USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Secondary pre-service teachers' knowledge and confidence in dealing with students' First Amendment rights in the classroom

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Secondary pre-service teachers' knowledge and confidence in dealing with students' First Amendment rights in the classroom
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Call, Ian
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Teacher education
Educational law
School policy
Expression
Religion
Dissertations, Academic -- Social Science Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Every year teachers find themselves involved in conflicts dealing with violations of students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Students and parents file lawsuits against school districts because they feel teachers and administrators have violated their First Amendment rights. As a result, many teacher preparation programs require pre-service teachers to learn about educational law and the rights students have at school. Yet, little research exists about how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.^ ^This study reviews the literature regarding the need for educational law in teacher preparation, historical cases providing guidance to teachers regarding students' First Amendment rights in the classroom, and recent court cases involving conflicts between students and schools regarding students' First Amendment rights. Using a mixed-methods approach, the researcher investigated pre-service teachers at a large urban college of education using a survey developed by the researcher and interviews with a sample of the pre-service teachers. One hundred and ten secondary pre-service teachers submitted surveys, and 10 pre-service teachers participated in interviews. Using analyses of variance, the researcher found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the scores or confidence levels of pre-service teachers based on their subject area or their academic level (undergraduate/graduate).^ The knowledge that pre-service teachers have acquired is derived from experiences while in school, teaching, or in their coursework. In addition, when pre-service teachers have a personal experience with a First Amendment issue, they are more confident in their knowledge and more likely to take action in dealing with the issue. Pre-service teachers use several criteria when making decisions regarding First Amendment issues. These criteria include school policy, sense of right or wrong, offensiveness, and personal apprehension. Information about pre-service teachers' knowledge and how they make decisions regarding First Amendment issues provides teacher educators with valuable information for building a curriculum that prepares pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ian Call.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 179 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001983536
oclc - 297175813
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002339
usfldc handle - e14.2339
System ID:
SFS0026657:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001983536
003 fts
005 20090106135322.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090106s2008 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002339
035
(OCoLC)297175813
040
FHM
c FHM
d FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB1601 (ONLINE)
1 100
Call, Ian.
0 245
Secondary pre-service teachers' knowledge and confidence in dealing with students' First Amendment rights in the classroom
h [electronic resource] /
by Ian Call.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Every year teachers find themselves involved in conflicts dealing with violations of students' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Students and parents file lawsuits against school districts because they feel teachers and administrators have violated their First Amendment rights. As a result, many teacher preparation programs require pre-service teachers to learn about educational law and the rights students have at school. Yet, little research exists about how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to investigate how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.^ ^This study reviews the literature regarding the need for educational law in teacher preparation, historical cases providing guidance to teachers regarding students' First Amendment rights in the classroom, and recent court cases involving conflicts between students and schools regarding students' First Amendment rights. Using a mixed-methods approach, the researcher investigated pre-service teachers at a large urban college of education using a survey developed by the researcher and interviews with a sample of the pre-service teachers. One hundred and ten secondary pre-service teachers submitted surveys, and 10 pre-service teachers participated in interviews. Using analyses of variance, the researcher found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the scores or confidence levels of pre-service teachers based on their subject area or their academic level (undergraduate/graduate).^ The knowledge that pre-service teachers have acquired is derived from experiences while in school, teaching, or in their coursework. In addition, when pre-service teachers have a personal experience with a First Amendment issue, they are more confident in their knowledge and more likely to take action in dealing with the issue. Pre-service teachers use several criteria when making decisions regarding First Amendment issues. These criteria include school policy, sense of right or wrong, offensiveness, and personal apprehension. Information about pre-service teachers' knowledge and how they make decisions regarding First Amendment issues provides teacher educators with valuable information for building a curriculum that prepares pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 179 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Co-adviser: Howard Johnston, Ph.D.
Co-adviser: James Duplass, Ph.D.
653
Teacher education.
Educational law.
School policy.
Expression.
Religion.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Social Science Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2339



PAGE 1

Secondary Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge and Confidence in Dea ling with Students’ First Amendment Rights in the Classroom by Ian Call A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Howard Johnston, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: James Duplass, Ph.D. Jane Applegate, Ph.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 20, 2008 Keywords: teacher education, educationa l law, school policy, expression, religion Copyright 2008, Ian Call

PAGE 2

Dedication This study is dedicated to my wonderful wife Rosemarie whose subtle reminders such as “What about your dissertation ?” or “How is your disserta tion coming?” were constant motivations for completing the dissertation. I wo uld also like to dedica te this study to my soon to be child Wyatt, Spencer, Sophia, or Sofia. You came to your mother and me at just the right time to give me the fi nal push to complete this dissertation.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee member s for their time, assistance, and most importantly, their patience during the long process of completing my dissertation. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. Howard Johnston for providing me with the insight necessary to make this study possible, Dr. R obert Dedrick for his meticulous efforts in helping me with my quantitative analysis, and Dr. Jane Applegate for her constructive feedback and contributions to my study. Fina lly, I would like to thank Dr. James Duplass for his assistance in gatheri ng data and being a tremendous resource for encouragement and guidance throughout the process. I would like to extend a special apprecia tion to Anete Vasquez for her assistance in getting me access to the pre-service teachers during their internship, as well as the preservice teachers that took my survey and volunteered to be interviewed for this study. I would like to thank Dr Michael Berson and Dr. Brbara Cruz for their contributions to my growth and development as a scholar during my time in the social studies education doctoral program. I would al so like to thank my cohort members. The long hours of research and writing are easie r when you have friends who understand and are there for support.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures vi Abstract vii Chapter I. Introduction 1 Context of the Problem 1 The Problem 3 Rationale for the Study 4 Purpose 5 Potential Biases and Subjectivity of the Researcher 6 Research Hypotheses 7 Limitations of the Study 8 Definition of Terms 9 Variables 11 Organization of the Study 12 Conclusion 13 Chapter II. Review of the Literature 14 Educational Law in Teacher Preparation 14 Supreme Court Cases Dealing With Students’ Freedom of Expression 17 Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) 17 Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) 19 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) 21 Recent Conflicts Involving Stude nts’ Freedom of Expression 22 Political Expression 23 Speech Insulting to Teachers and Staff 23 Expression Through Clothing 24 Speech Related to Homosexuality 25 Symbolic Speech 26 Student Speech on the Internet 28 Supreme Court Cases Dealing with Students’ Freedom of Religion 29 Engel v Vitale (1962) 29 Abington School District v Schempp (1963) 30 Lemon v Kurtzman (1971) 31 West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette ( 1943) 31 Recent Conflicts Involving St udents’ Freedom of Religion 32

PAGE 5

ii Student Distribution of Religious Materials 32 Reading the Bible at School 33 Teaching About Religion 33 Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance 33 Students’ First Amendment Rights and Implications for Teachers 35 Students Freedom of Expression an d Implications for Teachers 36 Students Freedom of Religion and Implications for Teachers 39 Conclusion 43 Chapter III. Methods 44 Use of Mixed Methods 44 Setting and Background 46 Participants 47 Development of the Survey Instrument 48 The Use of Web-Based Surveys 49 Survey Monkey 51 Expert Review of Survey Instrument 52 Field Test of Survey Instrument 53 Field Test of Structured Interview Questions 54 Conducting the Study 55 Phase One: Distribution of the Survey Instrument 55 Phase Two: Statistical Analysis of the Survey Instrument Data 55 Phase Three: Selection of Participants for Interviews 58 Phase Four: Interviews 60 Phase Five: Analysis of Data from Interviews 61 Validity of the Study 64 Chapter IV. Results 66 Introduction 66 Results from the Survey 66 Data from the Interviews 72 Research Questions 74 Research Question 1 75 Research Question 2 75 Research Question 3 77 Research Question 4 81 Additional Findings 86 Summary of Findings 90 Chapter V. Conclusions and Recommendations 94 Purpose of the Study 94 Research Questions 95 Significance of the Study 95 Limitations 96 Methods 97

PAGE 6

iii Findings 98 Discussion of Findings 100 Research Question 1 100 Research Question 2 102 Research Question 3 103 Research Question 4 104 Additional Findings 106 Implications for Teacher Education 109 Implications for Social Studies Teacher Education 113 Recommendations for Future Research 115 Final Thoughts 117 References 119 Appendices 131 Appendix A. Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey 132 Appendix B. Survey Instrument Expert Review Form 142 Appendix C. Structured Interview Questions 153 Appendix D. College of Education Admission Require ments 154 and Core Courses Appendix E. Difficulty Index for Items on the Web-Based Survey 156 Appendix F. Validation of Them es Using Alternate Reviewers 160 Appendix G: Example of Researcher’s Interview Log 162 Appendix H: Examples of Interview Transcripts 164 Appendix I. Analysis of Variance Af ter Limiting the Questions Based on Reliability 178 About the Author End Page

PAGE 7

iv List of Tables Table 1. Number of Pre-Service Teach ers Participating in the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey 49 Table 2. Number of Pre-Service Teach ers in Score and Confidence Groups 60 Table 3. Selection of Interview Part icipants Based on Their Score and Confidence Level 61 Table 4. Courses Identified by Pre-Serv ice Teachers that Dealt with First Amendment Issues 68 Table 5. Mean, Median, and Mode Scores for Each Group of Pre-Service Teachers on the Test of Knowledge from the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey 69 Table 6. Percentage Correct for E ach Concept Question on the Survey Instrument 70 Table 7. Percentage Correct and Conf idence Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Question on the Survey 71 Table 8. Themes and Units of Info rmation from Interviews With the Pre-Service Teachers 73 Table 9. Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Level 74 Table 10. Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Subject Area 76 Table 11. ANOVA Summary Table for Differences Between Scores on the Survey Instrument 77 Table 12. Pre-Service Teachers’ Confid ence Level from the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Subject Area and Academic Level 82

PAGE 8

v Table 13. ANOVA Summary Table for Differences Between Confidence Level on the Survey Instrument 83 Table 14. Difficulty Index for th e Web-Based Survey Questions 156 Table 15. Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Subject Area and Academic Level 177 Table 16. ANOVA Summary Table for Di fferences Between Scores on the Survey Instrument After Eliminati ng Questions with Low Reliability 178

PAGE 9

vi List of Figures Figure 1. Histogram of Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the First Amendment Rights Survey 68

PAGE 10

vii Secondary Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge and Confidence in Dea ling with Students’ First Amendment Rights in the Classroom Ian Call ABSTRACT Every year teachers find themselves involve d in conflicts dealing with violations of students’ First Amendment rights to free dom of expression and freedom of religion. Students and parents file lawsuits against sc hool districts because they feel teachers and administrators have violated their First Am endment rights. As a result, many teacher preparation programs require pre-service teach ers to learn about educational law and the rights students have at school. Yet, little research exists about how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with Firs t Amendment issues in the classroom. The purpose of this study was to inves tigate how well pre-service teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom. This study reviews the literature regarding the need fo r educational law in teacher preparation, historical cases providing guidance to teachers regarding st udents’ First Amendment rights in the classroom, and recent court cases involvi ng conflicts between students and schools regarding students’ First Amendment rights Using a mixed-methods approach, the researcher investigated pre-se rvice teachers at a large urban college of education using a survey developed by the researcher and inte rviews with a sample of the pre-service teachers.

PAGE 11

viii One hundred and ten secondary pre-servic e teachers submitted surveys, and 10 pre-service teachers participated in interviews. Using analyses of variance, the researcher found that there was not a st atistically significant differe nce between the scores or confidence levels of pre-servic e teachers based on their s ubject area or their academic level (undergraduate/graduate). The knowledge that pre-service teache rs have acquired is derived from experiences while in school, teaching, or in their coursework. In addition, when preservice teachers have a persona l experience with a First Amendment issue, they are more confident in their knowledge and more likely to take action in dealing with the issue. Pre-service teachers use se veral criteria when making decisions regarding First Amendment issues. These criteria include school policy, sense of right or wrong, offensiveness, and personal apprehension. Information about pre-service teachers’ knowledge and how they make decisions re garding First Amendm ent issues provides teacher educators with valuable information for building a curriculum that prepares preservice teachers to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.

PAGE 12

1 Chapter I Introduction Context of the Problem The First Amendment of the Constitu tion is a cornerstone of American democracy and students, as citizens, deserve the protection of the First Amendment just like every other citizen in the nation. Justice Fortas, writing for the majority in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), declared the First Amendment protects students at school when he wrote, First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teach ers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers sh ed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. (p. 2) However, the rights protected by the Firs t Amendment can clash with the need to provide order at the school and effectively educate student s (Imber & Geel, 2001). This clash requires teachers to understand the comp lexity of First Amendment issues in the classroom (Hills, 2003). Lacking an understanding of the complexity of teacher responsibilities in deal ing with First Amendmen t issues can lead to lawsuits that can damage a teacher’s career, cost a school district millions of do llars in legal fees, and have profound effects on the education of students. “Educators wh o fly by the seat of their pants or who act on the basis of what they think the law should be may be in difficulty, if

PAGE 13

2 sufficient thought is not given to the legal implications and ra mifications of their policies or conduct” (Lamorte, 1999, p. xxiii). While lawsuits involving schools and teachers leveled off during the 1990s, cases involving the First Amendment ri ghts of students have been increasing, and the fear of litigation persists on the part of politicians, principals, a nd teachers (Lupini & Zirkel, 2003; Schachter, 2007; Wagner, 2007). Because of the fear of e ducational litigation, members of the United States Congress passe d the Teacher Liability Protection Act to help protect teachers, administrators, and other officials from lawsuits ( Education Week 2001). In addition, more teachers are purchasing liability insurance to protect themselves from financial ruin, and officials at Forest T. Jones, Inc., the nation’s third-largest insurer of teachers, report that the number of teach ers purchasing liability insurance rose 25% between 1995 and 2000 (Portner, 2000; Wagne r, 2007). According to a poll conducted by Harris Interactive, 53% of teachers are con cerned about the risk of lawsuits or legal challenges, and nearly two-thirds of teachers have the same or higher levels of concern about the possibility of facing a lawsuit as they do about results on standardized tests (Harris, 2004). “In a society plagued by more and more lawsuits, some educational experts say that merely the prospect of legal action is altering the way schools do business, especially in the areas of discipline, special educa tion, and free speech rights” (Schachter, 2007). Tracking litigation against teach ers and schools is difficult be cause most studies tend to focus on court decisions and do not track the co sts inflicted on school districts from cases that are threatened, filed, or settled (p ersonal communication Hutton, 2004). However, the National Association of Secondary School Principals estimates that school districts

PAGE 14

3 with 10,000 or more students spend $250,000 to $1,000,000 a year on routine legal matters, and in a school district with a pproximately 6,000 students, there will be an average of one student-initiated lawsuit per year (Dragan, 2001; Duff, 1999). The Problem The standards and process for certifying te achers varies widely between states, which result in a variety of pre-service teach er curriculums and experiences. The variety of teacher preparation programs available ma kes it reasonable to speculate that teachers enter classrooms with various levels of knowledge concerning laws and students’ rights (Brookshire & Kotz, 2002). In regard to teachers’ knowledge of educational law, research related to the level of legal l iteracy among school pers onnel has consistently shown low literacy (Lupini & Zirkel, 2001). “S chool districts continue to spend sizable sums of money on legal counsel and litigation, and teachers still ente r the profession with little or no knowledge of legal i ssues related to circumstances they face repeatedly in the classroom” (Petzko, 2001, p.34). Along with a l ack of preparation in teacher education, schools do not have the resources to provide adequate professional development in educational law for teachers (Gullatt & Tolle tt, 1997a). Combined with a lack of knowledge on the part of teachers is the fact that students often use their rights to question the behavior of teach ers. In a national survey of 725 teachers, 8 out of 10 teachers said that students routinely chal lenge their decisions in the classroom by pointing out their rights or that their parent s can sue (Schouten, 2004). In order to ensure that beginning teachers have an understanding of educational law, the State of Florida requires teacher education programs to provi de “three semester hours which integrates

PAGE 15

4 classroom management, school sa fety, professional ethics, a nd educational law” (Florida, 2000). When it comes to questions of students’ rights to freedom of expression and religion, students and schools continue to find themselves at impasses, and the number of cases remains significant (Coeyman, 2003). Legal activity invol ving students’ First Amendment rights is likely to continue as officials try to balance maintaining an appropriate learning environment a nd students’ rights (McCarthy, 1998). Recent court cases based on students’ First Amendment rights, such as cases dealing with students’ distribution of reli gious material and students’ speech on the Internet, highlight how important it is fo r schools and teachers to understand how the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of e xpression and religion affect the school and students. Despite the long history of case law involving the school and students’ freedoms of expression and religion, such rights continue to be the focus of lawsuits brought by students claiming a vi olation of their First Amendment rights (Hudson, 2004). Rationale for the Study “Teacher education programs have a res ponsibility to prepare teachers to cope with situations that might involve student rights. To handle those situations, teachers must understand the constitutional and personal ri ghts of students in every segment of the educational domain” (Henson, 1979, p. 33). In a survey conducted in 1982, researchers found that pre-service teachers were uncerta in of their duties regarding the First Amendment issues of freedom of speech and religion and, in some cases, were not only unsure about the law, but had clear mi sconceptions (Sametz, et al.1983).

PAGE 16

5 In a study conducted in Louisiana, Gullatt and Tollett (1997a) found that 95% of responding teachers who had an undergraduate degree had not taken a course in educational law and felt ill prepared for the legal aspects of education. The same study reported that 90% of the educators with a graduate degree had not taken a course in educational law and felt their preparation was lacking in a number of areas, including students’ rights. Because of the increasing number of lawsuits and limited knowledge on the part of current teachers and future teach ers, the researchers studying the knowledge of practicing teachers concluded that educationa l law should be included in the curriculum for teacher preparation (Dunklee & S hoop, 1986; Sametz & Mcloughlin, 1984). As some teacher educators have continued to argue for the inclusion of educational law in teacher pr eparation, states have begun to include educational law in their certification requirements. More than half of the states, including Florida, have standards that address educa tional law (Reese & Funk, 1998). However, the standards in Florida do not prescribe which ar eas of educational law need to be included in teacher preparation curriculum. While researchers have investigated the level of knowledge of practicing teachers in different areas of educational law, research is lacking on the level of knowledge pre-service teachers have in diffe rent areas of educational law, including students’ rights. By focusing on pre-service teachers, this study provides information on the level of pre-service teachers’ knowledge regarding First Amendment issues and how they learn about First Amendment issues in the classroom. Teacher educators can use this information to make decisions regardi ng First Amendment issues in their teacher preparation programs.

PAGE 17

6 Purpose The purpose of this study was to con duct a backwards curriculum mapping study to investigate the level of knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights among preservice teachers in various disciplines a nd their confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The researcher investigated how pre-service teachers learn about First Amendment issues in the classroom by studying pre-service teachers’ preparation and their experiences, such as other academic experiences, news, and prior careers. This information will o ffer teacher educators insight into how preservice teachers acquire know ledge and confidence in dea ling with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The specific research questions were as follows: 1. Is there a significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate secondary pre-service teachers on a surv ey designed to assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? 2. Is there a significant difference between the scores of mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-servi ce secondary teachers and the scores of social studies pre-service teachers on a survey designed to assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? 3. What experiences throughout the lives of secondary pre-service teachers, including academic experiences, do they f eel have prepared them for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights? 4. Are secondary pre-service t eachers confident they are pr epared for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights at school?

PAGE 18

7 Potential Biases and Subject ivity of the Researcher The researcher is a doctoral candidate at the university that is the focus of this study. The researcher did not receive his b achelor’s or master’s degrees from this university, but received the degrees from anot her large university in the same state. While completing his doctoral degree, the rese archer has either been a student of or worked with a number of professors in the College of Education. After receiving his master’s degree, the researcher taught middle and high school social studies for four years. During the pa st three years, the researcher has been an adjunct instructor at the university that is the focus of the research, and has taught approximately 15 of the social studies stude nts included in the study. While teaching at the university, the researcher did not discuss First Amendmen t issues in the classroom with any of the students. Because of his educational and teaching experiences at the university, the researcher has a very pos itive view of the school, the College of Education, and the preparation it provides pre-service teachers. Research Hypotheses The researcher developed several hypothese s before gathering data for this study. The first hypothesis was that the pre-servic e teachers would have low scores on the survey instrument because “prospective teacher s, prior to formal training in professional education, have limited legal knowledge” (M cLoughlin, et al. 1983 p. 592). The second hypothesis was that the social studies preservice teachers would have more knowledge of First Amendment issues in the classroom b ecause courses in history, political science, and sociology “provide numerous opportunitie s for examination of legal issues in education” (Davis & Williams, 1992). In addi tion, the researcher hypothesized that the

PAGE 19

8 graduate pre-service teache rs in the study would score more highly on the survey instrument than the undergraduate pre-servi ce teachers because of a greater level of academic and personal experiences that may in fluence their level of knowledge regarding First Amendment issues in the classroom. Limitations of the Study While the study will provide useful inform ation, it has several notable limitations. One important limitation is that the resear cher conducted all interviews. To protect against researcher bias, the researcher transcribed each in terview and conducted a data workshop with the major professors on the committee. In addition, once the thematic analysis of interview data was completed, th e researcher had four colleagues review the units of analysis and development themes that the researcher developed form the interview data. The researcher also depended on pre-se rvice teachers to volunteer for the interviews, and, therefore, those interviewed may not be representative of the sample. However, the researcher conducted interviews with pre-service teachers who represent different levels of knowledge and confidence in dealing with students’ First Amendment issues. The pre-service teacher s had to answer the intervie w questions without time to prepare and may have had different thoughts given time to reflect. Another limitation of the study is sample size. The uneven sample size between the subject areas and the small number of pa rticipants is due to the number of students currently enrolled in those programs at the university and was be yond the control of the researcher.

