and eventually all the glory, which is not so. No one can be successful without the help of others, it is a team effort. It is safe to say that a special person that leads people have special attributes that set them apart. Regardless if you are in higher education, an organization or corporate America, leadership does result in instruction, commitment and a deep concern for what is right; as well as for the best interest of others. They are modeled on a daily basis, tested and proven in times of trial and adversity.
When it comes to freedom of expression in public schools, without question, Supreme Court decisions concerning student’s rights have greatly affected school policies. But do these decisions affect school policy just by drawing the line between the student’s rights, which the Constitution protects and those that it does not? Many studies of court’s rulings have revealed that the justice not only defines the meaning of the Constitution in the school context, but they often introduce their own views concerning pertinent educational policy. Some suggestions would be lessons that schools must teach, and how schools should function to teach these lessons in the most effective ways.
Limitations on Student’s Freedom
Twenty years ago, many public schools did, in fact, come close to being religion-free

zones. In the stir of debatable and widely altered U.S. Supreme Court decisions

prohibited state-sponsored religious practices, apprehensive educators often overreacted by 3

attempting to keep all religion out of schools. Textbook publishers mostly ignored religion, and

teachers would not dare cross the line. Some administrators mistakenly confused student speech

with government speech and told students to leave their beliefs at the school door.

According to Haynes (2011), today, most state social studies standards and textbooks

include significant mention of religion; student religious clubs meet on hundreds, if not

thousands, of high school campuses; the display of Christian students praying around the

flagpole or in the lunchroom is commonplace; and Muslim students characteristically perform

daily prayers during the school day.

In December 2007, Akron City School system established a policy of mandatory uniforms for students in grades kindergarten through eighth grade. Some individuals had mixed views and a small group of parents from an art-focused middle school were against the policy. It was their argument that any child attending an art focused school should be excused from the rule since their children were particularly creative, and the new policy represented an unmerited violation of their child's freedom of expression (Vopat, 2010). According to Vopat (2010), he disputed that the decision of the school board, while negating to freedom of expression in general, “do not violate the children's freedom of expression since such a right cannot properly be said to apply to the majority of children within

this age group”. “In arguing this position, I draw on two primary ideas. The first is based on the idea that children's rights exist on a continuum from rights that protect their interests to those that protect their choices” Since the majority of children at the age specified by the policy fall on the 4 interest side of the rights spectrum, “restricting their liberty with respect to dress is not morally problematic”. Secondly, “I draw upon the idea of the distinction between mere expressions as opposed to substantive expression to argue that most children, particularly those in the pre-teen years, lack the cognitive ability to exercise the latter” (Vopat, 2010).
Tinker Case In the Tinker case the court focused on the right of public school students to express views and ideas through symbolic acts. The case concerned three public school students who exercised their right to what the justices called “pure speech”. Following the tactic of a group of adults to protest the government’s policy in Vietnam, the students planned to wear black armbands for certain days while at school. The principals of the school district became aware of this plan and two days before the student protest the met and adopted a policy that stated: any student wearing an armband at school would be asked to remove it, and if one refused they would be suspended until the student would return without the armband. All students were informed about the new policy but the three students wore their armbands as originally planned. On defying the order of school authorities to remove the armbands, the students were sent home, and suspended subject to their compliance to school policy. The court found that there was no evidence that the students act caused any disorder or disturbance upon the work of the school or the rights of the other students (Essex, 2008).
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated that, “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit—a spirit that demands self expression’. Free speech is particularly valuable, then for reasons that have little to do with the

5 search for truth or self-governance, but rather for growing as an individual. Public schools should foster such growths among students as one of their most important responsibilities. The First Amendment is also instrumental in providing the foundation for dissent, self fulfillment, human dignity and freedom, which is all key in the realization of both the polity and the individual.
Changing existing laws The public school systems have been faced with an increase in challenges over the last few years. An existing issue in public schools is social problems. Amongst these problems are school bullying, gang related issues and school violence. Unfortunately, one of the issues that stem from it is due to the way a student expresses themselves by the way they are dressed. Some students are wearing certain clothing that labels them as being a part of a gang. These issues are starting to gain the attention of parents and administrators across the country. In 1998 when, in his State of the Union address, President Clinton recommended school uniforms as a method of reducing school violence (Daniels, 2001). Most recently, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley asked his school board to, “enforce a reasonable dress code policy…because students come to school to learn-not to party”. Many leaders have recognized the benefit of school uniforms and many schools across the country are implementing it.
The benefits of school uniforms will benefit parents who have financial hardships and exempts students from wearing a uniform if it imposes a significant burden on a student’s exercise of religious values. 6
The school uniforms in the county that I was raised in have made a positive impact on students and the learning environment. Students do not feel intimated by their peers and therefore, the focus can be on education.

References
Daniels, S. (2001). Student Dress Policies. The North Carolina Family Policy Council.1-4

Essex, N.L.(2008). School law and the public schools: A practical guide for educational leaders (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon-Prentice Hall-Pearson.

Haynes, C.C. (2011). Getting religious right in public schools. Educational Theory, 62(1), 59-74.

Russo, C. (2007). Supreme court update: The free speech rights of students in the United States post Morse v. Fredrick. Education and Law, 19(3/4), 245-253.

Vopat, M. (2010). Mandatory school uniform and freedom of expression. Ethics and Education, 5(3), 203-215.