PAGE 20

9 Finally, the generalizability of this st udy is a limitation (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). The responsibility of generalizing the find ings falls to the read er to determine if they provide any information that can be used to inform the preparation of pre-service teachers in another program. Definition of Terms First Amendment of the United States – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiti ng the free exercise th ereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the pe ople peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Educational Law – The body of state and fede ral constitutional provisions; local, state, and federal statutes; court opini ons; and government regulations that provide the legal framework from edu cational institutions (Phelps, 2004). Students’ First Amendment Rights – The First Amendment rights of students at school are similar to citizens outside of campus. However, because of the unique purpose and needs of the school, the U.S. Supreme Court has limited the rights of students based on how the demonstration of those rights may affect the school and the rights of other st udents (Stader, 2001). Freedom of Expression – Freedom of expr ession refers to the ability of an individual or group of indi viduals to express their be liefs, thoughts, ideas, and emotions about different issues free fr om government censorship. Public school students possess a range of free expression rights under the First Amendment. Students can speak, write ar ticles, assemble to form groups, and even petition school officials on issues. Though public school students do possess First

PAGE 21

10 Amendment rights, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression, such as speech th at substantially disrupts the school environment or invades the rights of ot hers (First Amendment Center, 2005). Freedom of Religion – Public schools may not incu lcate nor inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious libert y rights of students of all faiths and beliefs. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a co mplete education (Haynes, 2005). Pre-Service Teacher – For the purpose of this study, the researcher defines a preservice teacher as a student in a teacher preparation pr ogram who has finished his or her general education requirements, has been admitted to the College of Education, and is either participating in the subject area methods course or has completed the subject area methods course. Confidence – Bachkirova (2001), in an inve stigation of lack of confidence and its impact on decision-making, defined confid ence as the “feeling of certainty in one’s ability to deal with a task.” For this study, conf idence means the preservice teachers’ feeling of certainty in their answers to the scenario questions on the survey. The researcher calculated a confidence score for each participant based on how confident each is in his or her answers to the survey instrument. The participants were able to choose wh ether they were not at all confident, slightly confident, confident, or extrem ely confident in thei r answers to each

PAGE 22

11 question on the survey instrument. The re searcher placed each participant into low, average, or high confidence groups based on their answers on the survey. Variables Dependent Variables 1. Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of st udents’ First Amendment rights at school: For the purposes of this study, the resear cher defined this variable as the score of the pre-servi ce teachers on the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey. 2. Pre-service teachers’ confidence in d ealing with students’ First Amendment rights: For the purposes of this study, the res earcher defined confidence using two measures. The first measure included the pre-service teachers’ level of confidence in their answers. The s econd measure included the data from the interview questions regarding the pre-service teachers’ confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. Independent Variables 1. Program of study the pre-serv ice teacher is completing: The pre-service teachers in the study are preparing to be mathematics, science, English, foreign language or social studies teachers. 2. Level of the program of study the pr e-service teacher is completing:

PAGE 23

12 The pre-service teachers in this study are either graduate or undergraduate students. Nearly all of the graduate students (94%) have earned bachelor’s degrees in areas outside of education. 3. Experiences inside and outside of the classroom that could affect the preservice-teachers’ knowledge and conf idence regarding students’ First Amendment rights: These experiences include courses at the university or high school level, previous occupations, experiences of friends and relatives, jury duty, interactions with law professionals, and interactions with educators. Organization of the Study The first chapter of this study introduces the problem, discusses the need for the study, and presents the rationale, the purpos e, potential biases, assumptions, and limitations. In addition, the first chapter prov ides the reader with terms and definitions and an explanation of the variables of the study. The second chapter of the di ssertation presents a review of the literature. The chapter discusses need for educational law to be an integral component of teacher education; how understanding First Amendmen t rights is an important component of educational law; important pr ecedent-setting cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court; recent court cases dealing with students’ Fi rst Amendment rights; and the implications for teachers and students in the classroom. The third chapter describes the quantitative and qualitati ve methods to investigate the research questions for th is study. The methods include distribution of a Web-based survey, statistical analysis of the data, interv iews, and analysis of the interview data. The

PAGE 24

13 fourth chapter of the study presents the findings from the study including statistical analysis and the results from the interviews with the pre-service teachers regarding their knowledge and confidence in dealing with Firs t Amendment issues. The final chapter of the research study discusses the study’s imp lications for teacher education and social studies teacher education, as well as recommendations for future research. Conclusion Court cases dealing with students’ First Amendment rights have established that students enjoy these rights wh ile at school. However, thes e rights can often clash with the educational mission of teachers. Accordi ng to the State of Florida and some teacher educators, educational law should be included in teacher preparation programs. However, the State of Florida does not provi de guidance on what areas of educational law need to be taught and how educationa l law should be included in the teacher preparation curriculum. In addition, resear ch on the knowledge of pre-service teachers regarding First Amendment right s in the classroom is lack ing. This study provides teacher educators with information rega rding pre-service te achers’ knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment rights, as well as information on how preservice teachers acquire that knowledge and confidence. This information will help teacher educators determine whether pre-service teachers need to be taught about students’ First Amendment rights or if pre-serv ice teachers are prepared to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.

PAGE 25

14 Chapter II Review of the Literature The researcher begins an examination of the literature with a review of the need for educational law in teacher education. Next, the research er reviews significant U.S. Supreme Court cases dealing with students’ First Amendment rights. In addition, the researcher reviews recent conflicts and court cases d ealing with students’ First Amendment rights. Finally, the researcher reviews the literature detailing the implications of students’ First Amendmen t rights for teachers and students in the classroom. Educational Law in Teacher Preparation Research detailing the need for educati onal law in teacher preparation programs is not a new phenomenon. In the late 1970s a nd early 1980s researchers were calling for colleges of education to be tter prepare teachers for educ ational law as a result of landmark cases dealing with student right s and an increasing amount of lawsuits (Dunklee & Shoop, 1986; Hazard et al.., 1977; Henson, 1979; Sametz, 1983). “Teacher education programs have a responsibility to prep are teachers to cope w ith situations that might involve student rights. To handle t hose situations, teachers must understand the constitutional and personal rights of students in every segment of the educational domain” (Henson, 1979, p. 33). The increase in lawsuits was partially due to the landmark decision of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), which dealt wi th students’ right to freedom of expression while at school. In the years since the Tinker decision, the courts

PAGE 26

15 have been inundated with challenges to the po licies, procedures, actions, and decisions of school personnel (Dunklee & Shoop, 1986). In the early 1980s, teacher cer tification rarely required pre-service teachers to be competent in educational law (Woellner, 1981). In a survey conducted in 1982, both teachers and pre-service teach ers demonstrated an uncertain knowledge about their professional responsibilities in relation to students’ freedoms of speech and religion (Sametz, et al.., 1983). Because of the in creasing lawsuits and limited knowledge on the part of teachers and future teachers, res earchers studying the knowledge of teachers and pre-service teachers concluded th at educational law should be included in the curriculum for teacher preparation (Dunklee & S hoop, 1986; Sametz & McLoughlin, 1984). The call for educational law to be include d in the pre-service teacher education curriculum continued throughout the 1990s (G ullatt & Tollet, 1997b; Thomas et al., 1998; Henderson et al., 1999). Re searchers continued to cite a rising number of cases against teachers and their lack of knowledge of educational law as reasons for including educational law in the teacher preparation curriculum (Gu llatt & Tollet, 1997a). In addition, researchers and teacher educators be gan to suggest a scope and sequence of the educational law curriculum. In 1993, the National Organization on Legal Problems of Education (NOLPE, now the Educational Law Association) recommended a Model Code on School Law for teachers that included: 1. Court system and educational governance; 2. The law and students, including their constitutional rights; 3. The law and teachers, including their constitutional rights; 4. District and teacher liability; and

PAGE 27

16 5. Laws involving students with disabilities. In addition to the Model Code on School Law, teacher educators began producing educational law curriculum guides for teac hers (Henderson et al. 1998; Reese & Funk, 1998; Thomas et al., 1998). The curriculum guides vary in the topics chosen for inclusion, but consistently included students’ First Amendment righ ts to expression and religion. In addition, teacher educators advocated that mentor teachers receive educational law training because it was not a component of their teacher preparation, and with training, the mentor teachers would be able to help pre-service teachers understand the rights of students (Thomas et al., 1998). Typically, educational law is reserved fo r graduate students in preparation for educational administration (G ullatt & Tollett, 1997b). Howe ver, teachers receive on-thejob training and the inaccurate perceptions of teachers may result in a violation of a student’s rights, even though th e teacher’s intent was to se rve the needs of the student (Brookshire & Klotz, 2002). When teachers do receive instruction on educational law, they generally report that it should have been included in their teacher education program. For example, a Texas teacher, after taking a course on educational law, responded, “All of this [course c ontent] is so important. I really believe undergrads need some law before they begin [teaching]” (Reese & Funk, 1998, p. 1). In a study conducted in Louisiana, Gullatt and Tollett (1997a) found that 95% of responding teachers who had an undergraduate degree had not taken a course in educational law and felt ill prepared for the legal aspects of education. The same study reported that 90% of the educators with a graduate degree had not taken a course in

PAGE 28

17 educational law and felt their preparation was la cking in a number of areas of educational law, including student rights. While teacher educators have continued to argue for the inclusion of educational law in teacher prepara tion, states have begun to include knowledge of educational law in their certification requireme nts. More than half of the st ates have standards that address educational law (Reese & Funk, 1998). The Stat e of Florida require s teacher education programs to include educationa l law in the curriculum. Supreme Court Cases Dealing With St udents’ Freedom of Expression In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court began cons idering a variety of cases that would provide direction on the protec tion of students’ First Amendment rights (Imber & Geel, 2001). In the first such case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the court protected students’ speech, but left important questions about st udents’ freedom of expression for future cases. Questions such as whether the school can regulate speech at all, or if students have the right to say whatever they want to say whenever they want to say it, were answered by later U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Bethel v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) (Permuth & Mawdsley, 2001). Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) With Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sc hool District (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court began to define expressi on rights of students and teachers and the responsibility of schools to protect those rights (Permu th & Mawdsley, 2001). In order to protest the Vietnam War, st udents John and Mary Beth Tinker decided to publicize their opposition by wearing black armbands to school. After students informed school officials of the Tinkers’ plan s, the principals in the school district

PAGE 29

18 adopted and informed students of a new polic y concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student would have to remove his or her armband immediately if it was worn to school. The principal would suspend any stude nt who refused to take off his or her armband and that student would remain susp ended until agreeing to return to school without the armband. The Tinker children and a friend, aware of the new policy, decided to wear armbands to school. Upon arriving at school, th e principal asked the students to remove their armbands; the students refused and the principal suspended them until they agreed to return to school without their armbands. The parents of the child ren decided to sue the school district. Although the district cour t recognized the stud ents’ First Amendment right to free speech, the court refused to issue an injunc tion, claiming that the school officials' actions were reas onable in light of potential di sruptions from the students' protest. As a result, the pare nts decided to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of the students and declared that the school district’s actions were unconstitutiona l and that “in the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their sp eech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.” In delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Fortas wrote that the problem “lies in the ar ea where students in the exercise of First Amendment rights collide with the rules of the school authorities.” Justice Fortas went on to write, “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” In addition, the court ruled that where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would “materially and su bstantially interfere with the requirements

PAGE 30

19 of appropriate discipline in the operati on of the school,” the prohibition cannot be continued. When the U. S. Supreme Court declared th at students retain th eir right to freedom of expression, it opened schools to the expression of a wi de variety of viewpoints, including those viewpoints dis liked by school officials and society. The Court of the 1960s viewed the school as an integral part of democratic society wi th students having a right to freedom of expression comparable to the right they enjoy in society at large (Imber & Geel, 2001). However, while the Tinker decision granted protection to a large range of student expression, the Court recognized the school’s interest in maintaining an orderly environment. In order to create a bala nce between the needs of the school and the students’ right to freedom of expression, th e Court created the Ti nker test. The Tinker test requires that schools only prohibit student expression that causes, or reasonably could be expected to cause, material and substant ial disruption of the school’s operations or invades the rights of others (Fis cher, 1999; Imber & Geel, 2001). Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) On April 26, 1983, Matthew Fraser, a student at Bethel High School in Pierce County, Washington, gave a speech intended to nominate his friend for office in the school’s student government as part of a sc hool-sponsored educational program in selfgovernment. During the entire speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in terms of an elaborate, graphic, and explic it sexual metaphor. A Bethel High School disciplinary rule stated, "Conduct which materially and substa ntially interferes w ith the educational

PAGE 31

20 process is prohibited, including the use of obscen e, profane language or gestures." As a result, the principal of the school su spended the student for three days. The parent of Fraser filed suit and the U.S. District C ourt for the Western District of Washington held that the school's sanctions violated the respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment and that Fraser’s speech was indistinguishable from the protest armband in Tinker The court of appeals rule d in favor of Fraser, and rejected the school district's arguments that the speech, unlike the passive conduct of wearing a black armband, had a disruptive effect on the educational process, and that the school district had an interest in protecting an essentially ca ptive audience of minors from lewd and indecent language. The court held that giving the school district "unbridled discretion" to determine what discourse is "d ecent" would "increase the risk of cementing white, middle-class standards for determining what is acceptable and proper speech and behavior in our public schools." After hearing the case, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Court made a distincti on between the political expression in Tinker and the sexual content in Fraser’s speech to the school assembly. In addition, the court held “the process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is no t confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools mu st teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers—and indeed the older students—demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like pare nts, they are role models.” The decision of th e Court narrowed the focus of Tinker and advised schools that the protections granted to students did not include th e use of lewd language that

PAGE 32

21 interfered with the rights of other students and interrupt ed the operation of the school (Permuth & Mawdsley, 2001). Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) In May of 1983, a high school student on th e school newspaper’s staff wrote two articles for the newspaper that the school ne ver published due to their suppression by the school’s principal. One arti cle concerned pregnancy in hi gh school, and the other article dealt with the effects of divorce on children’s performance in school. When the journalism teacher submitted pa ge proofs to the principal, he objected to the pregnancy story because it could possibly identify the pr egnant students and because he believed that the article's references to sexual activ ity and birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students. The principal objected to the divorce article because it identified by name a student who complained of her father's conduct, and the principal believed that the staff should gi ve the student's parents an opportunity to respond to the remarks or to consent to their publication. Since there was not adequate time to make changes in the articles before the end of the school year, the principal decided not to publish the articles. Students who had been staff members filed suit in federal distri ct court believing that the deletion of the articles was a violation of their First Amendm ent rights. The U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri found that the prin cipal had the right to censor the articles. Upon appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the decision, stating that the principal could not censor the newspaper because it was a public forum. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the d ecision of the Eighth Circuit, and ruled that the school did not viol ate the students’ First Amendm ent rights. The Court ruled,

PAGE 33

22 “the standard for determining when a school may punish student expression that happens to occur on school premises is not the standa rd for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemi nation of student expression,” and, therefore, the standard developed in Tinker did not apply. The Court also held that: First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in ot her settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristic s of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Because of this decision, when it comes to school-sponsored activities, public school officials may control the content as long as th eir actions relate to legitimate educational purposes (Zirkel, 2002). Recent Conflicts Involving Students’ Freedom of Expression Although the Court has worked to define students’ right to fre edom of expression, school officials and students often come into conflict regarding what is acceptable student expression at school. One of the difficultie s for teachers and schools regarding freedom of expression is the variety of ways the stud ents express themselves and the diversity of topics they wish to express. Students not only use speech, but also use clothing and the Internet to express themselves on topics such as ho mosexuality, abortion, complaints about their schools and teachers, opinions of other students, and politics (Zirkel, 1999; Martinson, 2000; Dowling-Sendor, 2001; Hills, 2001).

PAGE 34

23 Political Expression Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska held up a sign that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” as th e Olympic Torch Relay passed by the school. The principal of the school confiscated the banner and susp ended Frederick for 10-days. Frederick appealed the suspension to th e school board, but the board upheld the principal’s decision. Frederic k filed suit and the judge rule d that students watching the torch relay were in a school-sponsored event and that the school c ould regulate speech that encouraged drug use. However, the U. S. Ninth Circuit of A ppeals overturned the decision, and said that the school violated Fr ederick’s First Amendm ent right to freedom of speech. Relying on Tinker v. Des Moines the Ninth Circuit rule d Frederick’s sign was not offensive and did not disrupt school func tions; therefore, the school could not punish him because the sign promoted a message th at differed from a message the school favored. The school district appealed the de cision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Ninth Circuit’ s decision and ruled that th e school did not violate Frederick’s right to free speech. In the majority decision in Morse v Frederick (2007), Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the school did not violate Frederick’s rights because “schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.” Speech Insulting to Teachers and Staff Alexander Smith, disagreeing with the school ’s tardy policy, made a speech in the school’s cafeteria. Smith’s speech contained vu lgar language such as “turd licking” and “skank.” The speech also questioned the sexual orientation of an assistant principal. After the school suspended Smith for 10 days under the code of conduct’s verbal abuse

PAGE 35

24 policy, Smith sued the school for violating his right to free speech. However, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan upheld the suspension and ruled that his speech fell outside of the protection of the First Amendment because his speech was disruptive and interfered with sc hool discipline (Hutton, 2003d). Expression Through Clothing Tyler Harper, a high school student in Ca lifornia, received a one-day, in-school suspension for refusing to take off a t-shir t that read, “Be Ashamed” and “Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned.” When Ha rper arrived at school, his teacher told him to remove the shirt or go to the office because he was in violation of the school’s dress code. On the previous day, when the school participated in a Day of Silence, a national event to protest agai nst discrimination and harassment of homosexuals, Harper wore a shirt that read, “Homosexuality is Shameful” and referenced Romans 1:27 from the Bible, but neither the teacher nor school officials asked him to remove it. The Alliance Defense Fund filed lawsuit on Harper’s behalf (Gonzalez, 2004). The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rule d that the t-shirt could cause injury to gay and lesbian students and interfere with their right to le arn and, therefore, could be banned from schools (Weinstein, 2006). A similar conflict took place in Rhode Island, when Daniel Goergen wore a sweatshirt with “Abortion is homicide.” on the front and the message, “You will not silence my message, You will not mock my God, and You will stop killing my generation” written on the back. Goergen rem oved the sweatshirt at th e request of school administrators, but after the Thomas More Law Center thre atened to sue, the school

PAGE 36

25 allowed Goergen to wear the shirt to school (NN school agrees to let student wear prolife sweatshirt, 2004). Bretton Barber wore a t-shirt to a Michig an school that labeled President Bush an international terrorist. After an assistant princi pal told Barber to wear the shirt inside out for the rest of the day, he refused and left the school for the rest of the day. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Ba rber’s behalf, and a U.S. District Judge issued an injunction allowing Ba rber to wear the t-shirt to school. In the decision, the judge ruled: The courts have never declared that the school yard is an inappropriate place for political debate, and students benefi t when school officials provide an environment where they can openly expre ss their diverging vi ewpoints and when they learn to tolerate the opinions of others (Shepardson, 2003, p.1). Speech Related to Homosexuality School administrators in North Carolina forced Jarred Gamwell, an openly gay high school student runn ing for student body president, to remove his campaign posters with the slogans “Queer Guy for Hunt Hi gh” and “Gay Guys Know Everything.” Gamwell enlisted the help of the ACLU, which believed removing the signs was a violation of Gamwell’s First Amendment right s. A Wilson County S uperior Court judge denied the ACLU’s request to force the sc hool to put the posters back on the walls. Gamwell ended up finishing last in the election (Waggoner, 2004). Marcus Huff, a resident of Louisiana, while speaking to another student about his family, explained that his mother was ga y. A teacher overhearing the conversation scolded Huff and sent a note home to his pare nts describing how Huff had “explained to

PAGE 37

26 anther child that you are gay.” The teacher underlined the word gay twice. Because of Huff’s conversation with another student, he was given in-school suspension where he was required to write several times, “I will never use ‘gay’ in school again.” The ACLU, after Huff’s mother contacted the organizati on, sent a letter to the school demanding an apology from the school board and the remova l of the incident from Huff’s records (Stepp, 2003). In a five to three decision, th e school board decide d not to apologize to Marcus (Moller, 2003). As part of their annual di versity week, the Gay/Straight Alliance student club in a Michigan high school organized a panel discussi on of six clergy who shared the view that religion and homosexuality are compatible. Elizabeth Hansen, a st udent and member of the Pioneers in Christ student club, objected to this message a nd asked that she be able to either name a clergy member that shared he r belief that homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle or speak on the panel he rself. The school rejected he r request, but invited her to speak at a general assembly on the subject of “what divers ity means to me.” School officials reviewed all of the students’ speeches, and found some of Hansen’s speech objectionable. Hansen revised her speech but sued claiming violations of her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exerci se of religion. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in favor of Hansen, and rejected the school’s argument that it restricted her speech b ecause of legitimate pedagogical concerns (Hutton, 2003b). Symbolic Speech The principal of Kingswood Regional Hi gh School in New Hampshire suspended Paul Hendrickson Jr. for wearing an anti-Nazi patch on his clothing. The anti-Nazi patch

PAGE 38

27 consisted of a red circle and diagonal line on top of a swastika. The school district filed suit and the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the school. During the court proceedings, the principal explained that he suspended Hendrickson because he believed that the patch may lead to a violent disr uption between two groups of students known as the “gay students” and the “rednecks” and described threats and taunts between the two groups. The judge ruled that because of the unique circumstances at the school, that the principal could censor Hendrickson’s speech based on the need to prevent violence (Whitson, 2006). T.J. West, a middle school student in Ka nsas, drew a Confederate flag during mathematics class. Another student showed th e picture to the teacher who gave it to the principal. As a result, the school suspended West for three days. Because of the history of racial tensions in the sc hool and district, it was require d that the students review a student handbook that contained the policy prohibiting them from possessing written material that is racially divisive or that creates ill will. Th e handbook listed examples such as articles or flags that denoted the Ku Klux Klan, Black Power, and the Confederacy. West’s father sued, alleging th e school violated his son’s First Amendment right to free speech. The 10th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the school district because given the history of racial incidents in the school, it was reasonable for school officials to fear that the drawing would cause substantial disruption of school activities (Dowling-Sendor, 2000). School officials suspended two students in Ohio, Timothy Ca storina and Tiffany Dargavell, for wearing Hank Williams Jr. t-sh irts with the Confederate flag. The two students claimed they were wearing the t-sh irts to celebrate Williams’ birthday and

PAGE 39

28 express their southern heritage. The student s filed suit, and a fe deral district court dismissed the case because wear ing the t-shirts did not cons titute expressive conduct. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision because the school did not prove the shirts would cau se a disruption to sc hool activities and the school did not ban other types of controvers ial clothing such as Malcolm X t-shirts (Student Press Law Center, 2001). A principal in a Florida high school suspended two students for displaying a Confederate flag on school grounds. Previously the principal had to ld the students that displaying the Confederate flag was against school rules. The students filed suit, claiming violation of their First Amendment free speech rights. Because testimony from school officials established the race-based na ture of fights at the school prior to the principal’s ban, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the principal’s unwritten policy did not viol ate the students’ ri ghts (Brooks, 2004). Student Speech on the Internet While writing on his blog (a frequent chronological publication of personal thoughts and Web links) at home, Nevada high school student Wesley Juhl typed “Kill Alaina!” referring to a friend from school. J uhl also wrote a deroga tory comment about a teacher in the blog. A month later, he r eceived an in-school suspension. During the disciplinary action, school official s realized that Juhl did not have a current zone variance and forced Juhl to attend a different high school (Bach, 2003). In a similar situation, a student at a Florida high sc hool posted threats to a student on the Internet Web log community xanga.com. The threats consiste d of taking vengeance on another student at the school. However, official s at the Florida school did not take any disciplinary action,

PAGE 40

29 because they believed the code of conduct did not extend to the student’s home where the threats were made (Garza, 2003). Supreme Court Cases Dealing with Students’ Freedom of Religion Engel v. Vitale (1962) The State Board of Regents, which had supervisory power over New York public schools, started a program of "moral and spiritu al training" in the sc hools. This program required students to recite a prayer, written by the Regents, every morning in the presence of a teacher. The prayer stated, “Almi ghty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country” (p. 422). A group of 10 parents filed suit against the Board of Educati on of New Hyde Park, New York because the board directed the pr incipals to adopt the Regents’ program including the daily recitation of the prayer. The parents challenged the constitutionality of the program because it violated the Fi rst Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents and declared, “state officials may not compose an official state pr ayer and require that it be recited in the public schools.” Justice Black, writing for the majority, did not agree with the school district’s argument that because the prayer was nondenominational and students were not compelled to recite the program, it did not vi olate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Black explained the prohibition of school prayer by writing: It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writi ng or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance. (p.435)

PAGE 41

30 With the Engle decision, the U.S. Supreme C ourt established a strict standard against state-sponsored prayer in public sc hools (Demac, 1998; Fischer, 1999). Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) involved a Penns ylvania law stating: At least 10 verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible read ing, upon the written request of his parent or guardian. (p. 205) The Court ruled against the law requiri ng schools begin each day with readings from the Bible. According to Justice Clar k, who wrote the majority opinion, “in light of the history of the First Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause” (p. 205). In addition to ruling the Pennsylvania law unconstitutional, Justice Clark established that the teachers could use th e Bible in the classroom for educational purposes and the study of religion in th e school curriculum does not violate the Constitution when he wrote: It might well be said that one’s educa tion is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and histor ic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presente d objectively as part of a

PAGE 42

31 secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. (p. 225) Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) The U.S. Supreme Court heard two case s from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that involved taxpayer assistan ce to private, and in some instances, religious schools. The Pennsylvania law in question provided for pa ying the salaries of teachers in private schools, as well as assisting in the purchasi ng of textbooks and othe r teaching supplies. In Rhode Island, the government paid 15% of the salaries of private school teachers. In both cases, the teachers were teaching secular, not religious, subjects. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously determined that direct government assistance to religious schools was unconstitu tional. Because of the case, the Court created the "Lemon Test" for deciding if a law is in violation of the Establishment Clause. “First, the statute must have a secula r legislative purpose; s econd, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advanc es nor inhibits religi on; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government Enta nglement with religion.” The Lemon Test is important for educators because the courts use the test to evaluate the purpose and effects of a school’s conduct, and, if the schoo l’s actions violate any of the three prongs, the action is unconstitutional (Kaiser, 2003). West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) The West Virginia Board of Education or dered the Pledge of Allegiance become a “regular part of the program of activities in the public school s, and all teachers and pupils shall be required to particip ate in the salute honoring the Na tion represented by the flag.” At the time the Pledge consisted of the follo wing statement, “I pledge allegiance to the

PAGE 43

32 flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and ju stice for all.” If a student re fused to salute the flag, the school could suspend the student for insubordi nation. Because of the order by the state board, schools expelled Jehovah Witness stude nts and threatened their parents with prosecution for causing delinquenc y. A parent, Walter Barnette, filed for an injunction against the state board order. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Barnette. Justices Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion wrote, “t he statute before us fails to accord full scope to the freedom of religion secured to the appellees by the First a nd Fourteenth Amendment.” After the Court’s decision, school official s could not make the Pledge compulsory (Taylor, 2003). Recent Conflicts Involving Students’ Freedom of Religion Student Distribution of Religious Materials Robert Dowd went to school with “joy jars” he made to pass out to the rest of the students in his class. The decorated jars contained Bible excerpts and messages about Jesus. Dowd’s teacher alerted the principal to the contents of the messages. Afterwards, the principal removed the messages while the students were out of the room. On the same day, Dowd’s sister distributed similar ja rs to her classmates without interruption. Dowd’s parents filed suit in federal court claiming the school interfered with his First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion. The Mobile County Public School System policy prohibits the distribution of re ligious material on grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause of th e First Amendment (Danborn, 2004).

PAGE 44

33 Reading the Bible at School During his school’s “quiet reading time,” Harri son Kravat chose to read the Bible. Upon discovering his choice of r eading material, his teacher c onfiscated the Bible. The school based its policy on the mistaken belief that allowing students to read the Bible at school was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After contact from the Alliance Defense Fund, whic h threatened a lawsuit, the school changed its policy and allowed Kravat to read his Bible (Hutton, 2003a). Teaching about Religion Brooke Carlin, a teacher at Excelsior School in Byron, California, had her students adopt roles as Muslims for three week s as part of a unit on Islam. During the three-week unit, students used Muslim name s, recited Islamic prayers, and simulated fasting for Ramadan by giving up candy or television for a day. The parents of two Christian students filed suit and claimed that the role-playing exercises were an unconstitutional endorsement of Islam. The U.S. District judge dismissed the suit because the purpose was not religious and that all the activities served an educational purpose. In addition, units on Muslim culture and religion are a statewide requirement for seventh-grade world hist ory classes (Egelko, 2003). Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance The American Civil Liberties Union sued the State of Colorado over a law that would make public school students and teacher s recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day. A U.S. District judge agreed with th e ACLU and blocked the state from enforcing the law and stated, “It doesn’t matter whethe r you’re a teacher, a student, a citizen, an administrator, or anyone else—it is beyond the power of the state or government to

PAGE 45

34 compel the recitation of the Pledge of Allegi ance.” The legislators agreed to rewrite the law (Abbot, 2003). A U.S. District Court has upheld Virginia ’s statutes that public schools hold daily recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. The plaintiff in the case, Edward Myers, argued that the Pledge violated the Establishment Cl ause of the First Amendment. The District Court applied the Lemon test a nd rejected Myers’ argument b ecause the Pledge is secular in purpose, does not promote religion, a nd does not create excessive entanglement (Hutton, 2003c). Michael Newdow, the non-custodial parent of a child in Califo rnia, filed suit over a school policy requiring teachers to lead stude nts in the Pledge of Allegiance on grounds that it violates the First Amendment’s Estab lishment Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed w ith Newdow’s argument that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge means the policy is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Hutton, 2003e; Zirkel, 2004). According to Newdow, when teachers recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the word s ‘under God’ they are not being neutral in regards to religion, and “what e ducator reads into the current Pledge that the denial of God’s existence is afforded equal status with the contrary view” (Newdow, 2003 p. 1). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow di d not have the legal standing to bring the case because of the current custody dispute betw een the parents of the child. As a result, the Court did not address the constitutional i ssue of the Pledge (Court dismisses Pledge case, 2004). However, Newdow re filed his lawsuit and the judge issued an injunction barring students in the Rio Linda Union School District from reciting the Pledge. The

PAGE 46

35 judge stayed the injunction pe nding appeals, allowing the Rio Linda students to continue reciting the Pledge (M ears, 2005; Walsh, 2005). A federal judge ruled a State of Florid a’s law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegi ance is unconstitutional. Ca meron Frazier, the 17-year old junior that filed the lawsuit receive d $32,500 from the Palm Beach County School District because of an agreement between th e school district and Frazier. The 1942 law required students to recite the Pledge and c ould only be exempt if the student provided written permission from his or her parents. In addition, the law re quired all students to stand even if they had parental permission al lowing them to be silent during the recitation of the Pledge. U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth Ryskamp ruled the law unconstitutional because it violated students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that students may stay quietly seated during the Pledge (Travis, 2006). Students’ First Amendment Rights and Implications for Teachers Teachers should be available and ready to help students become aware of their rights and accompanying responsibilitie s. A teacher cannot know when a situation involving student rights will arise in his or her classroom. That teacher should be prepared to turn the situation in to a learning experience to help students analyze and interpret—and possibly improve—the human condition. (Henson, 1979, p. 33) Students learn by example and if teachers set an example of intolerance for speech, denial of religious expression, or pr ejudice toward or agai nst religion, this will become an unintended aspect of the school’s curriculum (Hills, 2001; Kaiser, 2003).

PAGE 47

36 Students’ Freedom of Expression and Implications for Teachers In addition to cases decided by the courts Florida law places responsibilities on teachers regarding students’ rights. The Code of Ethics and the Prin ciples of Professional Conduct of the Education Professi on in Florida state that a teacher “shall not intentionally violate or deny a student’s legal rights.” Florida law requires teachers discuss the school’s code of conduct, which must contain “an explanation of the responsibilities and rights of students” (Florida Statute 1006.07). Florida also requires additional responsibilities of teachers such as “posti ng a notice in a conspicuous place that the student has the right not to pa rticipate in reciting the Ple dge of Allegiance” (Florida Statute 1003.44). In order to help teachers understand students’ ri ght to freedom of religion, the state distributes the “entire guidelines on Relig ious Expression in Public Schools published by the United States Depart ment of Education” (Florida Statute 1002.205). The cases decided by the Supreme Court have established tests for when teachers can limit the freedom of expression of students. However, the tests require teachers to understand the Court’s decisions and apply that understanding to their unique situation. In order for a teacher’s decision to limit st udents’ freedom of expression to hold up in court, the expression must have been associated with the school, a tr ue threat, obscene, or capable of causing a “substantial and materi al disruption” to school activities (DowlingSendor, 2001). Expression that is associated with the school or sponsored by the school does not have the same protection as individual st udent expression and ca n be regulated by the school to ensure that the st udent expression does not inte rfere with the educational

PAGE 48

37 mission of the school (Taylor, 2000). In regard to the curriculum, the courts have given teachers broad leeway to determine the nature of the curriculum (Fischer, 1999). In the wake of deadly inci dents such as the shootings in Columbine, schools have become more aware of threats made by st udents (Wheeler & Hutton, 2003). However, schools may overreact to this speech and infr inge on a student’s freedom of expression (Hudson, 2004). The courts have provided educat ors with various criteria to consider when determining whether student expression is a true threat. The criteria include whether the student has made similar statements in the past, whether school officials have reason to suspect the student might be viol ent, how the student made the threat, and whether the student communicated the threat directly to the pers on being threatened (Hills, 2001). In addition, even when a threatening statement is not a true threat, educators can respond out of fear of a disr uption of school activit ies (Wheeler & Hutton, 2003). With the decision in Bethel v. Fraser (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court established that schools can discipline for obscene speech, and that the Constitution does not prohibit schools from determining what modes of e xpression are appropria te (Stader, 2001). Teachers and schools can restrict the content of student expression because it is vulgar or obscene, and if the expression conflicts with the teaching mission of the school. However, teachers must be careful not to rest rict expression just because they disagree with the student’s message or viewpoint on a particular topic (Dowling-Sendor, 2001). In addition, educators can rest rict expression that school officials consider fighting words. Fighting words consist of words that inflict injury by their very utterance or incense students to fight physically or verbally (Fischer, 1999).

PAGE 49

38 While student expression may not be th reatening or obscene, school officials can restrict the expression if the officials believe it will cause a disruption to school activities (Fischer, 1999). However, if the student challe nges the restriction of expression in court, the school must provide evidence that a disruption would have occurred (DowlingSendor, 2001). As evidenced by decisions rela ting to the Confederate flag, the same expression can be restricted in one school and not restricted in another school. The courts will rule in favor of the school only if it can provide proof of a possible disruption to school activities, and that disruption outweighs the stude nts’ freedom of expression (Dowling-Sendor, 2000; Student Pr ess Law Center, 2001). School officials can also re strict student expression ev en if the expression took place off-campus. This is an important concept for school officials who discipline students for expression posted on the Internet while at home (Zirkel, 2001; MacFarlane, 2007). However, the restriction of expression outside of the school can be a complicated legal matter (Conn, 2001). Taylor (2000) suggest ed school officials ask themselves two questions when considering whether to discip line a student for expr ession contained on a personal Web site: 1. Is the expression in question associat ed with the school? Remember that expression associated with the school (for example, a Web page created on a school’s computer) can be re gulated in a reasonable manner to ensure it does not conflict with the edu cational mission of the school. In contrast, to be restricted lawfully by school officials, individual speech not associated with the school must create a substantial or material disruption of school activities.

PAGE 50

39 2. Is the proposed punishment motivated by a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that often accompanies unpopular viewpoints? The restriction must stem from somethi ng more than upset or dislike. Schools will have to show the student’s conduct materially and substantially interfered with appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. School officials can also restrict off-cam pus expression including Web sites if the officials consider the expression a true threat The criteria for determining whether offcampus student expression is a true threat are the same as the criteria when analyzing oncampus student expression (Conn, 2001). Recent court cases have shown a trend toward limiting the rights of students and expa nding the discretion of school personnel (DeMitchell et al., 2000). Students’ Freedom of Religion and Implications for Teachers Every day parents from a variety of reli gious backgrounds entrust the education of their children to public school teachers, which is why teachers need to be informed about the constitutional issues dealing with reli gion in public education (Haynes, 1999). One of the critical arenas for the issue of religious freedom in this country has been public education. It is in public schools that the conf lict between private religious beliefs and the tr adition of public secularism plays out with the most fervor, given that this is where the attitu des of the next generation of American adults are being shaped. (Demac, 1998, p.10) Even though cases decided by the U.S. S upreme Court provide clear signals to teachers, violations of the First Amendmen t’s protection of religion continue everyday (Imber, 2003). In spite of consensus about wh at the Court has decided is appropriate in

PAGE 51

40 the classroom, many public school teachers remain confused about what kinds of religious expression are permissible in school (Marshall, 2003; Rozycki, 2003; Demac, 1999). One of the causes for the confusi on and nervousness of teachers concerning religious matters is the fact that most teach ers do not receive training in the appropriate way to handle religion in the classroom (Kaiser, 2003). While teachers may be confused and nervous about religion in the classroom, growing numbers throughout the U.S. understa nd that study about religion in social studies, language arts, music, and art is an important part of a student’s education (Haynes, 1999). Supreme Court Justice Clark, in Abington v. Schempp (1963), affirmed the principle that religion is an important aspect of the curriculum when he wrote, “It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion to the advancem ent of civilization.” The State of Florida agrees with Justice Clark when it comes to including religion in the curriculum. The Florid a Sunshine State Standards for Social Studies (Grades 9-12) specifically mentions religion seven time s, and requires that students “know the significant ideas and texts of Buddhism, Chri stianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.” The National History Standards recommends a study of Christianity, Confucianism, Daoism, Brahmanism, and Hinduism, as well as studying religious diversity and its impact on institutions and values in America (N ational Center for History in the Schools, 1996). However, the policy requiring teachers to teach about religion, but not teach religion does not make clear what the policy permits or forbids (Rozycki, 2003). In an effort to “end much of the c onfusion regarding religious expr ession in our nation’s public

PAGE 52

41 schools,” the United States Department of Education developed a set of guidelines entitled “Religious Expression in Public Schools.” In regard to the confusion concerning teaching about religion and teaching religion the Department states: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bibleas-literature, and the role of history of the United States and other countries all are permi ssible public school subjects. (Religious Expression in Public Schools, 1998, p.6) In an effort to help teachers understand th e role of religion in education, the State of Florida passed a law which states: The Department of Educa tion shall each year distribute for informational purposes to all district sc hool board members, district school superintendents, school principals, and teachers, the entir e guidelines on Religious Expression in Public Schools published by the United States Department of Education, as updated from time to time. (Florida Statute 1002.205) In the classroom, although the subjec t may not be religion, students may choose to express their religious beliefs. Accordi ng to A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools “students may express their own re ligious views, as long as such expression is germane to the discussion” (H aynes, 1999, p. 3). In addition, students may express their religious views in the form of homework, artwork, and other assignments free of discrimination based on the religious content of their work (Marshall, 2003). However, “depending on the purpose and nature of the assignment a teacher can limit the religious content of a writing assignment” (Fischer, 1999). In some instances, students

PAGE 53

42 may request the teacher excuse them from a lesson or assignment that they or their parents find objectionable on religious grounds Schools and teachers enjoy substantial discretion in deciding whethe r to excuse the student, but according to the First Amendment Center, teachers should try to ac commodate students when they object to assignments on religious grounds (Douglass, 2000). In order for students to e xpress their religious views, an increasing number of students are requesting permissi on to distribute religious mate rial in class and on campus (Wayne, 1999). The distribution of religious materials by students puts teachers and schools in a precarious position between litig ious groups: those who do not want children to bring home flyers from schools promoti ng religious views, and others who feel a school must not refuse the di stribution of the flyers (Hu tton & Burns, 2004). According to guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Education, “stude nts have a right to distribute religious literature to their school mates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other liter ature that is unrelated to school cu rriculum or activities” (Religious Expression in Public Schools, 1998, p. 6). Since teachers represent the government, th ey have a duty to remain neutral to religion. Consequently, teacher expression of religion may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Kaiser, 2003). For instance, teachers may not pray with or in the presence of students, but they are permitted to wear “non-obtrusive” jewelry such as the Star of David or a cross (Haynes, 1999). Legislation that promotes patriotism in the schools has become prevalent in many states, including legislation dealing with th e Pledge of Allegiance (Taylor, 2003). Most schools require students to recite the Pledge of A llegiance at the star t of the school day

PAGE 54

43 (Fischer, 1999). The State of Fl orida requires that “t he Pledge of Allegiance to the flag shall be recited at the beginning of the da y in each public elementary, middle, and high school in the state. The state law also re quires that “each student shall be informed by posting a notice in a conspicuous place that the student has the right not to participate in reciting the pledge. Upon writt en request by his or her pa rent, the student must be excused from reciting the pl edge” (Florida Statute 1003.44). Conclusion The review of the literature reveals th at while the U.S. Supreme Court has decided a multitude of cases dealing with st udents’ First Amendment rights, students and parents continue to file lawsu its that deal with violations of these rights. The literature also shows that the number of court cases fi led against schools and teachers has led to calls for teacher preparation programs to incl ude an understanding of educational law in the curriculum. The evidence used to justify an incr ease in the amount of instruction in educational law is largely anecdotal. The literature shows a small number of studies measuring practicing teachers’ knowledge of ed ucational law. However, research is lacking that investigates pr e-service teachers and how we ll teacher education programs are preparing them to deal with students’ Fi rst Amendment Rights in the classroom. This study fills gap in the research by studying preservice teachers and not practicing teachers and will examine pre-service teachers’ knowledge of a particular area of educational law, students’ First Amendment rights.

PAGE 55

44 Chapter III Methods The purpose of this study was to investig ate the level of knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights among pre-service teache rs, as well as the pre-service teachers’ confidence in their ability to deal with student s’ First Amendment rights in the classroom. As dictated by the standards for teacher prepar ation in the State of Florida, teachers must have an understanding of educational law, in cluding students’ First Amendment rights. However, there is a lack of research detai ling the level of knowle dge among pre-service teachers and their confidence in dealing with students’ First Amendment rights before they enter their teaching careers. This chap ter will review the methods and procedures the researcher used in conducting this study. Use of Mixed Methods In order to describe pre-service teac hers’ knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classr oom, the researcher used a mixed methods study design to take advantag e of the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods. “Mixed methods research is the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitativ e and qualitative research t echniques, methods, approaches, concepts, or language into a single st udy” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The researcher began the study by gathering data using a Web-based survey developed by the researcher. Using the data collected from the survey, the researcher used descriptive

PAGE 56

45 statistics, including measures of central tendency and analysis of variance, to describe the level of knowledge and confidence of pre-service teachers at the university. The researcher also conducted interviews to provide an understanding of how preservice teachers acquire know ledge and confidence in dea ling with First Amendment issues. According to Dexter (1970), an inte rview is a conversation with a purpose. The purpose of the interviews conducted by the researcher was to obtain “here and now constructions” of the participants about thei r preparation to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Another purpose of the interview was to validate the findings from the survey instru ment distributed to all the participants. For the interviews, the researcher used a structured interview strategy. During the structured interview, the researcher had a list of questions prepared prior to the interview and asked each participant the same questions. This strategy is used when the researcher knows the questions that need to be answered and relies on the participants to provide the responses and the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). McCraken (1988) stat es that interviews of two to three hours are comm on. The interviews the researcher conducted for this study were 30-45 minutes in length given that th e researcher had already collected the biographical questions thr ough the survey instrument. During the interviews, the researcher as ked the respondents the following four types of questions developed by Patton (1980). Experience/Behavior Questions – Questions that are aimed at eliciting descriptions of experiences, behaviors, actions, and activitie s that would have been observable had the observer been present

PAGE 57

46 Opinion/Value Questions – Questions that try to fi nd out what people think about the world or about a specific program Knowledge Questions – Questions that find out what a respondent considers to be factual information regarding the research topic Interpretive Questions – Questions in which the researcher advances a tentative interpretation of what the respondent has been saying and asks for a reaction Setting and Background The university that is the focus of this study is a major public research university located in the rapidly growing metropolitan area in the southeastern part of the United States. The university enrolls more than 41,000 students on four area campuses. The 41,000 students can choose from more than 200 undergraduate and gr aduate programs. On average, freshman entering the univers ity in the fall of 2004 had a high school GPA of 3.74 and an SAT score of 1108. More than 25% of the student population is African American, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Am erican, or other nationality (Quick Facts about USF, 2005). The university has one of the largest metropolitan Colleges of Education in the nation and has enrolled more than 3,500 student s in one of the many bachelors, masters, Ed.S, and PhD programs. The College of Education is accredited by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) a nd received over $23 million in external funding to support the Coll ege’s research and professional service efforts (USF College of Education, 2005).

PAGE 58

47 Participants The researcher asked 325 pre-service t eachers to participate in the study. The participants in this study were secondary e ducation pre-service teachers in mathematics, science, English, foreign language, and social studies The pre-se rvice teachers were students in the College of Education’s Depa rtment of Secondary Education and were taking courses in one of the college’s program s that lead to teacher certification in mathematics, science, English, foreign language or social studies. Th e degrees offered in the College of Education leading to teacher ce rtification include a B achelor of Science in Education and a Master of Arts in Teach ing. Information regarding the admission requirements and required core courses in the College of Educa tion can be found in Appendix D. Table 1 shows the number of pre-service teachers by subject area and academic level. Table 1 Number of Pre-Service Teachers by Subject Area and Academic Level Social Studies Math Science English Foreign Language Graduate (n=38) 22 (41%) 1 ( 14%) 8 (47%) 5 (17%) 2 (67%) Undergraduate (n=72) 32 (59%) 6 (86%) 9 (53%) 24 (83%) 1 (33%) Note. The researcher sent an e-mail with a link to the survey to 325 pre-service teachers asking them to participate in the study. Out of the 325 pre-serv ices that received e-mails, 110 submitted surveys. The researcher investigated if there was a statistically significant difference between the frequencies of graduate and undergraduate students in each subject area and found that the differences in the frequencies for each subj ect area were not sta tistically significant, (4, 110) = 8.57, p = 0.07. The first section of the Web-based survey required the pre-service teachers to provide background information including thei r gender, teaching experience, experience

PAGE 59

48 with the law, and experience with educatio nal law. Seventy-eight percent of the participants were female. Fifty-three of th e survey participants responded that they had teaching experience; 36 of those participants responded that they had experience as a substitute teacher, and 17 participants res ponded that they had expe rience as a full-time teacher. Regarding experiences with the law, 14 participants responded that they had served on jury duty, 9 had been involved in a lawsuit, and 10 had worked in the law enforcement or legal profession. In addition, 47 participants responded that they had a family member involved in law en forcement or a legal profession. Development of the Survey Instrument All participants in the study received a Web-based survey (see Appendix A). The survey consists of background information, 10 questions based on classroom scenarios involving students’ First Amendment rights, and seven questions about First Amendment concepts. The first section of the survey re quires the participants to provide background questions such as age, gender, and academic experiences. In add ition, the participants provided information about experiences that may have an effect on their level of knowledge about First Amendment issues that affect the classroom. In the next section of the survey, the part icipants determined the constitutionality of the actions of teachers and school officials. The researcher developed the scenarios in the survey using court cases involving Firs t Amendment issues in the classroom. The researcher used several criteria when selecting the cases for the survey. First, in each of the cases or examples, a judge provided a wr itten decision about the constitutionality of the case and the decision was based on the guiding principles supplied by the Supreme Court that are not likely to change in the near future. The writt en decision provides the

PAGE 60

49 researcher with a clear answer as to whet her the school violated the First Amendment rights of students. Another cr iterion used by the researcher when selecting cases was that the action took place in a secondary classroom. The final criterion was that a classroom teacher initiated the conflict between the sc hool and the student’s First Amendment rights with a decision to take action. The research er’s goal in selecting the cases was to represent situations that teachers deal w ith around the country and that pre-service teachers may face in the future. The final section of the survey instrume nt asks pre-service teachers about First Amendment concepts. These concepts such as the use of the Bible in the classroom, standing for the Pledge, and fighting words were based on standards developed by the United States Supreme Court. The Use of Web-Based Surveys Web-based surveys offer researchers a number of advantages, including lower costs, ease of survey development, speed of delivery and response, and ease of data cleaning and analysis (Umbach, 2004; Sills & Song, 2002). Even though many researchers have conducted research using the Internet, some researchers have concerns with using the Internet as a tool for gatheri ng data These concerns include low response rates, self-selectivity of Internet users, tec hnological issues with the deployment of the research tool, and concerns over Internet security (Sills & Song, 2002). However, researchers have provided best practices for developing Web-based surveys. The best practices include keeping the design simple, creating a welcome screen that provides interest and clear directions, providing multiple items on a single page, including a progress indicator, and limiting the amount of scrolling by users of the survey (Umbach,

PAGE 61

50 2004; Couper et al., 2001). By utilizing thes e best practices, it is possible to decrease errors and increase response rates (Umbac h, 2004). In addition, for populations such as university students that regularly use the Internet in their daily lives, researchers have found that the Internet can be a sensible means for gathering data and achieving meaningful results (Porte r, 2004; Sills & Song, 2002). The use of Web-bases surveys and assessments has led researchers to investigate the effect of test or survey mode on perf ormance or quality of the data (Leeson, 2006; Denscombe, 2006; Choi & Tinkler 2002; Bergstrom, 1992). In a literature review of the mode effect on the performance of particip ants on a Web-based test, Leeson (2006) found that there are several issues to contemplate when utilizing a Web-based test. The issues include: Slight differences between race/ethnicities; Slightly poorer performance by fe males on computer-based tests; Little difference between hi gh and low computer users; A detrimental impact of scrolling on performance; No effect on performance whether partic ipants have the opt ion to go back and review their answers to pr evious items or not; and An increase errors and hurried responses when one item is presented per screen. Many studies have been conducted with adult examinees to evaluate the comparability of scores obtained from computer-based tests versus those from paper-andpencil tests. “In general, th ese studies concluded that the underlying constructs measured by both computer-based and pape r-and-pencil versions of an instrument are not readily distinguishable, and the admi nistration mode effects were typically small” (Choi &

PAGE 62

51 Tinkler, 2002). In addition, Denscombe (2006) found that the benefits of Web-based questionnaires do not appear to come at the expense of consistency, and that “Web-based questionnaires appear to provi de a reliable data collection method as measured against equivalent paper-bas ed versions.” Survey Monkey The researcher used the online survey bu ilder, Survey Monkey, to create the Webbased survey for this study. “Survey Monkey is an easy-to-use tool for the creation of online surveys. Its primary strength is its intuitive Web interface, which makes it easy for even non-technical folks to create surv eys and export collected data” (Westin, 2005, p. 1). Survey Monkey has several important features that helped the researcher implement the best practices from the litera ture for designing the survey (Umbach, 2004; Couper et al. 2001). The software allows the designer to add a welcome screen and divide the survey into multiple pages to reduce scrolling. In addition, Survey Monkey provides over 20 types of questions including: multiple choice (with multiple selections), short answer, and long answers requiring text boxes. The software also allows the designer to require answers to certain questions, and prevents the participants from going back to previously answered que stions to change answers. In order to help the researcher distribute the surveys, Survey Monkey creates a Web link that the rese archer can send to participants via e-mail. In addition to the design tools, Survey Monkey provided the researcher with a number of tools to help select participants for interviews and analyze the data. Survey Monkey allows the researcher to filter the data to select only pa rticipants who meet certain criteria. This feature helped the re searcher select participants based on their

PAGE 63

52 academic background and results on the survey. In addition, the resear cher could review the individual results of the interview participants to help prepare for the interview. Survey Monkey also allowed the researcher to download the results from the survey into Microsoft Excel to help with analysis of the data. Expert Review of Survey Instrument In order to validate the survey, the res earcher had it reviewed and analyzed by four experts in the field. The researcher chose the expe rts based on their experiences with teacher education and their experience w ith educational law. Three of the four reviewers are professors in teacher education who specialized in educational law, and one of the three professors has written extensively on First Am endment issues. The fourth reviewer is the editor of a weekly newslett er on court cases and issues dealing with educational law. The fourth reviewer provi ded the most feedback regarding the survey and became a consultant to the research er for making changes to the survey. The researcher sent each of the reviewers an expert review form (Appendix B). None of the reviewers suggested changes to the background or academic background questions. However, the consultant and anot her reviewer did make suggestions regarding potential changes to several questions in the survey. The first sugge stion had to do with two questions regarding homosexuality. The consultant and another professor felt that while courts had ruled on these cases, some of the issues were emerging and could be decided differently in the near future by the Supreme Court. As a result, the researcher replaced these questions w ith questions based on the Tinker decision and the Bethel decision. Another suggestion made by the c onsultant dealt with the two questions regarding freedom of expressi on on the Internet. The cons ultant believed these two

PAGE 64

53 questions could be replaced because the Supreme Court may reverse the lower court opinions in the future. However, after conti nued consultation, the researcher kept these two questions because many of the courts de aling with the issue have ruled using the same criteria and the literature suggests th at the Supreme Court will not overrule the lower courts decisions when it comes to thes e cases. The final suggestion consisted of changing the word Christmas to holiday on one of the questions. The researcher made this change to the question that dea lt with distributing religious messages. Field Test of Survey Instrument In addition to the expert review, the resear cher field-tested th e survey instrument with pre-service teachers at the university that is the focus of this study. The researcher conducted a field test of the Web-based su rvey with pre-service teachers through the university’s e-mail system. All of the particip ants in the field test were in the teacher education program, but not enrolled in an in ternship or the methods course for their particular discipline. Seventeen pre-service teachers from a variet y of subject areas participated in the field test. In order to measure the difficulty of the questions, the researcher calculated a difficulty index for each item. The results of the difficulty index can be found in Appendix E. The difficulty index for seven of the scenario questions was between .58 and .76. For three of the scenario questions the difficulty index was above .80. Two of the three questions dealt with students crea ting Web pages at home (.88 and .94), and the third question dealt with the Pledge of A llegiance (.82). Even though these questions were above .80, the researcher decided to incl ude the questions because of their value in investigating pre-service teachers understand ing of these two issues. For the seven

PAGE 65

54 concept questions, four of the questions were above .80. The three questions included the questions regarding expression at a school-sponsored activity (.94), fighting words (1.0), the Pledge of Allegiance (.82), and stoppi ng student prayers (.88) The researcher decided to keep the questions in the survey because they provided the researcher with more data about the pre-service teachers understanding of First Amendment issues. However, the researcher did make a slight change to the wording for the question regarding fighting words. In addition to conducting the diffi culty index, the researcher tested for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha (.50). Field Test of Structured Interview Questions In order to field test the structured interview questions and orient the researcher to conducting the interviews, the rese archer selected two participants for pilot interviews. The researcher chose one participant from the two comparison groups of the mathematics, science, English, and foreign la nguage group of particip ants and the social studies group of participants. While conducti ng the pilot interviews, the researcher made several discoveries that woul d help while conducting interv iews for the study. The first discovery was the importance of warm-up ques tions and reviewing the informed consent form. The interview participants had never participated in a study before, so reviewing the informed consent form and describing the study helped the researcher and the interview participant get to know each other. In addition to the informed consent, providing the interview participants with the $50 gift certificate also helped with getting them comfortable with the interview process. During the first interview, the researcher started by reviewing the interview participant’s answers to the survey instrume nt and then moved to the questions on the

PAGE 66

55 structured interview. However, during the s econd interview, the researcher began the interview by asking several of the structur ed interview questions, then reviewing the survey instrument, and then finishing the interview with the remaining structured interview questions. The strategy of reviewing the survey in the middle of the structured interview questions elicited more thoughtful re sponses by the second participant. It also allowed the researcher to come back to some of the structured interview questions during the interview process. In addition, the resear cher was able to illicit responses from the participant by asking the res pondent to explain his or her answers and confidence to the questions on the survey instrument. Conducting the Study Phase One: Distribution of the Survey Instrument The researcher distributed the Web-based survey to the participants during the pre-service teachers’ internsh ip and in their subject area methods course. For the preservice teachers conducting thei r internship, the researcher contacted participants via email explaining the purpose of the study and th e need for their part icipation. The e-mail contained a link to the Web-based survey, which was hosted on Survey Monkey. For the pre-service teachers in their subject area methods courses, the participants took the survey in a computer lab duri ng the scheduled class time. The survey was distributed to 325 pre-service teachers and 110 pre-service teachers participated in the study. Phase Two: Statistical Analysis of Survey Instrument Data The quantitative methods used to analyze the data from the survey and answer the research questions consiste d of measures of central tend ency, analysis of variance, and effect size.

PAGE 67

56 1. Is there a significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate secondary pre-service teachers on a survey designed to assess preservice teachers’ knowledge of st udents’ First Amendment rights? After the researcher distributed the survey to all the participants, the researcher calculated the mean for undergraduate and graduate student s. In order to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, the researcher conducted an analysis of variance. 2. Is there a significant difference between the scores of mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-serv ice secondary teachers and the scores of social studies pre-service teachers on a survey designed to assess preservice teachers’ knowledge of st udents’ First Amendment rights? The researcher calculated the mean for the mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers and the so cial studies pre-servi ce teachers. Using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the researcher determined if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The two-way ANOVA also provided information about any statistically si gnificant interaction effects of subject area (math, science, English, foreign language and social studies) and level of degree (graduate and undergraduate). The researcher also conducted a test for homogeneity of variance because of the differences in the num ber of pre-service t eachers in each cell of the design and calculated the e ffect size to determine the pr actical significance of the results.

PAGE 68

57 3. What experiences throughout the lives of secondary pre-service teachers, including their academic experiences, do they feel have prepared them for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights? During the interviews with the participan ts, the researcher asked the pre-service teachers about their experiences at the unive rsity and any other courses they may have taken that have helped prepare them for d ealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. During the interviews, many of the pre-service teachers explained their experiences with First Amendment issues while elaborating on their answers to the questions on the survey. In addition, the res earcher asked the pre-se rvice teachers about experiences outside of the clas sroom that they believe might have helped prepare them for First Amendment issues in the classroom. 4. Are secondary pre-service teachers conf ident they are prepared for dealing with students’ First Ame ndment rights at school? After the researcher distributed the survey to all the participants, the researcher calculated a confidence score fo r each participant based on his or her responses from the survey. The researcher calculated the mea n, median, and mode of the confidence scores and used the confidence scores to classi fy students into high, average, and low confidence groups. Using a two-way analysis of variance, the researcher determined if there was a statistically significant differen ce between the confidence levels of the two groups. The two-way ANOVA also provided information about any statistically significant interaction effects of subject area (math, science, English, foreign language and social studies) and level of degree (graduate and undergradua te) on the level of confidence. The researcher also conducted a test for homogeneity of variance because of

PAGE 69

58 the differences in the number of pre-service teachers in each cell of the design and calculated the effect size to determine th e practical significance of the results. Phase Three: Selection of Participants for Interviews Once the researcher completed the data analysis from the surveys, the researcher utilized stratified purposeful sampling to select participants for interviews. The researcher used this sampling strategy of selecting participants at defined points of variation to examine the characteristics and variations of the different groups. The defined points of variation included high, averag e, and low scores and high, average, and low confidence levels among the pre-service teachers. The researcher classified the participants who scored within one standard de viation from the mean as average scorers. The participants who scored one standard deviation or more above the mean were classified as high scorers, and the participan ts who scored one sta ndard deviation below the mean were classified as low scorers. The researcher used the same method for grouping students based on their confidence tota ls. The number of participants in each group is provided in Table 2.

PAGE 70

59 Table 2 Number of Pre-Service Teachers in Score and Confidence Groups Confidence Level on the Survey Knowledge Score on the Survey High Average Low High 1 8 3 Average 17 57 10 Low 1 9 4 Note. The researcher used standard deviations to classi fy the pre-service teachers into high, average, and low groups. For both the scores and confidence, par ticipants who were at least one standard deviation above the mean were classified as high, and participan ts who were at least one standard deviation below the mean were classi fied as low. The stratified purposeful sa mple included 10 participants who volunteered to be interviewed. Each volunteer supplied his or her e-mail addr ess on the Web-based survey. The researcher’s purpose in selecting the 10 participants was to select those who represented the population of pre-service teach ers and to understand the similarities and differences among the population in their ac quisition of knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. Table 3 shows the academic level, subject area, score level, and confidence level of each interview participant.

PAGE 71

60 Table 3 Selection of Interview Participants Based on Score and Confidence Level Level Subject Area Score Confidence Level Graduate (n = 5) Social Studies High Average Social Studies Low Average Social Studies High High English High Average Foreign Language Average Average Undergraduate (n = 5) Science Average Low Social Studies Average High Mathematics Low High Social Studies Average Low Mathematics Low Low Note. Ten pre-service teachers were chosen for interviews from 37 volunteers. Interview participants were selected based on subject area, academic level, scor e, and confidence level. High, average, and low classifications for both score and confidence level were determined using standard deviations. Phase Four: Interviews The researcher asked each participant the same questions (see Appendix C). The researcher began the interview process by re viewing the informed consent document that needed the participants’ signature and explai ning that their actual names would not be used when reporting the results. The first tw o questions in the structured interview were not designed to answer any of the research questions, but we re used by the researcher as “grand tour” questions, which gave the partic ipant and the intervie wer the opportunity to

PAGE 72

61 get comfortable with each other, the interview process, and the interview topic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The researcher used the other questions to obtain data to answer the research questions. After the grand tour ques tions, the researcher bega n by asking the pre-service teachers general questions about the survey, including their opinion on the difficulty of the questions on the Web-based survey. Next the researcher reviewed the interview participants’ answers to the que stions on the survey. The rese archer asked the pre-service teachers why they selected the answers that th ey selected and to explain their level of confidence for each answer. The researcher also asked follow-up questions so the preservice teachers could furthe r explain their reasons for choosing their answers and their confidence level in their choices. The rese archer concluded the interview by asking the interview participants about the importance of teaching First Amen dment issues to preservice teachers, and how they would incor porate those issues into the curriculum. Phase Five: Analysis of Data from Interviews In qualitative research, data analysis and collection are concurrent activities (Merriam, 1988). The data analysis began dur ing the interviews with the researcher keeping a log of important quotes and ideas (See Appendi x G for an example of the researcher’s log). The researcher’s log c onsists of three columns. The researcher recorded significant quotes and phrases from the interview in the middle column. The researcher used the left column to record the time of the quote, a nd the right column for notes about the quote (Merriam, 1988). In addition to keeping a log during the interviews, the researcher recorded and transcribed each interview to preserve the da ta for analysis. Transcriptions from two

PAGE 73

62 interviews can be found in Appendix H. Once the transcriptions were complete, the researcher gathered all the data including the surveys, the statistical analysis, interview log, and the interview transcripts. The resear cher reviewed all the data, making notes in order to isolate the most important (Merri am, 1988). As the researcher conducted the interviews and analyzed the notes, the researcher looked fo r certain words, phrases, and ideas that began to emerge from the data. The process of integrating emerging themes developed during the study is a characteristic of inductive analysis used in qualitative research (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). The researcher used the notes to create what Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe as units of information. A unit of information is any phrase, comment, or paragraph that reveals information about the phenomenon being studied. The researcher recorded all the units of information on a spreadsheet, and using the comparative technique developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985), the researcher developed categories and themes. The technique consists of the following steps: 1. Read the first unit of information. This first unit of information is the first unit of the first category. 2. Read the second unit of information. If the researcher believe s it is similar or it “feels alike” to the first un it, the researcher will place it with the first unit in the first category. However, if the unit is not similar the researcher will put it a second category. 3. Continue with the remaining units of in formation, deciding if it is a feels alike to previous units that the researcher has placed into categories or if it represents a new category.

PAGE 74

63 4. After a number of units have been pro cessed, the researcher may feel that a new unit neither fits any of the previo us categories nor seems to form a new category. The researcher will place these in a miscellaneous category for later review. In order to check the value of the categories, the researcher used guidelines developed by Holsti (1969) (Merriam, 1988). 1. Each category must reflect the research goals and questions. 2. Every relevant item in the data must be placed into one of the categories. 3. No unit of information can be placed into more than one category. 4. All categories should be independent. 5. All categories should be developed from the same classification principles. Through transcribing the intervie ws, reviewing the notes, separa ting the data into units of information, the researcher was able to fi nd new themes and confirm the previously identified themes. In order to validate the themes, the researcher enlisted four teacher educators to review the units of information and classify the units of information in the themes identified by the researcher. The researcher provided each of the f our teacher educators with an Excel spreadsheet that contained a description of the study, seven themes with a brief description of each, and 23 units of informati on. The researcher chose these themes to test whether or not the themes were comprehe nsive and to ensure th at units could not fit into two different categories. The results of the analysis by the teacher educators can be found in Appendix F.

PAGE 75

64 After completing the categories and themes the researcher wrote a preliminary report and conducted a data workshop with th e major professors of the committee. The workshop involved the professors ’ review of the units of in formation, categories, and the preliminary report. Validity of the Study According to Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), “t he criterion of intern al validity is not applicable to descriptive research because it does not seek to identify causal patterns in phenomena” (p. 571). Therefore, internal validit y does not need to be considered in this study. However, the researcher used triangulati on as checks on the external validity of this study. Triangulation consists of using multiple methods for collecting data. The rationale for triangulation is that the imperf ections of one method ar e often the strengths of the other, and by mixing methods, a resear cher can achieve the best of each, while overcoming their unique deficiencies (Merri am, 1988). The multiple methods used in this study include statistical analysis of th e data from the surveys and the interviews conducted by the researcher. The researcher compared the findings and conclusions from each method and looked for any inconsistencies in the data. The responsibility of generalizing findings of this study is placed on the readers and not the researcher. Readers will need to determine if the study’s findings can be applied to their particular situations. Th e descriptions of the university, the teacher education program, and participants provided by the researcher will help the readers determine the generalizability of the study to their situation or teacher education program (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).

PAGE 76

65 Reliability can be problematic in descri ptive research. Howe ver, the use of a survey instrument and a struct ured interview reduce the threat s to the reliability of the study (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Researchers who wish to investigate student teachers’ knowledge and confidence in dealing with Firs t Amendment issues in the classroom can use the research from this study to develop their own survey instrument and interview questions.

PAGE 77

66 Chapter IV Results Introduction The purpose of this study was to investig ate the knowledge and confidence of preservice teachers in dealing w ith First Amendment issues in the classroom. The researcher collected data for this study using a Web-base d survey distributed to pre-service teachers and interviews conducted with a samp le of the survey participants. Participants in this study were pre-se rvice teachers currently enrolled in the College of Education. The data from th e Web-based survey were analyzed using measures of central tendency and analysis of variance. Using data gathered from the interviews, the researcher identified units of information and organized the units into themes. Results from the Survey Fourteen respondents received staff de velopment training in educational law. Forty-two participants responded to the que stion, “Have you taken a course in your program that deals with school law or the Fi rst Amendment rights of students? If yes, please provide the title of the course.” A list of the specific cour ses and the number of students that identified that c ourse as dealing with educationa l law is provided in Table 4.

PAGE 78

67 Table 4 Courses Identified by Pre-Service Teachers that Dealt with First Amendment Issues Course Number of Pre-Service Teachers Social Foundations 13 Classroom Management 3 Introduction to Education 3 Social Studies Course (e .g. Political Science) 3 Social Studies Methods 4 Did not provide specific course 1 Note. Fifteen participants answered th e question with “no” or a similar answer (Not while I was awake), and 27 participants responded that they had taken a co urse that dealt with school law or First Amendment rights of students. The 27 participants provided information on the course or courses (two students identified two courses) that dealt with school law or the First Amendment rights of students. The scores on the survey instrument ranged from 41.2% (7 questions answered correctly), to one student who scored a 100% (all 17 questions answ ered correctly). Figure 1 shows a histogram of the pre-servi ce teachers’ scores on the Web-based survey.

PAGE 79

68 Figure 1 Histogram of Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the Fi rst Amendment Rights Survey Histogram0 5 10 15 20 2541 2 47 1 52.9 58.8 6 4 7 7 0 6 7 6 5 82 3 8 8 2 94 1 100Pre-Service Teachers' Scores on the First Amendment Rights SurveyFrequency The mean score for the all the partic ipants on the Web-based survey was 70.16 ( SD =12.35). The mean, median, and mode for the social studies participants, math, science, English, and foreign language partic ipants, and the graduate and undergraduate participants can be found in Table 5.

PAGE 80

69 Table 5 Mean, Median, and Mode Scores for Each Group of Pre-Service Teachers on the Test of Knowledge from the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey Group of Pre-Service Teachers Mean Median Mode Overall 70.16 70.6 64.7 Graduate 68.47 64.7 64.7 Social Studies 67.89 64.7 64.7 Math, Science, English, and Foreign Language 69.90 67.5 64.7 Undergraduate 70.71 70.6 82.3 Social Studies 72.59 70.6 76.5 Math, Science, English, and Foreign Language 70.30 70.6 82.3 Note. One-hundred ten participants took part in th e Web-based survey. The survey consisted of 17 questions about First Amendment rights. The questions included 10 scenarios based on court cases and seven questions based on First Amendment concepts. The first 10 questions on the survey presented the pre-service teachers with a scenario in which they needed to decide if the school or teacher in the scenario violated the students’ First Amendment rights. The next seven questions asked the pre-service teachers about various First Amendment concepts. The participants scored more highly on th e concept questions than the scenario questions. For the concept question deali ng with controlling e xpression at a schoolsponsored activity, 91.2% of the participants answered the question correctly, while 88% of the participants answered the questi on regarding student use of fighting words correctly. However, only 61.5% of participan ts answered the quest ion regarding the use

PAGE 81

70 of the Bible as a historical a nd literary resource in the cl assroom correctly. Table 6 shows the percentage correct for each of the concept questions. Table 6 Percentage Correct for Each Concep t Question on the Survey Instrument Concept Questions % Correct School-sponsored activity 91.8 Off-campus expression 56.7 Fighting words 86.6 Permission for the Pledge 71.1 Bible use in the classroom 57.7 Student prayer 93.8 Religious holidays 80.4 Note. The average score for the 110 pr e-service teachers that participat ed in the survey was 70.16%. The scenario questions that the pre-se rvice teachers most often answered incorrectly were: the question about a student weari ng an anti-Bush t-shirt (47.0% incorrect), the question about displaying the Confederate flag (48.2% incorrect), and student distribution of religious messages in class (49.4% incorrect). The scenario questions that the pre-service teachers most often answered correctly were the questions regarding student Web pages (77.1% and 89.2 %) and the question a bout the Pledge of Allegiance (75.9% correct). Table 7 shows the percentage of pre-service teachers that answered each scenario question correctly as well as the mean and standard deviation of the confidence level for each scenario questi on on the knowledge portion of the survey instrument.

PAGE 82

71 Table 7 Percentage Correct and Confidence Mean and Standard Deviation for Each Question on the Survey Scenario Questions % Correct Confidence Score Mean Standard Deviation Armband protest 70.1% 2.74 .80 Confederate flag 49.5% 2.55 .79 Vulgar speech at assembly 71.1% 2.65 .74 Web site with jokes and criticism 74.2% 2.75 .84 Web site with hitman for teacher 88.7% 2.87 .84 President Bush terrorist t-shirt 52.6% 2.74 .76 Candy canes with relig ious notes 50.5% 2.75 .76 Standing for the Pledge 74.2% 2.93 .85 Paper about Jesus 56.7% 2.86 .80 Student religious comment 55.7% 2.74 .72 Note. The average percent correct was 70.16 and the aver age confidence level was 2.78 for the 110 preservice teachers that took the survey The response scale for confidence was 1 (Not at all Confident) to 4 (Extremely Confident). In order to determine if there was a co rrelation between the pre-service teachers’ scores on the knowledge and confidence-level portions of the survey instrument the researcher calculated correlation coefficient and only a slight positive correlation (0.14) between the pre-service teachers’ scores and their confidence level. The researcher calculated Cronbach’s alpha to examine the internal reliability of the knowledge (0.55) and confidence (0.86) por tions of the survey instrument. After conducting an analysis of variance using da ta from all questions on the survey, the researcher conducted another analysis to ve rify the results of the study after removing questions with low item-to-total correlations After removing the questions with lower item-to-total, the researcher found similar result s. Detailed results of the anal ysis after removing questions with low item-to-tot al can be found in Appendix I.

PAGE 83

72 Data from the Interviews The researcher conducted 10 interviews with a sample of the pre-service teachers. The researcher selected the interview partic ipants based on their scores on the survey instrument and their level of confidence in their answers. During the interviews, the researcher kept a log to capture import ant ideas and quotes. An example of the researcher’s log can be found in Appendix G. In addition to keeping a log, each interview was transcribed. Examples of two interview transcri pts can be found in Appendix H. The researcher used the logs and transc ripts to create units of information. The units of information consisted of quotes and phrases from the pre-service teachers. The units of information were placed into an Ex cel spreadsheet, and the researcher created themes based on the units of information. Table 8 presents examples of units of information and the themes based on the units of information.

PAGE 84

73 Table 8 Themes and Units of Information from Inte rviews With the Pre-Service Teachers Offensiveness Right Thing to Do Apprehension Policy They are not allowed to wear the anything the Confederate Flag because it is considered offensive It was just kind of a value judgment on a lot of them, so it was not too bad. Just because that could get the school in so much trouble an all those things, save a big lawsuit. Depending on the district or whatever is in the handbook might take away some of the rights that you have Keeping people from begin offended Well, just I think that people should be able to say what they want, Freedom of expression, and I completely believe that. It could cause a lot more tension, depending on the topic. Then it is not violating the students’ First Amendment rights because they know that the policy is there for a reason. Some of the other students in the school might have found it offensive. I think that students have every right to voice their opinion about that. The teacher is the one that has to face it first, and if they know how to handle it correctly then they will be able to avoid having the court involved or anything else. Since the school had already mentioned that you couldn’t wear them, I felt like they couldn’t wear them. I don’t think they were offending anybody, they were not. I mean for the Amendment right, they had a right to express themselves. I think you have a right to state your opinion and even if it is about a religious issue. I am guessing that if you violate students First Amendment issues that can go to the parents and then come back at you and cause larger problems If it is a school policy it has to be followed, because it’s a school policy The school kind of limits that because it does disrupt the school and it might offend some people. Adults do that all the time, why wouldn’t they be able to do it, that is just not right. You might have trouble with the school board. I thought the rights would go through the Pinellas County District, they set up their own standards. Note. The table provides examples of the 11 themes a nd 140 units of information created from interviews with 10 pre-service teachers regard ing their knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues.

PAGE 85

74 Research Questions Research Question 1 Is there a significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate secondary pre-service teachers on a survey designed to a ssess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? After the pre-service teachers complete d the survey, the re searcher conducted statistical analyses to determine if there was a significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate pre-service teache rs on the knowledge portio n of the survey. Table 9 shows the mean, standard deviati on, range, skewness, and kurtosis of the undergraduate and graduate pre-service teac hers’ scores on the know ledge portion of the survey instrument. Table 9 Pre-Service Teachers’ Percent Correct on th e Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Level M SD Minimum Maximum Skewness Kurtosis Total ( n =110) 70.16 12.35 41.2 100 0.02 -0.34 Undergraduates ( n = 72) 70.42 11.33 41.2 100 -0.09 -0.06 Graduate ( n = 38) 70.12 14.11 47.1 94.1 0.12 -0.67 Note. The 110 participants answered 17 questions on the knowledge portion of survey. The 17 questions consisted of 10 scenario questions and seven questions based on First Amendment rights concepts. Table 9 shows that the scores were approxima tely normally distributed. Results of the Levene’s test indicated that there was not a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance F (3,106) = 1.86, p = .14.

PAGE 86

75 In order to determine if the differenc es between the scores on the knowledge portion of the survey instrument of undergra duate and graduate pre-service teachers were statistically significant, the researcher conducted an analys is of variance (ANOVA). The analysis of variance showed that there was not a significant difference, F (1,110) = 0.02, p =.89, between the scores of graduate and undergraduate students on the knowledge portion of the survey instrument. Research Question 2 Is there a significant difference between the sc ores of mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service secondary teach ers and the scores of social studies preservice teachers on a survey designed to assess pre-serv ice teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? After the pre-service teachers completed the survey, the researcher conducted an analysis of variance to determine if there was a significant difference between the scores of social studies pre-service teachers and the scores of math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers on the knowledge portion of the survey instrument. Table 10 shows the mean, standard deviation, range, sk ewness, and kurtosis of the scores of the social studies, math, science, English, and foreign language pre-serv ice teachers’ scores on the knowledge portion of th e survey instrument.

PAGE 87

76 Table 10 Pre-Service Teachers’ Percent Correct on th e Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Subject Area M SD Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis Total ( n = 110) 70.16 12.35 41.2 100 0.02 -0.34 Social Studies ( n = 54) 71.70 13.19 41.2 100 -0.09 -0.68 Math, Science, English, and Foreign Language ( n = 56 ) 68.55 11.34 47.1 94.1 0.04 0.33 Note. The 110 participants answered 17 questions on the knowledge test portion of survey. The 17 questions consisted of 10 scenario questions and seven questions based on First Amendment rights concepts. Table 10 shows that the scores were approximately normally distributed. In addition, the researcher used Levene’s test to find that there was not a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance F (3,106) = 1.86, p = .14. In order to determine if the differences between the scores of social studies and math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers were statistically significant, the researcher conducted an analysis of variance. The analysis of variance showed that there was not a significant difference, F (1,110) = 1.89, p = .43, between the scores of social studies pr e-service teachers and math, sc ience, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. In order to investigate the possibl e interaction between the academic level and the subject area, the re searcher conducted a two-way analysis of variance. The interaction be tween level of degree and s ubject area was nonsignificant F (3, 106) = 0.71, p = .40. The researcher calculated the effect size to examine the relationship between scores of the pre-service teachers and their s ubject areas and their le vel of degree. In

PAGE 88

77 addition, the researcher calcul ated the effect size for the relationship between the preservice teachers’ scores and th e interaction between the pre-se rvice teachers’ subject area and level of degree. Using Cohen’s descriptions of effect sizes, the effects of level of degree, subject area, and the interaction on th e pre-service teachers’ scores on the survey were all very small. The results of the anal ysis of variance with th e effect sizes can be found in Table 11. Table 11 ANOVA Summary Table for Differences Be tween Scores on the Survey Instrument Source Df F Level of Degree (A) 1 0.02 0.01 Subject Area (B) 1 1.89 0.13 A x B Interaction 1 0.71 0.08 S within group error 106 Note. The level of degree (A) was a comparison of the means of graduate (n = 72) and undergraduate preservice teacher (n = 38). The subject area (B) was comp arison of the means of social studies (n = 54) and math, science, English, and foreign la nguage (n = 56) pre-service teachers. Research Question 3 What experiences throughout the lives of secondary pre-service teachers, including academic experiences, do they feel have prepared them for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights? The pre-service teachers who participated in the interviews for this study cited a number of experiences from which they gained knowledge about First Amendment issues. These experiences included experi ences while at school, experiences while participating in internships, background experi ences, and their courses at the university. Stacie (the researcher did not use actual name s in reporting and discus sing the results of

PAGE 89

78 this study) based her answer to the Confed erate flag question on her experience in an internship: At the school I am at, the rule is th at you can stand, you have to stand, everybody has to stand. But, you don’t have to do th e actual pledge itself, so I would say that they need to stand up, but they don’t have to salute, they don’t have to say the word. Shirley also based her answer to the Confederate flag que stion on her experiences during her internship: I have been in school, I mean, the first three weeks of school they really bogged down on what students are wearing and what is appropriate and not appropriate. I saw that they are not allo wed to wear bandanas. The pre-service teachers described b ackground experiences as another resource for knowledge about First Amendment issues. Mich ael stated that his time in the military provided experiences dealing wi th First Amendment issues an d a desire to understand the guarantees of the Constitution. Carrie, descri bing her upbringing, said that “I was raised in a very liberal home and I have strong f eelings towards, you know, First Amendment rights and how the Government should act towa rds its citizens,” and that these feelings would influence how she handled First Amendm ent issues in the classroom. Edward explained how background experiences shaped his answer to the questions on student Web pages with, “I watch a lot of television, so I see a lot of CSI and stuff like that.” Several of the students based their an swers on experiences they had while in school. Jennifer cited an experience while in high school when discussing her answer to a question about the anti-Bus h t-shirt with her experien ce in high school, “The high

PAGE 90

79 school that I went to had a policy that if you wore a t-shirt that was offensive to other students, then you had to wear the t-shirt insi de out for the entire day. It was a rule.” Michael explained his answer to the Pledge question with, “I don’t th ink I have ever had a teacher that made the people stand up and sa y it. They may have made them stand up, but they never made them recite it.” Pamela explained her answer to the question about religious messages by saying “the only reason I put that because when I was in high school, I was told that we were allowed to do those of sorts of things.” Beth based her answer on experiences she had w ith her daughter’s education, in particular, her answer to the question of the teacher telling the stude nt that her comment on the Holy Land was inappropriate: In the classes my daughter is in, these are very much allowed to be spoken and you are allowed to speak the other side. You do not have to sit silent and listen to her opinion alone. My daught ers have not really been in the classroom where that’s happened, where you are not allowed to speak because you are in favor and you are allowed because you are oppose d. It’s been equal for anyone. The coursework that the pre-service t eachers referred to most often during the interviews were the Social Foundations and Classroom Management courses, and one of the social studies pre-service teachers identif ied a methods course. While the pre-service teachers mentioned the courses, they could not recall many details. For instance, Carrie while discussing what she learned in Social Foundations stated: The only education course that I had that touched on it, as far as First Amendment issues would have been Social Foundati ons, and a lot of those were from the

PAGE 91

80 1800s, so I mean I know a little bit about the First Amendment rights that they discovered back then, but nothing current at all. However, one student who recently took a soci al studies methods course mentioned that First Amendment issues were covered in the course when students were given a group assignment to present a lesson on something that they thought would be important to beginning teachers. The group decided that students’ First Amendment rights was an important topic and taught a lesson using the case study method with First Amendment court cases. All of the participants interviewed belie ved it was important to include dealing with students’ First Amendment rights in the teacher preparation curriculum. Stacie summed up her feelings about the importance of adding First Amendm ent issues to the curriculum when she said: I think it would be a good idea to include it in the program here at the school, to have some kind of educational law program be part of the program. Because as I was filling out the survey, I was thinking to myself, wow I really know less about this than I thought I did a nd I think that it could be very beneficial. The interview participants also believed that if there was a problem with a student’s First Amendment rights, the teacher would have to face the problem and that it could possibly lead to the teacher “getting into trouble.” Even though the interview pa rticipants agreed that Fi rst Amendment issues should be included in the teacher education curricu lum, they differed as to how. Many of the participants did not want to add anothe r class and would only want a course on educational law “if it replaced another class.” Two of the interview participants believed

PAGE 92

81 that adding a class on educational law would be a good idea and were under the impression that other teacher education program s did require pre-serv ice teachers to take a course on educational law. When asked about integrating edu cational law and First Amendment issues into a current course, most of the interview participants cited the Social Foundations and Classroom Manage ment courses. They believed Social Foundations and Classroom Management were the proper courses in which to include First Amendment issues because they covered material similar to educational law and because all of the students in the teacher e ducation program were required to take it. Research Question 4 Are secondary pre-service teacher s confident they are prepared for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights at school? Using the responses the pr e-service teachers provided on how confident they were in their answers to the questions on the We b-based survey, the researcher calculated a confidence score for each of the participan ts. Table 12 shows the mean, standard deviation, range skewness, and kurtosis of the pre-service teachers’ confidence level on the survey instrument.

PAGE 93

82 Table 12 Pre-Service Teachers’ Confidence Level fr om the Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Subject Area and Academic Level M SD Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis Total ( n = 110) 2.78 0.55 1.6 4 -0.14 0.29 Social Studies ( n = 54) 2.82 2.79 1.6 3.9 0.02 -0.12 Math, Science, English, and Foreign Language ( n = 56 ) 2.78 0.49 1.6 4 0,08 -.01 Graduate ( n =38) 2.72 0.53 1.9 3.9 -0.39 0.36 Undergraduate ( n =72) 2.81 0.57 1.6 4 -0.07 -0.23 Note. The lowest score possible was a 1.0 (Not at all Confident for every question), and the highest score possible was 4.0 (Extremely Confident for every question). Table 12 shows that the scores were a pproximately normally distributed. In addition, the researcher used Le vene’s test to find that th ere was not a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance F (3, 106) = .31, p = .81. The researcher conducted a two-way analysis of variance to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the confidence level of social studies pre-service teachers and the confidence level of math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. The researcher also used the two-wa y analysis of variance to determine if there was a statistically significant difference betw een the confidence scores of graduate preservice teachers and undergrad uate pre-service teachers. The analysis of variance showed that there was not a statistically significant difference, F (1,110) = .00, p = .98, between the confidence sc ores of social studies preservice teachers and the c onfidence scores of math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. The analysis of variance also showed that there was not a statistically significant difference, F (1,110) = .46, p = .98, between the confidence scores

PAGE 94

83 of graduate and undergraduate pr e-service teachers. In addition, the analysis of variance showed that there was not a stat istically significant interaction, F (1,110) = .46, p = .50 between the subject area and academic level of the pre-service teachers. The researcher calculated the effect size to examine the relationship between confidence level of the pre-se rvice teachers and their subjec t areas and their level of degree. In addition, the researcher calculated the effect size for the relationship between confidence level and the inter action between the pre-servi ce teachers’ subject area and level of degree. Using Cohen’s descriptions of effect sizes, the effect s of level of degree, subject area, and the interact ion on the pre-service teache rs’ confidence level on the survey are all very small. The results of the analysis of variance with the effect sizes can be found in Table 13. Table 13 ANOVA Summary Table for Differences Between Confidence Levels on the Survey Instrument Source df F Level of Degree (A) 1 0.46 0.06 Subject Area (B) 1 0.00 0.00 A x B Interaction 1 0.46 0.06 S within group error 106 Note. The level of degree (A) was a comparison of the means of graduate ( n = 72) and undergraduate preservice teacher ( n = 38). The subject area (B) was compar ison of the means of social studies ( n = 54) and math, science, English, and foreign language ( n = 56) pre-service teachers. The participants were most confident in their answer to the question regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. On the Pledge questi on, 72.3% of the particip ants indicated that they were either Confident or Extremely C onfident in their answ er to the question.

PAGE 95

84 Overall, the participants we re least confident in their answer to the question about displaying the Confederate flag, on which 45.8% of the participants indicated that they were either Not at all Confident or Slightly Confident in their answer. The pre-service teachers provided several reasons for their confidence when they explained their responses to these questions. When interview particip ants answered that they were confident, one of the reasons th ey gave was that they believed the action depicted in their answer was the “right thi ng to do.” For a numb er of the interview participants, the questions were “just kind of a value judgment on a lot of them,” and if they had strong feelings about that value, they would have more confidence in their answer. Beth, explaining her answer to the question regarding a student’s expression about the Holy Land, said she felt confident, “because that young lady is entitled to her opinion. She’s entitled.” Sh irley, explaining her answer to the question regarding a student creating Web page that criticized the school, said: I put Extremely Confident on this one b ecause adults do that all the time. Why wouldn’t they be able to do it? That is just not right. They are voicing their opinion, that is what they are supposed to do. Another reason why the interview participan ts responded that they were confident in their answer was because they had a similar experience either within or outside of their teacher education program. Carrie explaine d the confidence in her answer to the Confederate flag question by saying: Actually a little bit before someone in class had a discussion about how South Carolina has the Confederate flag in their st ate flag. I figured if a state in the U.S.

PAGE 96

85 has it in their state flag, then there is no reason why a student should not be able to. Three of the interview participants explaine d that experiences in their internship had shaped their confidence in their answer. Stacie, explaining her confidence in her response to the Confederat e flag question, stated: Because with the Confederate flag issue, based on the school that I am at now, they are not allowed to wear anything w ith the Confederate flag because it is considered offensive, but they are also not allowed to wear the Puerto Rican flag or things of any other flags. I was th inking more along the lines of my specific school. In addition to teaching experiences, the pre-service teachers often referred to background experiences during their res ponses. Beth, when describing why she responded Confident in some answers and Slightly Confident in other answers, explained, “I don’t know if that was correct or not, but I knew from personal experience, and in others I was just, I was very iffy.” Jennifer, who was confident in her answer to the anti-Bush t-shirt question explained: In high school there was a kid and—this is post 9-11—that wore, that is why I put that answer, wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt that had a target, that had a gun target, so I assumed that since he wa sn’t sent home, and it was freedom of expression how he felt that that would be the same thing. Pamela, explaining her confidence in her answ er to the questions regarding distribution of candy canes with religious messages, said that she was confident “because that’s what I was told by my high school teachers. I was hoping that they knew.”

PAGE 97

86 When the interview participants discusse d why they selected Slightly Confident or Not at all Confident they cited several reas ons for their lack of confidence. The first reason they were less confiden t was that they believed th e answer was a “judgment call” and that both answers could have been corr ect. Stacie explained, “With some of them it just kind of seemed like it could go either wa y and I could, or some could, find a way to argue for it or against it based on what I knew.” A nother reason the interview participants explained why they were less confident was because of something in the question that made them less confident. Regarding the question about vulgar speech, Angela explained that she was slightly confid ent “because of that lit tle disclaimer that you put where it didn’t offend anyone. They we ren’t extremely vulgar, so that’s why I wasn’t sure.” The interview participants also cited a l ack of preparation as a reason for their lack of confidence. Edward said that he “didn’t feel comfortabl e with the amount of education that they give student teachers,” and that pre-service teachers “are left in the dark about it until we violate it, and then we are in trouble.” Carrie stated it would be “nice to have some idea of what you are going to see and some idea of how to handle it, so I don’t feel like I have gotten a lot.” Additional Findings The data show that pre-service teachers use several criteria when determining whether teacher or school acti ons would violate students’ First Amendment rights. The first criterion that pre-service teachers use is school or school board policy. During interviews with the pre-service teachers, a frequent response was “it depends on the school’s policy.” School policy was cited in explanations to the questions dealing with

PAGE 98

87 wearing armbands as a protest, the Confederate flag, the anti-Bush t-shirt, and the Pledge of Allegiance. For the questi on regarding the Pledge, some of the students believed that whether or not the school violated the student s’ First Amendment rights was based solely on the school’s policy about standing for the Pl edge. For instance, Michael explained his answer to the Pledge question by saying, “First of all I would have to know if there is a school policy, if the school policy was that you could not force anybody to say something if they do not want to say something.” Stacie believed that the school board determined students’ rights and that “d epending on the district or wh atever is in the handbook might take away some of the rights that you have.” The second criterion the pre-service t eachers use to guide their decisions regarding First Amendment issues was their be lief as to what was “right” or “wrong” to do in that situation. Three of the interview participants characteri zed the questions as “value judgments” and felt that teachers and schools could make the decisions based on their own personal opinions. Carrie believed th at students “should be able to say what they want, freedom of expression, and I comp letely believe that.” Shirley, while explaining her answer to the question about students distributing candy canes with religious messages, stated, “if the person doesn ’t want to read it, don’t take the candy, but the teacher shouldn’t, that is not right.” Jennifer, discussing her answer to the question about the speech with sexual innuendos, believed that it was wrong to suspend the student because: As an English teacher, we give them liter ature filled with sexual innuendos. So you’re telling the students, as far as suspending him, you are giving him literature to read filled with sexual innuendos, and he ’s gonna give a sp eech filled with

PAGE 99

88 sexual innuendos. He may have done it on purpose. But, he may have done it because this is what he was taught in his English class as okay. This is something that he has read, and this is not somethi ng to suspend him for. He didn’t realize he was even violating any sort of anyt hing. I don’t know if the First Amendment rights were violated, but suspending him, to me, was completely wrong. Another criterion the pre-service teac hers used to guide their decision was offensiveness. When the pre-service teach ers explained why the teacher or school was justified in limiting student expression, they be lieved that the standard was offensiveness to other students or teachers. When asked about the differences between the rights of adults and rights of students, Stacie explained that th e school could limit students expression to “keep people from being offe nded.” Edward believed that the school was justified in telling the student to remove the anti-Bush t-shirt because: Well, it is kind of offensive and some peopl e might take offense to it, such as if there is a student in the school that is completely the opposite side of the fence, they feel that he isn’t a te rrorist, he is doing a good job. Edward also believed that the teacher did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights on the question where the student expres sed her beliefs about the Holy Land. He believed the teacher was justified because: It is kind of just stopping any—possible like she said at the end—it might offend some other students. And really, she has the right to cut off comments that are going that might cause that in the classroom especially if it is going off topic. Michael answered that he believed the pr incipal in the Confederate flag case did not violate the students’ First Amendment ri ghts because “some of the other students in

PAGE 100

89 the school might have found it offensive, and th en there could have been something that started because of that.” The final criterion pre-service teacher s use to guide their decisions is apprehension and concern about “getting into trouble.” Michael, while explaining why it was important to teach pre-service teachers about First Amendment rights, said, “The teacher is the one that has to face it first, and if they know how to handle it correctly, then they will be able to avoid having the court involved or anyt hing else like that.” Edward was also fearful of the consequences of ma king students stand for the Pledge and said that as a teacher, “You don’t wa nt to get in trouble for maki ng your students stand up for taking the Pledge, its kind of one of those thi ngs, ok there are a lot of other things that I could get in trouble for.” Apprehension was also an issue when the participants discussed their answers to the questions regarding relig ion, especially the questions about the distribution of religious messages and using the Bible in th e classroom. Kimberly explained why she would be reluctant to use the Bi ble in the classroom by saying: I, personally, probably wouldn’t because I am not familiar. I grew up as a Christian, so the Bible would be the religious text that I am familiar with. I am not familiar with the Koran or Torah or the ot her religious artifacts, so to just keep religion out of the cl assroom, I wouldn’t. Many of the pre-service teacher s felt that religion would be more difficult to deal with because of the controversy and emotion of re ligious issues. They perceived that there would be more problems with parents and admi nistrators if they violated a students’

PAGE 101

90 freedom of religion or offended a students ’ religious beliefs. Carrie summed up her feelings by stating: I would say it is probably harder to deal with freedom of religion because I think that a lot of people, espe cially other students and ma ybe other teachers have strong opinions about religion and might get fired up about someone else expressing their opinion of their relig ion, it could cause a lot more tension, depending on the topic. In addition to the criteria that pre-servi ce teachers use to make decisions, the data show that pre-service teachers lack an unde rstanding of the standards the Supreme Court has prescribed for teachers and schools when dealing with First Amendment issues. This lack of understanding was evident when the pr e-service teachers e xplained their answers to the questions on the survey instrument. Fo r instance, none of the pre-service teachers identified the speech in the armband or anti-B ush t-shirt questions as political speech. For the question regarding the Confederate fl ag, only one of the pre-service teachers identified the history of vi olence at the school as infl uencing her answer. For the question about the speech, none of the pre-serv ice teachers identified the fact that the speech took place during a school-sponsored activ ity as relevant to the decision. Finally, when discussing the need for schools to k eep order and prevent disruption, only one student cited the Supreme Cour t’s standard of material a nd substantial disruption. Summary of Findings This study sought to investigate the knowledge and confidence of pre-service teachers in dealing with First Amendment issu es in the classroom. The data show pre-

PAGE 102

91 service teachers’ knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues is related to their experiences inside and out side of the teacher education program. The study investigated the differences be tween the scores of undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers to find out if there was a stat istically significant difference between the two groups. The researcher conducte d an analysis of variance and found that there was not a statistically significant difference between th e two groups in their scores on the knowledge portion of the survey. The study also investigated the differences between social studies pre-service teachers and mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. The re searcher conducted an analysis of variance and found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the scores of social studies pre-service teachers and the sc ores of mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers on the survey. In addition, the researcher conducted an analysis of variance to compare the confidence scores of undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers and found that there was not a sta tistically significant difference between the two groups. The rese archer also found that there was not a statistically significant difference between th e confidence scores of social studies and math, science, English, and foreign language pre-servic e teachers. During the interviews, the pre-service te achers explained th eir answers to the questions on the survey. Many times the pre-se rvice teachers identified an experience in their background that led them to their answer These experiences included experiences as students, teaching or internship experien ce, experiences outside of the classroom, and coursework at the university. A number of the pre-service teachers dealt with the Confederate flag, the Pledge, and student re ligious expression while substituting or

PAGE 103

92 during their internship. In addition, many of the pre-service t eachers relied on their experiences while they were in school when answering the questions. Courses at the university also were an influence on the preservice teachers’ answer s. Several of the pre-service teachers explained how they lear ned about First Amendment issues during their Social Foundations, Classroom Management, or other courses. While the pre-service teachers were disc ussing their confidence in their answers, they cited reasons why they were confident and reasons why they we re less confident. One of the reasons pre-service teachers re sponded that they were confident in their answers was because they had a strong belief in what the right thing to do was in that situation. In addition, backgr ound experiences played a large role in determining their confidence. Many of the pre-service teachers responded that they were confident because they had a similar experience in life, such as while they were in school or a similar experience while they were teaching. The pre-service teachers also indicated th ere were several reasons why they were less confident in their answer s. A number of pre-service teachers indicated that the questions on the survey were judgment calls an d that both answers c ould be correct. The pre-service teachers also indica ted that they were less confid ent in their answers because of a perceived lack of prepara tion in First Amendment issues. Pre-service teachers use several criteria when making decisions regarding students’ First Amendment rights. These crite ria include school policy, offensiveness, a sense of right or wrong, and apprehension. Du ring interviews with the researcher, the pre-service teachers ofte n cited school policy as the basis for their answer to the scenario questions. They believed that by following sch ool policy they could not violate students’

PAGE 104

93 First Amendment rights. In addition to sc hool policy, many of the pre-service teachers identified offensiveness as the standard for deciding whether to limit students’ expression. The pre-service teaches also di scussed their sense of right and wrong as a criteria for their decisions regarding First Amendment issues. The final criterion preservice teachers identified as influencing their decision-making was apprehension about the consequences of making a mistake in dealing with First Amendment issues.

PAGE 105

94 Chapter V Conclusions and Recommendations This final chapter summarizes the purpos e, limitations, methods, and findings of this study. In addition, the chapter disc usses the significan ce of the study and conclusions that can be drawn from the research. Finally, the chapter discusses implications for teacher preparation a nd recommendations for future research. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to investig ate the knowledge and confidence of preservice teachers regarding First Amendment issues in the classroom. This study reviewed the literature regarding the need for educational law in teacher preparation, historical cases providing guidance to t eachers regarding students’ First Amendment rights in the classroom, and recent court cases involving conflicts between students and schools regarding students’ Fi rst Amendment rights. Usi ng a mixed-methods approach, the researcher inves tigated pre-service te achers’ knowledge regarding First Amendment issues in the classroom and their confidence in dealing with such issues when they become teachers. This information offers insight into how pre-service teachers learn about First Amendment issues and their c onfidence in dealing w ith First Amendment issues in the classroom. Using this in formation, teacher educators can develop a curriculum to prepare pre-service teachers for First Amendment issues when they arise in their classroom.

PAGE 106

95 Research Questions The research questions th at guided this study were: 1. Is there a significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate secondary pre-service teachers on a surv ey designed to assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? 2. Is there a significant difference between the scores of mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-servi ce secondary teachers and the scores of social studies pre-service teachers on a survey designed to assess pre-service teachers’ knowledge of students’ First Amendment rights? 3. What experiences throughout the lives of secondary pre-service teachers, including academic experiences, do they f eel have prepared them for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights? 4. Are secondary pre-service t eachers confident they are pr epared for dealing with students’ First Amendment rights at school? Significance of the Study “Contemporary educators, whether they are embarking on a career or are wellestablished in their professi on, cannot afford to be ignor ant of the law” (Sametz & McClaughlin, 1984, p.115). This study is signifi cant in that it provides information to teacher educators about what pre-service t eachers know about students’ First Amendment rights and their confidence in their abilities to deal with First Amen dment issues in the classroom. In addition, the study provides info rmation on how pre-service teachers learn about First Amendment issues and how what they have learned impacts their confidence in handling those issues. When teacher educat ors debate the inclusion of educational law

PAGE 107

96 in the teacher education program and First Ame ndment issues in particular, this study can provide information on not only the need to include it in the curriculum, but also how pre-service teachers think it should be includ ed in the curriculum. By using this information, teacher educators can adequately prepare pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment issues, prevent the violati on of students’ First Amendment rights, and save school districts valuab le resources by eliminating conflicts and litigation. Limitations While the study provides useful informati on, there are several notable limitations of the study. The first limitation of the study was the small number of scenario questions on the Web-based survey. Some of the issu es were complex, and one question regarding the issue did not present an id eal picture of a pre-service teacher’s understa nding of that issue. A pre-service teacher may have answ ered the question correc tly, but not have an adequate understanding of why his or her answer was correct. However, the complexity of the issue was explored with the pre-service teachers that were interviewed for the study. Another important limitation is that the re searcher conducted all interviews. To protect against researcher bi as, the researcher transcribe d each interview and reviewed the transcriptions with colleagues familiar with the issues in the study. In addition, once the thematic analysis of interview data wa s underway, the researcher scheduled a data workshop with the researcher’s major professo rs to explain the categorizations employed in the analysis. In addition, the researcher pr ovided the units of information to a group of fellow researchers and educators to verify th e themes established by the researcher.

PAGE 108

97 Another limitation of the study is that a ll of the interview participants were volunteers. The volunteers may have had more interest in studen ts’ First Amendment rights, and that is why they chose to voluntee r for the study. The final limitation is that the research only investigated one teacher ed ucation program. As a result, the findings and recommendations are limited; however, similar programs may be able to find the recommendations helpful when making decision s about preparing pre-service teachers to face First Amendment issu es in the classroom. Methods The researcher distributed a Web-based su rvey to pre-service teachers during their internship and in their subj ect-area methods course. Th e researcher invited 325 preservice teachers to take th e survey, 110 of whom particip ated in the survey. The quantitative methods used to analyze the data from the survey consisted of measures of central tendency and analysis of variance. The researcher conducted an analysis of variance to determine if there was a statisti cally significant difference between the scores of graduate and undergraduate pr e-service teachers and the sc ores of social studies and mathematics, science, English, and fore ign language pre-service teachers. Once the researcher completed the data analysis from the surveys, the researcher utilized stratified purposeful sampling to sel ect participants for interviews. The purpose of this sampling strategy was to get a representative sample of all the pre-service teachers, understand how the pre-service t eachers gain knowledge of First Amendment issues, and examine what influences their confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The stratified pur poseful sample included 10 participants who volunteered to be interviewed. The researcher selected participants from the volunteers

PAGE 109

98 based upon their scores on the assessment inst rument and their level of confidence in the answers. The researcher asked each participant the same set of questions (see Appendix C). The data analysis began duri ng the interviews with the re searcher keeping a log of important quotes and ideas. In addition to keeping a log during the interviews, the researcher recorded and transcribed each inte rview to preserve the data for analysis. Transcripts from two of the interviews can be found in Appendix H. Once the transcriptions were complete, the researcher gathered all the data, including the surveys, the statistical analysis, inte rview log, and the interview tr anscripts. The researcher reviewed all the data, making notes in order to isolate the most important information. Once the researcher placed all the units of information into categories, the researcher defined and described each categ ory, and conducted a data workshop with the major professors of the committee to discuss th e units of information and the themes. In addition to the data workshop, the researcher se nt the units of information and themes to a group of teacher educators to verify the themes identified fr om the data. After verifying the themes, the researcher wrote a preliminary report of the findings. Next, the researcher discussed the preliminary report wi th the researcher’s major professors, and revised the findings based on the disc ussion with the major professors. Findings The study investigated the differences be tween the scores of undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers and the differences between the scores of social studies and mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers on a survey designed to assess their knowledge of Firs t Amendment issues. The researcher

PAGE 110

99 conducted an analysis of vari ance and found that there was no t a statistically significant difference between the scores of undergraduate and graduate pre-serv ice teachers and that there was not a statistically significant differen ce between the scores of social studies and mathematics, science, English, and foreign la nguage pre-service teachers. The researcher conducted another analysis of variance and found that there was not a statistically significant difference between the confidence scores of undergraduate and graduate preservice teachers and the soci al studies and math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. When explaining their answer s to the questions on th e survey instrument, many pre-service teachers identified an experience that influenced why they chose their answer. These experiences included experiences while in school, teaching or internship experiences, experiences outside of the clas sroom, and coursework at the university. The study identified several r easons why the pre-service teachers were confident or less confident in their answ ers to the survey questions. The pre-service teachers were confident in their answers when they had a strong belief in what the right thing to do was in that situation described in the ques tion, when they had a similar background or teaching experience, or when they recalle d something they had learned during their courses in their teacher education program. The pre-service teachers also indicated th ere were several reasons why they were less confident in their answers. A number of pre-service te achers indicated they were less confident because the survey questions we re judgment calls. In addition, pre-service teachers indicated that they were less conf ident because of a lack of preparation in dealing with First Amendment issues.

PAGE 111

100 When pre-service teachers make decisi on regarding students’ First Amendment rights, they use several criter ia including school policy, offens iveness, a sense of right or wrong, and apprehension. The pre-service teac hers often cited school policy as the basis for students’ rights in the classroom and believed that by following school policy they could not violate students’ First Amendment ri ghts. In addition, ma ny of the pre-service teachers identified offensiveness as the standa rd for deciding whether to limit students’ expression. The pre-service teachers also relied on th eir individual sense of what was the right or wrong thing to do in certain situations wh en making decisions. Finally, apprehension played a large role in the decision-making of pre-service teachers because they were concerned about the consequences of ma king the wrong decision regarding students’ First Amendment rights. Discussion of Findings Research Question 1 The findings in this study are similar to the findings by Sametz and McClaughlin (1984). In that study, the researchers found th at “prospective teachers demonstrated an uncertain knowledge about their professional responsibilities in relation to children’s freedom of speech, press, and religion” (p. 115). The data show that graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers have the same level of knowledge regarding First Amendment issues in the classroom. The knowledge that pre-service teachers have acquired regarding First Amendment right s comes from background experiences, teaching experiences, and coursework. For the graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers in this study, many of those experi ences were similar. For instance, the

PAGE 112

101 background experiences that graduate and unde rgraduate pre-service teachers identified the most were experiences that they had while they were in school. However, when the pre-service teachers could reca ll an experience from school, it did not necessarily lead them to the correct answer. This o ccurred equally between the graduate and undergraduate students. The same was true for experiences from teaching during their internship or while they substituting. Th e graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers both identified similar experiences at their schools that influenced their knowledge about First Amendment issues. Ag ain, while the graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers could identi fy an experience, it did not always lead to answering the question correctly on the survey. Regarding their coursework, undergraduates and graduates identified a number of courses that discussed First Amendment issu es including the Social Foundations course, the Classroom Management cour se, and methods courses. However, on the survey, the majority of undergraduates iden tified the Social Foundations c ourse as dealing with First Amendment issues, while the graduate pre-serv ice teachers were more likely to identify the Classroom Management and methods c ourses. When asked to describe these experiences, both the undergraduate and gra duate pre-service teachers could only recall small details such as reading a case about the Confederate flag or having a discussion about student expression. Even though the graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers identified different courses as cove ring First Amendment issues, the experiences were similar for both groups.

PAGE 113

102 Research Question 2 The data show the social studies pre-serv ice teachers and mathematics, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers have the same level of knowledge regarding First Amendment issues While four of the social studies pre-service teachers identified their methods course as coveri ng First Amendment issues and none of the mathematics, science, English or foreign language pre-service st udents identified their methods course as covering First Amendment issues, this did not have a significant impact on their scores on the Web-based survey. Only one of the social studies pre-serv ice teachers mentioned a social studies course outside of the College of Education that discussed First Amendment issues. When asked to provide details, she could only remember that the case involving student distribution of candy canes was covered in a cl ass about religion and politics. However, having discussed a similar case did not help her answer the questi on correctly. While social studies teachers are more exposed to courses dealing with constitutional issues, these experiences do not give them an adva ntage over other pre-se rvice teachers when dealing with First Amendment issues. In light of these findings, it is evident that teacher education programs should provide instruc tion regarding First Amendment issues in courses required by all academ ic levels and subject areas. Research Question 3 Lortie (1975) found that pr e-service teachers enter te acher education programs with beliefs about teaching based on th eir experiences, and Volkman and McMahon (1999, p. 3) found that “students readied by the university to pr actice their profession rely more heavily on information they have gl eaned through personal e xperience than through

PAGE 114

103 instruction received in the teacher education programs” (Volkman & McMahon, 1999). Experiences as students and teachers are th e major source of knowledge for pre-service teachers when it comes to First Amendment issues in the classroom. However, these experiences did not always l ead the pre-service teachers to answer questions correctly and could lead the pre-service teachers to vi olate students’ First Amendment rights. A study by Holt-Reynolds (1992) that investigat ed pre-service teach ers’ prior knowledge found that pre-service teachers enter teacher education programs with “personal historybased lay theories” abou t good practice, and that: It is altogether possible th at these personal history-base d lay theories could indeed act as helpful schemata that pre-service teachers can expand as they pursue their formal studies of teaching. There are, how ever, times when students’ lay concepts are not quite contextualizing, illuminati ng, and helpful so much as they are powerful, potentially misleading, and unpr oductive as resources for learning the principles we hope to teach. (Holt-Reynolds, 1992, p. 327) While pre-service teachers enter teacher education programs with experiences that influence how they define good teaching, they also enter teacher education programs with experiences that influence their ability to d eal with First Amendment issues. The data suggest that the impact of experiences w ith First Amendment i ssues on pre-service teachers’ ability to deal with such issues is similar to the impact their experience as students has on learning to t each. In some cases, the experiences help pre-service teachers by providing guidance on a situation that is similar. However, the opposite is also likely to be true: that the pre-servi ce teachers use their prior experience to make decisions that may lead to a violation of students’ First Amendment rights.

PAGE 115

104 Teacher educators must understand that pr e-service teachers enter the teacher education program with pre-conceived noti ons about First Amendment issues in the classroom and that their internship and teaching career will offer them additional experiences regarding First Amendment issues that may help or hinder their dealing with students’ First Amendment rights. In order to prepare pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment issues, teacher educators need to provide instruction to the pre-service teachers so that they do not rely on these e xperiences when confronted with a situation involving students’ First Amendment rights. Research Question 4 Pre-service teachers generally have a high level of confidence in their abilities (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Kagan, 1992). The fi ndings of this study provide evidence that when pre-service teachers have experien ce with a particular First Amendment issue, the pre-service teachers have confidence in their ability to deal with that issue in the classroom. In a study of the relationship between pre-service teachers beliefs about education and discipline, Wither et al. (2002) found that th e pre-service teachers in their study were predominantly interventionists who tended to take immedi ate action to control student behavior. During the interviews, the pre-service teachers we re asked what action they would take if one of the scenarios from the survey was to happen in their classroom. For the majority of the pre-service teachers in this study, when they had confidence in dealing with a particular issu e, the pre-service teacher was also an interventionist. When the pre-service teachers believed that the teacher’s actions in a scenario did not violate the First Amendment, they often an swered that they would take some sort of disciplinary action if they were in a simila r situation. The disciplinary action ranged

PAGE 116

105 from sending the student to the office, having the student change his t-shirt, confiscating the candy canes, or not allowing a student to express her religious beliefs. However, students who were less confident were more likely to seek advice from a fellow teacher or an administrator before taking any disc iplinary action. When pre-service teachers believed that the students had a First Amendmen t right to do what they were doing in the particular situation, they were also less lik ely to take any action or consult another teacher or administrator. The confidence level of preservice teachers is importa nt because according to Bandura (1994), teachers with hi gh assurance in thei r abilities tend to take more risks, feel capable of making choices that are challenging, and better prepare themselves for the challenge, while those with low assurance in their ability avoid activities and situations that they find stressful or that are ab ove their coping capabil ities. While teacher educators strive to instill confidence in pr e-service teachers’ ability to manage the classroom without the need for interven tion, that may not be the case for First Amendment issues. In the case of First Am endment issues, teacher educators should strive to educate pre-service teachers so th at they can recognize situations in the classroom that have First Amendment im plications and notify the appropriate administrator. Additional Findings The findings from this research study support findings that many public school teachers remain confused about what kinds of expression are permissible in school (Marshall, 2003; Rozycki, 2003; Demac, 1999) When making decisions about whether or not the action in the scenarios violated students’ First Amendment rights, the pre-

PAGE 117

106 service teachers relied on f our criteria: school policy, offens iveness, a sense of right or wrong, and apprehension. These criteria were influenced by their experiences as students and teachers and concern about the conse quences of making the wrong decision. Many of the pre-service t eachers identified school policy as the most important source for making decisions about First Amendm ent issues and felt th at it was the school that decided what rights students had in the classroom. When asked about some of the questions on the survey, the pre-service teache rs referred back to the policy at their high school or at the school where they interne d. However, the pre-service teachers had inferred what the school policy was and did not remember the particular policy or how they learned about that policy. In addition, th e pre-service teachers seemed to think that school policies were somewhat universal and that a policy at one school would apply to different situations. While investigating school policy before taking action would be beneficial, it seems that many of the preservice teachers would act on what they perceived the school policy to be for that situ ation. However, their belief was based not on reading the school policy, but based on thei r experiences and what they inferred was the school’s policy from their own observa tions. Brookshire a nd Klotz (2002) found similar results that inaccurate perceptions of teachers may result in the violation of students’ rights even though the teacher intended to follow policy. In addition to school policy, pre-service teachers identified offensiveness as a criterion for making decisions regarding stude nts’ First Amendment rights. Many of the pre-service teachers believed that if a stude nt’s expression could offend other students, then they were justified in restricting that expression. Th e pre-service teachers were concerned about offensiveness because of its disruption to the classroom, as well as the

PAGE 118

107 consequences of students being offended in th e classroom. Because of the disruption or the repercussions of students being offended, many of the preservice teachers would take action based on their belief that offensivene ss was the standard for determining whether student expression could be rest ricted. The pre-service teac hers’ standard for disruption was any disruption to the classroom, not the ma terial and substantial disruption standard that the U.S. Supreme Court has prescribed. Using the offensive and disruption standards instead of legal standards, many pre-servic e teachers would viol ate students’ First Amendment rights. Pre-service teachers used their sense of right and wr ong as another criterion for deciding what to do when confronted with an issue involving students’ First Amendment rights. When some of the pre-service teachers were explaining their answers, they would identify that the expression should be allowed be cause it was the “right thing to do,” or if the teacher violated a student’s rights, then it was “just wrong.” The pre-service teachers believed that some of these decisions were value judgments, and the values of the individual teacher determined whether the e xpression was permissible or not. By using individual values as a guide to make these decisions, the amount of expression allowed to students would vary from classroom to classroo m, students would be confused as to their First Amendment rights, and the pre-service teacher’s actions could lead to violations of the First Amendment. The final criterion pre-service teacher us ed when making decisions regarding First Amendment issues was concern about the cons equences of student expression. In some situations, this apprehension would lead the pre-service teacher to not violate students’ First Amendment rights, and in other situa tions it would lead pr e-service teachers to

PAGE 119

108 violate their rights. For inst ance, a pre-service teacher’s a pprehension might lead to them to not forcing a student to stand for the Pl edge, not because the teachers know that would be a violation to force a stude nt to stand, but because they were apprehensive about the consequences. On the other hand, that same pre-service teacher mi ght restrict student distribution of messages based on the reli gious content because of the perceived consequences. Without proper preparation, pre-service teache rs will be guided by these criteria and not by the standards that have been set by the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. If the pre-service teachers do not unders tand the proper standards, then not only will they be more susceptible to violating st udents’ First Amendment rights, but they will not be able to defend their actions properl y when discussing their actions with fellow teachers, administrators, and parents. In a ddition, teachers have a responsibility to be able to discuss with students their First Am endment rights, and if pre-service teachers do not understand these standards, they cannot adeq uately inform students of their rights and the limits of those rights at school. Implications for Teacher Education Starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s a number of researchers and teacher educators began calling for educational law to be included into the teacher education curriculum (Dunklee & Shoop, 1986; Hazard et al., 1977; Henson, 1979; Sametz, 1983). Continuing through the 1990s researchers were calling for a discrete course in educational law to be added to the curriculum for undergradu ate and graduate pre-service teachers in order to avoid violations of students’ First Amendment rights and the potential of costly litigation (Gullatt & To llet, 1997a). The findings from this study

PAGE 120

109 confirm previous findings that pre-service teac hers need better prep aration in educational law, specifically in the area of First Amendmen t issues, and that the preparation needs to be systematic and program-wide in order to be effective in not onl y helping pre-service teachers avoid lawsuits, but also to avoid vi olation of students’ First Amendment rights (Schachter, 2007; Sametz, 1983; Gullat t & Tollet, 1997b; Wagner, 2007). The majority of the pre-serv ice teachers in this study could not identify a course in their teacher preparation th at discussed First Amendment issues in the classroom. The pre-service teachers who identi fied a course that discussed First Amendment issues, identified a variety of courses. For instan ce, some pre-service teachers identified the Classroom Management course as having di scussed First Amendment issues, and other pre-service teachers identified the Social Foundations course as having discussed First Amendment issues. The intervie ws with the pre-service teache rs revealed that instruction in First Amendment issues varied by instructor or class discussions and that there was no systematic approach to instructing student s about First Amendment issues throughout the teacher education curriculum. While the courses identified varied, the experiences in these courses were similar in that the pre-service teache rs discussed court cases that dealt with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The pre-service teaches read the cases and discussed the outcomes. From these cases that were disc ussed in class, preservice teachers often inferred their own standards for making deci sions regarding First Amendment issues. Without systematic instruction in First Am endment issues in the teacher education curriculum, teacher educators can expect sim ilar results to this study: that pre-service

PAGE 121

110 teachers will have an inadequate knowledge of First Amendment issues which will lead to violations of students’ First Amendment rights. The findings from this research study confirm the findings of Reese and Funk (1998) that teachers believe instruction in educ ational law should be a part of the teacher education curriculum. However, the opinions of the pre-service teachers do not support the literature’s call for adding a course sp ecifically for educational law. During the interviews with the pre-service teachers, the researcher asked the participants how they would recommend educational la w and students’ First Amendment rights be integrated into the curriculum. Only two of the in terview participants thought that creating a mandatory educational law class would be th e best solution. One of those interview participants believed that an elective cour se in educational law would be the best solution. The remaining pre-service teacher s agreed with Wagner (2007), that the material should be integrated into courses that are presently being taught in the teacher education program. They believed that the Social Foundations cour se or the Classroom Management course would be the ideal cour se for inclusion of educational law and students’ First Amendment rights. “Attention to the beliefs of teachers a nd teacher candidates should be a focus of educational research and can inform educationa l practice in ways that prevailing research agendas have not and cannot” (Pajares, 1992, p. 307). When discussing how to include students’ First Amendment rights into the curriculum, the pre-service teachers believed that the case study method would provide the be st strategy for teaching them how to deal with the First Amendment issues. However, the data from this study suggest that providing pre-service teachers with experiences through cases may give them a false

PAGE 122

111 sense of confidence. While some of the pr e-service teachers remembered reading about cases similar to the cases presented on the su rvey, they still answ ered the corresponding question incorrectly, tho ugh the experience increased their confidence. In addition, exposing pre-service teachers to current cases may not be an ideal situation because of the complexity of First Amendment issues in the classroom. As evidenced by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Morse v. Frederick, First Amendment issues are highly complex and often change based on the decisions of the courts (Bathon & McCarthy, 2007) Given this complexity a nd possibility of changes, exposing pre-service teachers to current cases may increase their confidence and therefore make it more likely that pre-serv ice teachers will violate a student’s First Amendment rights. By providing pre-servi ce teachers with limited and sporadic experiences in dealing with First Amendmen t issues, teacher educators are taking the approach that will lead to the most violations of First Amendment issues in the classroom. In this study, ther e was a slight positive corr elation between knowledge and confidence. However, the danger for pre-serv ice teachers lies in the negative correlation where the instruction does not increase the pre-se rvice teachers’ knowledge, but increases their confidence. Providing limited and sporad ic exposure does not increase pr e-service teachers’ capabilities in dea ling with First Amendment issues, but it does increase their confidence and, therefore, the likeliness that they will take action and possibly violate students’ First Amendment rights. In order to avoid increasing the likeliness that pre-service teac hers will violate students’ First Amendment rights, First Amendment issues need to be consistently integrated into the teacher education curri culum. When integrating students’ First

PAGE 123

112 Amendment rights into a course, teacher e ducators should start by dealing with preservice teachers’ preconceived beliefs about First Amendment issues. Teacher educators should have pre-service teacher s share their beliefs, provi de critical discussion about those beliefs, and encourage the pre-service teachers to evaluate those beliefs (HoltReynolds, 1992). In addition, when teacher educators deve lop their curriculum to prepare preservice teaches to deal with First Amendment issues, their definition of “prepared to deal with First Amendment right issues” should em phasize five points. First, pre-service teachers need to be aware of issues that ha ve First Amendment implications. By being aware of issues that have First Amendment i ssues, they can separate these issues from classroom management issues that do not have larger consequences for the school. Second, pre-service teachers need to understand that Firs t Amendment issues in the classroom are often complex and can vary ove r time and environmen t. If pre-service teachers understand the complexity of First Am endment issues, they will be less likely to rely on their experiences when dealing w ith First Amendment issues in their own classroom. Third, educators should discuss th e need for new teachers to investigate and learn their schools’ policies re garding First Amendment issues and how they are enforced in their particular school or school district. Pre-service t eachers need to understand the difference between actual school policy as opposed to their perception of the school’s policy regarding First Amendment issues. Fourth, educators should discuss how th e decisions of the Supreme Court have established standards regarding First Amendm ent issues and how those standards are the basis for many school policies regarding Fi rst Amendment rights. The pre-service

PAGE 124

113 teachers in this study developed standa rds based on their own perceptions and experiences. However, the pre-service teache rs need to understand that these perceptions and experiences can lead them to violate st udents’ First Amendment rights and that the legal standards decided by the courts determ ine how to deal with First Amendment rights in the classroom. Lastly, the best course of action is to s eek assistance from administrators before taking any action that might vi olate students’ First Amendment rights. By creating a curriculum that emphasizes these five points, teacher educators can not only protect the pre-service teachers from making decisions that will hurt their career, but also protect the First Amendment rights of students. Implications for Social St udies Teacher Education This study found that there was not a sta tistically significant difference between the scores of social studies pr e-services teachers and the scor es of math, science, English, or foreign language pre-service teachers. The lack of a difference is important for social studies teacher education because social st udies teachers need to have an adequate understanding of First Amendment issues since they are likely to deal with such issues within their curriculum when they are teaching about contro versial topics or events, citizens rights and responsi bilities in a democratic society, and about religion. According to the Florida Sunshine State Standards, social studies teachers are responsible for students’ unders tanding “the rights and respon sibilities of the individual under the U.S. Constitution and…the importance of civil liberties.” In addition, the Florida Sunshine State Standards uses the wo rd “religious” seven times in describing the concepts students need to understand when they complete high school. Given their

PAGE 125

114 unique responsibility of edu cating students about their ri ghts and responsibilities as citizens, as well as the impact of religion on history and society, social studies teachers need to have an adequate understanding of students’ First Amendment rights and how these issues impact the classroom. The findings from this study are similar to other research findings that “many teachers remain confused about what kinds of religious expression are permissible in school” (Demac, 1999, p. 11). In addition, this re search confirms the findings of Kaiser (2003) that of one of the causes for the conf usion and nervousness of teachers concerning religious matters is because they do not receiv e adequate preparation to handle religion in the classroom. One of the notable outcomes of the data was that over half (51%) of the social studies pre-service teachers believed that teachers cannot use the Bible as a historical or literary resource in the classroom. In addition, 42% of the social studies preservice teachers believed that the teacher was justified in not letting students express their religious beliefs during a cla ss discussion on the Middle East. During the interviews, the social studies pre-service teachers indicated th at they would not use the Bible, or did not want to discuss religious issues, because they were apprehensive about the consequences. They believed that students or parents w ould be offended, and that could lead to complaints or “getting into trouble.” “Since much of the policy about religion in public schools has been determined by the courts, teachers have been understandab ly leery of introducing religious topics in the classroom” (Marshall, 2003 p. 242). The data suggest that not only should all preservice teachers understand First Amendment i ssues in the classroom, but that social studies pre-service teachers need to be taught to understand the difference between

PAGE 126

115 teaching religion and teaching about religion. It seems th at without understanding this difference between teaching religion and teach ing about religion, social studies teachers may select a third option, removing the st udy of religion from the curriculum. Recommendations for Future Research The results of this study show that there is not a statistically significant difference between graduate and undergraduate pre-serv ice teachers or between social studies and mathematics, science, English, and forei gn language pre-service teachers regarding students’ First Amendment rights. An extensi on of this study can i nvestigate pre-service teachers’ understanding of the complexities of the issues involved in students’ First Amendment issues. In order to conduct futu re research with the survey instrument, several revisions need to be made to make th e survey instrument more effective. First, adding more questions about the same issu e would increase the reliability of the instrument and help the researcher gather additional data a bout the participants’ knowledge of that particular i ssue. As the survey is curr ently constructed, participants can answer the question correc tly without sufficient understand ing of the complexities of the issue. Additional revisions would include asking the students to provide the level of confidence to the concept questions and to describe why they chose their answers. Finally, the Web-based survey could make pa rticipants apply the standards set by the Supreme Court, such as the school-sponsored acti vity or appropriate use of the Bible. By improving the survey, the researcher will be ab le to gather more data about pre-service teachers’ knowledge and their ability to d eal with First Amendment issues in the classroom.

PAGE 127

116 An area of research that needs to be e xplored is how specific instruction in First Amendment issues influences pre-service teachers’ knowledge and confidence in dealing with these issues in the classroom. This study has found that teachers have experiences and perceptions regarding First Amendment issues, and research is needed to determine if instruction in First Amendment issues cha nges these perceptions and increases their knowledge of such issues. In addition, this research should study how instruction in First Amendment issues influences pre-service teachers’ confid ence in dealing with First Amendment issues and investigate the ramifica tions of influencing pre-service teachers’ confidence in dealing with these issues. This study found that when teachers were confident in their knowledge, th ey were more likely to take action in the classroom. Research needs to be done that will dete rmine if increased instruction increases knowledge and if this increase in knowledge would result in pre-service teachers being more willing to take action when faced with First Amendment issues in the classroom. Another extension of this research can i nvestigate not only the role of the teacher in preventing the violation of students’ First Amendment rights in their individual classrooms, but also the role of the teacher in being a leader in matters of First Amendment rights. Researchers can invest igate teachers’ roles in preventing the violation of students’ rights at school and in the classrooms of other teachers. Future researchers can investigate pote ntial differences between experienced teachers’ and pre-service teachers’ knowledge of First Amendment issues. In addition, researchers can investigate how experienced teachers atta in their knowledge of First Amendment issues. The data also suggests th at pre-service teachers rely heavily on their interpretation of school and district policy. An investigation of teachers’ perceptions of

PAGE 128

117 school policy regarding student s’ First Amendment rights and the actual policy would provide insight into educating both pre-service and experienced teachers. Another area of research would be to investigate how First Amendment issues affect the social studies curricu lum. The data suggest that some pre-service teachers are reluctant to include religion in the curricul um because it may offend students or that it might lead to conflicts with parents or admini strators. Future research can investigate if this reluctance leads social st udies teachers to ignore or re duce the amount of instruction they provide on the topic of religion. A final area of research can investigate teacher educators’ perceptions on the need for students’ First Amendment rights issues to be included in the curriculum. As a component of this, research can investigat e how to best prepare pre-service teachers within a teacher education curriculum that is already full with subjects crucial to the development of pre-service teachers. Final Thoughts This study has provided information about the knowledge of pre-service teachers regarding First Amendment issues and their conf idence in dealing with those issues in the classroom. In addition, this study has provide d information regardi ng the experiences of pre-service teachers and how t hose experiences shape their knowledge and confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The teaching profession requires that teachers make many important decisions quickly. Like many of these quick decisi ons, issues regarding the First Amendment rights of students can have long-lasting c onsequences for the student, school, and the teacher. The findings from this research study confirm the findings of Henson (1979)

PAGE 129

118 that because of the possible consequences, it is important that teac her educators prepare pre-service teachers to deal with the First Amendment issues in the classroom. Interviews with pre-service teachers show that they use a variety of criteria when deciding what actions are appropriate when dealing with First Amendment issues. However, these criteria can lead pre-service teachers to make poor decisions in their classroom. Teacher educators need to unders tand the prior knowledge of pre-service teachers so that they can educate future teach ers on how deal with the situation when it happens during their career. Many of the pre-service teachers in this study felt that they would like to have more preparation in educational law and the First Amendment rights of students. While the pre-service teachers did think more e ducational law should be included in the curriculum, they felt it should be incorpor ated into existing courses without adding another class. Teacher educators, by the incorporating the directives of the courts, research, and the ideas of pre-service teachers, can prepare future te achers to deal with the complex First Amendment issues that will likely occur in the classroom during their career, reduce costly lawsuits and, more importantly, protect students’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

PAGE 130

119 References Abbot, K. (2003). No forced Pledge Rocky Mountain News August 23, 2003. Retrieved May 1, 2004, from http://insidedenver.com Abington School District of Township Pennsyl vania, et al.. v. Schempp et al., 374 U.S. 203 (1963). Bach, L. (2003). Internet diaries; School discipline questioned. Las Vegas ReviewJournal November 10, 2003. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://reviewjournal .com Bachkirova, T. (2001), Confidence versus Self-w orth in Adult Learning in C. Rust (ed) Improving students learning strategi cally: Proceedings of the 2000 8th international symposium Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Bathon, J., & McCarthy, M. (2007). Student expression: The uncertain future. Educational Horizons, 86 (2), 75-84. Bergstrom, B. (1992). Ability measure equivalence of computer adaptive and pencil and paper tests: A research synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Bethel School District No. 403 et al.. v. Fraser, a minor, et al .. 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Bogdan, R., & Biklin S. (1992) Qualitative research for educ ation: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 131

120 Brookhart, S., & Freeman, D. (1992). Character istics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research 62 (1), 37-60. Brooks, M. (2004). The Confederate flag. Principal Leadership 4 (5). 64. Brookshire, R., & Klotz, J. (2002). Selected teacher’s percepti ons of special education laws. Paper presented at the Annual C onference of the Mid-South Education Research Association: Chatanooga, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476384) Choi, S., & Tinker, T. (2002). Evaluating comparability of paper-and-pencil and computer-based assessment in a K-12 setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measur ement in Education, New Orleans, LA. Coeyman, M. (2003). Are school s more afraid of lawsuits than they should be? The Christian Science Monitor May 27th. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from http://www.csmonitor.com Conn, K. (2001). Offensive student we b sites: What should schools do? Educational Leadership 58 (5), 74-77. Couper, M., Traugott, M., & Lamias, M. ( 2001). Web survey desi gn and administration. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 65 (2), 250-253. Court dismisses Pledge case. C NN. Retrieved August 3, 2004, from http://www.cnn.com Davis, B., & Williams, J. (1992). Integrating legal issues into teacher preparation programs (ERIC Document Repro duction Service No. ED347139) Danborn, J. (2004). Boy’s parents sue schools over Bible message ban. Everything Alabama March 9, 2004. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.al.com

PAGE 132

121 Demac, D. (1998). State of the Firs t Amendment: Freedom of religion. Update on LawRelated Education 22 (1), 10-16. DeMitchell, T., Fossey, R., & Cobb, Casey. (200 0). Dress code in the public schools: Principals, policies, and precepts. Journal of Law and Education 29 (1), 31-49. Denscombe, M. (2006). Web-Based questionn aires and the mode effect: An evaluation based on completion rates and data conten ts of near-identical questionnaires delivered in different modes. Social Science Computer Review 24 (2), 246-254. Dexter, L. (1970). Elite and specialized interviewing Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Douglass, S. (2000). Teaching about religion in na tional and state standards Council on Islamic Educaiton and the First Amen dment Center. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://firstamendmentcenter.org Dowling-Sendor, B. (2000). A divisive symbol. American School Board Journal October. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.asbj.com Dowling-Sendor, B. (2001). Balanci ng safety with free expression. American School Board Journal December, 54-56. Dragan, E. (2001). Litigation in schools: How an education expert can benefit your case. Nebraska Law Journal March. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from http://www.edmgt.com Duff, A. (1999). Teachers, principals, or lawyers?—In era of lawsuits, who’s running your kid’s school. Investors Business Daily September 16, 1999, Dunklee, D., & Shoop, R. (1986). Teacher prepara tion in a litigious society: Implications in times of reform. Journal of Teacher Education 37 (September/October), 57-60.

PAGE 133

122 Egelko, B. (2003, December 12). Judge OKs Islamic role-playing in classroom. San Francisco Chronicle pp. A-2. Engel et al.. v Vitale et al.. 370 U.S. 421 (1962). First Amendment Center. (2005). Frequently Asked Questions: What rights to freedom of expression do students have ? Retrieved June 10, 2005 from http://www.firstamendmentcer.org Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Kelly, C. (1999). Teachers and the law New York: Longman. Florida Statute 1002.205 Guidelines on religious expressi on; distribution Florida Statute 1003.44 Patriotic programs; rules Florida Statute 1006.07 District school board du ties relating to student discipline and school safety. Florida State Board of E ducation Rule 6A-5.066 (2000). Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction White Plains, NY: Longman. Garza, C. (2003). Discipline for intern et threats proves difficult for school. The FloridaTimes Union September 26, 2003. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://cgi.jacksonville.com Gonzalez, B. (2004). Student sues over ban of anti-gay t-shirt. San Diego Union Tribune June 4, 2004. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://signonsandiego.com Gullatt, D., & Tollett, J. (1997a). Educationa l law: A requisite cour se for preservice and inservice teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 48 (2), 129135.

PAGE 134

123 Gullatt, D., & Tollett, J. (1997b). Study of legal issues recommended for teacher education programs. The Teacher Educator, 33 (3), 17-34. Harris Interactive (2004). Evaluating Attitudes To ward the Threat of Legal Challenges in Pubic Schools. Retrieved July 24, 2006, from http://cgood.org/assets /attachments /11.pdf Haynes, C. (1999). A teacher’s guide to reli gion in the public schools First Amendment Center. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http://www.freedomforum.org Haynes, C. (2004) Religious liberty in pub lic schools. Retrieved June 8, 2005, from http://www.freedomforum.org Hazard, W., Freeman, L. Eisdorfer, S., & Tracte nberg, P. (1977) Legal issues in teacher preparation and certification., Washingt on, D.C.: Eric Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, 1977. Hazelwood School District et al.. v. Kuhlmeier et al.. 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Henderson, M., Gullat, D., Hardin, D ., Jannik, C., & Tollett, C. (1999). Preventive Law Curriculum Guide (ERIC Document Reproduc tion Service No. ED437366) Henson, K.T. (1979). Emerging student rights. Journal of Teacher Education 30 (4), 3334. Hills, L. (2003). Zero tolerance for free speech. Journal of Law and Education 30 (2), 365-373. Holt-Reynolds, D. (1992). Personal history-base d beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal 29 (2), 325-349 Hudson, D. (2004). Balancing safety and free speech. Principal Leadership 4 (5), 142147.

PAGE 135

124 Hutton, T. (2003a) District repeals policy prohi biting students from reading Bibles during “quiet reading time.” Legal Clips, National School Boards Association. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.nsba.org Hutton, T. (2003b) Hansen v. Ann Arbor Publ ic Schools. Legal Clips, National School Boards Association. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.nsba.org Hutton, T. (2003c) Myers v. Loudoun County School Board. Legal Clips, National School Boards Association. R Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.nsba.org Hutton, T. (2003d) Smith v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools, No. 01-10312. Legal Clips, National School Boards Association. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.nsba.org Hutton, T. (2003e) Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Legal Clips, National School Bo ards Association. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.nsba.org Hutton, T., & Burns, T. (2004). Material A llegations: Lawsuits over dissemination of religious materials in schools. Inquiry and Analysis January 2004. Imber, M., & Geel, T. (2001). A Teacher’s Guide to Education Law (2nd Ed.) London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Imber, M. (2003). The Santa dilemma. American School Board Journal 190 (12). Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7), 14-26. Kagan, D. Professional growth among pr eservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62(2), 129-169.

PAGE 136

125 Kaiser, E. (2003). Jesus heard the word of God, but Mohammed had convulsions: How religion clause principles should be app lied to religion in public school social studies curriculum. Journal of Law and Education 32 (3), 321-356. Lamorte, M. (1999). School law: Cases and Concepts (6th Ed.). Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn and Bacon. Leeson, H. (2006). The mode effect: A litera ture review of human and technological issues in computerized testing. International Journal of Testing, 6 (1), 1-24. Lemon et al.. v. Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, et al.. 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A so ciological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lupini, W., & Zirkel, P. (2003). An outco mes analysis of education litigation. Educational Policy 17 (2), 257-279. MacFarlane, M. (2007. Misbehavior in cyberspace. School Administrator 64 (9), 14-15. Marshall, J. (2003). Religion and educatio n: Walking the line in public schools. Phi Delta Kappan 85 (3), 239-242. Martinson, D. (2000). A school responds to controversial student speech: Serious questions in light of Columbine. The Clearing House 73 (3), 145-149. McCarthy, M. (1998) The principa l and student expression: From armbands to Tattoos. NASSP Bulletin 82 (599), 18-25. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 137

126 McLoughlin, C. (1983). Prospector educator ’s knowledge of child ren’s legal rights. American Educational Research Journal 20 (4), 591-600. Mears, B. (2005). Supreme court allows inauguration prayer. Retrieved August 26, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moller, J. (2003, December, 12). No apology for Lafayette gay mom; School Board decides child's discipline valid. Times-Picayune pp. A1. Morse et al. v. Frederick, 06-278 (2007). National Center for Histor y in the Schools. (1996). National standards for history Los Angeles, CA: UCLA. Newdow, M. (2003). Should schools lose the current Pledge? It’s a daily dose of religious dogma. American Teacher 87 (4), 4. NN school agrees to let student wear pro-life sweatshirt. (2004).Associated Press. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.wvec.com Pajares, M. (1992) Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3) p. 307-332 Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluati on methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Permuth, S., & Mawdsley, R. (2001). The Supr eme Court on education: Five defining cases. Principal Leadership 1 (8), 29-33. Petzko, V. (2001). Preventing legal headaches. Principal Leadership 1 (3), 34-37. Phelps, S. (2004). West’s encyclopedia of american law (2004). New York: Gale Group.

PAGE 138

127 Porter, S. (2004). Pros and cons of paper and electronic surveys. New Directions for Institutional Research 2004 (121), 91-97. Portner, J. (2000). Fearful teachers by liability insurance. Education Week Retrieved March 28, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org Quick Facts About USF (2005). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.usf.edu/ataglance.html. Reese, M., & Funk, C. (1998). Preventive law: An essential ingredient for teacher education programs Paper presented at the 44 th Annual Conference of the Educational Law Association: Charlest on, N.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457538). Religious expression in public schools. (1998) United States Department of Education. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov Rozycki, E. (2003). Religion in the public schools: Serving God to Mammon? Educational Horizons 82 (1), 9-14. Sametz, L. (1983). Teacher certification programs should require knowledge of children and the law. Contemporary Education 54 (4), 263-266. Sametz, L., & Mcloughlin, S. (1984). Curriculum innovation: Legal education Educational Horizons. Schachter, R. (2007). See you in court! District Administration, 04, 33-36. Retrieved February 22, 2008, from http://www.districtadministration.c om/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1116

PAGE 139

128 Schimmel, D. (ed.) (1996). Research that makes a difference: Complementary methods for examining legal issues in educatio n. Topeka, KA: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education. Schouten, F. (2004). Study: Pupils pay academic price for unruly classrooms. USA Today Retrieved June 22, 2004, from http://usatoday.com Shepherdson, D. (2003). Anti-Bush t-shirt approved. The Detroit News October 2, 2003. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.detnews.com Sills, S., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research: An application of webbased surveys. Social Science Computer Review 20 (1), 22-30. Stader, D. (2001). Responding to student threat s: Legal and procedural guidelines for high school principals. The Clearing House 74 (4), 221-224. Stepp, L. (2003). In La. school, son of le sbian learns ‘gay’ is a ‘bad word’. Washington Post December 3, 2003. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from http://www.washingtonpost.com Student Law Press Center. (2001). Appeals court calls Confederate flag t-shirt expressive speech Retrieved July 29, 2004, from http://www.splc.org Taylor, K. (2000). School discipli ne v. free speech. A tangled web. Principal Leadership (Middle School Edition), 1 (1), 66-70. Taylor, K. (2003). Excessive entanglement? Principal Leadership (Middle School Edition), 3 (7), 75-77. Thomas, D., Kajs, L., & Cox, C. (1998). What mentor-teachers need to know about school law. Paper presented at the 44th Annua l Conference of the Educational

PAGE 140

129 Law Association: Charleston, N.C. (E RIC Document Reproduction Service ED457538) Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Co mmunity School District et al.., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Travis, S. (2006, June 1). Law requiring st udents to recite pledge is declared unconstitutional. Florida Sun-Sentinel pp. B-1. Umbach, P. (2004). Web surveys: Best practices. New Directions for Institutional Research 2004 (121), 23-37. Unions: So Sue Me (2001). Education Week Retrieved March 28, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org USF College of Education (2005). Retrieved July 1, 2005 from http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/index.html.. USF Course Catalog. Retrieved July 1, 2005, from http://www.ugs.usf.edu/catalogs/0506/cattoc.htm. Volkman, B., & McMcMahon, R. (1999). Future teachers’ per ceptions of discipline Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Waggoner, M. (2004). Gay teen who lost free -speech fight finishes last. Associated Press, June 29, 04. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://ajc.com Wagner, P. (2007). An evaluation of the le gal literacy of educato rs and the implications for teacher preparation programs Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Law Association, San Diego, CA.

PAGE 141

130 Walsh, D. (2005, November 19). Newdow files slogan suit; pledge case heads to appeal. Sacramento Bee pp. B1. Weinstein, H. (2006, April 21). Court Lets Schools ban Inflammatory T-Shirts. Los Angeles Times pp. A1. West Virginia State Board of Education et al.. v. Barnette et al.. 319 U.S. 624 (1943). Westin, K. (2005). Survey monkey. Digital Web Magazine August, 22, 2005. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.digital-web.com/articles/survey_monkey/ Wheeler, T., & Hutton, T. (2003). Answ ers to your school law questions. Leadership Insider September 2003, 4-6. Wither, A., Onwuegbuzie, A., Collins, K., Minor, L., & James, Terry. (2002). The relationship between teacher candidates’ beliefs about education and discipline orientation. Paper presented at the annual mee ting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Chattanooga, TN. Whitson, J. (2006, March 19). Court backs censorship in schools. The Union Leader pp. A-1. Woellner, E.H. (1983). Requirements for certification (47th ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zirkel, P. (1999). Student evangelism. NASSP Bulletin January, 104-107. Zirkel, P. (2002). Decisions that have shaped U.S. education. Education Leadership 59 (4), 6-12. Zirkel, P. (2004). The Pl edge of Allegiance. Principal 83 (5), 10-11.

PAGE 142

131 Appendices

PAGE 143

132 Appendix A. Students First Amendment Rights Survey Secondary Pre-Service Teachers Knowledge and Confidence in Dealing with Students First Amendment Rights in the Classroom Dear Student: My name is Ian Call and I am a doctoral candida te at the in Tampa, FL. The focus of my research is the level of knowledge of students First Amendment rights among pre-service teachers a nd their confidence in dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. The pur pose of this letter is to request your assistance in gathering these data. The survey will take only 10 to 15 minutes to co mplete. Your participation is completely voluntary and may be discontinued at any tim e without penalty or prejudice to you. Completion and return of the survey will be considered permission to use the information you provided in the study. Completed surveys will only be reviewed and utilized by the researchers working on this study. Although there will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study, your participation may add to the research in teacher education. Thank you in advance for taking time to assist me with my research project. If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact me at (727) 341-4115 or e-mail icall@mail.usf.edu It is my hope that this study will be of value to the field of educat ion. Your assistance in this project is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ian Call Doctoral Candidate, USF

PAGE 144

133 Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey This survey will gather information regard ing your background, academic experiences, and knowledge and confidence in dealing with students’ First Amen dment right in the classroom. Please darken in the circle for the responses that best fit your personal and professional thoughts and practices. First Amendment of the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an es tablishment of religi on, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pr ess; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Background Information What is your gender? Male Female What is your age? ____________ Have you ever been employed in a school or school district in one of the following occupations? Please ch eck all that apply. Substitute Teacher Full time teacher Clerical/Administration Paid Internship Have you ever been involved w ith any of the following experi ences? Please check all that apply. Serving on jury duty Participated in a lawsuit eith er as a defendant or plaintiff Employed in law enforcement Employed in the legal profession ot her than law enforcement (lawyer, paralegal, etc.) Do you have a family member that is i nvolved in law enforcement or the legal profession? If yes, please describe how the person is related to you. No Yes, _______________________________________ As part of your job, have you received any sta ff development training in educational law? Yes No

PAGE 145

134 Academic Background Questions Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? Undergraduate Graduate If you are a graduate student, wh at was your undergraduate major? ________________________________________________________________________ What is your Teaching Field? Mathematics English Science Social Studies Foreign Language Please check any of the following courses you have taken as part of your academic program (including general education requirements). American History_____ Political Science_____ Constitutional History_____ Criminal Justice_____ Educational Law_____ Have you taken a course in your program th at deals with school law or the First Amendment rights of students? If yes, pleas e provide the title of the course below. As part of this research project, the resea rcher needs to intervie w 11 participants. The interviews will be conducted at a lo cation and time convenient for the participant. In addition, a gift card will be provided to each interview subject to compensate for their time. The int erview will last approximately 1 hour. If you are willing to partic ipate in an interview for this study, please provide the following information. Name: ____________________________________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________ E-mail Address: _____________________________________

PAGE 146

135 Students’ First Amendment Rights Questions Directions: Please read each of the follo wing scenarios and decide whether the school official in the given scenario did or did not viol ate the student or students’ First Amendment Rights of freedom of ex pression or religion. After you have answered the question, provide your level of confidence that your answer is correct. Please circle your choices. First Amendment of the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an es tablishment of religi on, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pr ess; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 1. In order to protest the Ira qi War, two high school stude nts decided to publicize their opposition by wearing black armbands to school. Having heard of the students' plans, the principal of the school adopted and informed students of a new policy concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked immedi ately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her armband w ould be suspended until agreeing to return to school without the band. When students arrived to school the next day, the children were asked to remove their armb ands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently suspended until they returned to school without their armbands. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 147

136 2. Before school starts, two hi gh school students arrive in the school parking lot with a Confederate flag displayed on their car. Th e on-duty teacher told the students to remove the flag but they refused. Prev iously, the principal had warned the students about displaying the Confederate flag because the school had a history of racial conflict and violence; however, th e students felt they were within their rights to display the flag. As a result, the principal suspended the students for three days. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 3. A senior in high school spoke to a school assembly to nominate a classmate for vice president of the student government The students in the audience were required either to attend the assembly or go to study hall. The text of the speech was filled with sexual references and innuendoes, although it contained no obscenities or vulgarities. The students in the assembly responded to the speech with hoots, cheers, and lewd motions. Th e next day the prin cipal suspended the student from school for three days. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 148

137 4. At home, a student created a webpage with material topics such as a discussion of the upcoming election, jokes about the high school’s official website and criticisms of how teachers and administ rators treated students. She also encouraged visitors to email school offi cials and complain about the school’s website. When a teacher reported othe r students were accessing the webpage on campus to the principal, he suspended th e student who created the webpage for 10 days because the webpage was inappropriate and slanderous. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 5. A ninth grade student, at home, decided to create a web site entitled “Teacher Sux.” The web site made offensive comments about the student’s mathematics teacher. The web site also asked for money to buy a hit man and included a picture of the mathematics teacher with a severed head that morphed into Adolph Hitler. After visiting the web site, the mathematics teacher requested a leave of absence for emotional stress, and th e school board expelled the student. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 149

138 6. A high school student arrives to school wearing a t-shir t that labels President Bush an “international terrorist.” The st udent’s teacher sent him to the office where an assistant principal told the student to remove the t-shirt or go home. The student chose to go home for the remainder of the day. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 7. During the holiday season, six high school students, who were members of the school’s Bible Club, decided to distribut e candy canes with Christian messages attached during homeroom. The teache r prohibited the distribution of the messages because of the religious cont ent and confiscated the candy canes. Previously, the teacher allowed students to distribute material during homeroom that did not have re ligious content. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 150

139 8. During a high school’s homeroom recita tion of the Pledge of Allegiance one student in class refused to participate. The teacher asked the student why she chose not to participate, and the studen t replied that she t hought it was stupid. The teacher told the student that in order to be excused from the Pledge, she must have a written request from her parents. Without the written request, the student would receive work detail for every day th at she did not recite the Pledge. The next day the student did not have a writte n request and still refused to recite the Pledge. The teacher sent her to the office and the principal gave her work detail. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 9. A ninth grade English teacher required her students to write a research paper on a topic that was interesting, researchable, and unfamiliar to the student. The teacher required the students to use at least four sources for information and get the teacher’s approval of the topic. When a student submitted an outline titled “The Life of Jesus Christ” for the paper wit hout getting the topic approved, the teacher rejected it. The student refused to writ e on another topic and she received a grade of zero. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 151

140 10. During a class discussion on the role of the United Stat es in the Middle East, a student claims that the United States is obligated to protect the Holy Land because America is a Christian nation. The teacher tells the student that her comment was inappropriate because it is not appropri ate for her to discuss her individual religious beliefs while the teacher is teaching and that she may offend other students with her assertion that America is a Christian nation. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violat e the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident Yes/No Questions regarding Students’ First Amendment Rights at School Do schools have greater latit ude in controlling student e xpression if the expression is within a school-sponsored activity? Yes No Schools can punish off campus expression if the expression causes a material and substantial disruption. Yes No Can students use fighting words, words that by their very utteran ce inflict injury, at school? Yes No In the state of Florida, if a student does not want to recite the Pl edge of Allegiance, do they need parental permission? Yes No

PAGE 152

141 Can teachers use the Bible as a literary and historical resource in the classroom? Yes No Can teachers stop students from praying individually or in groups? Yes No Can schools acknowledge religious holidays if it serves an educatio nal purpose and the school does not endorse the relig ious nature of the holiday? Yes No

PAGE 153

142 Appendix B. Survey Instrument Expert Review Form Survey Instrument Expert Review Form Secondary Pre-Service Teachers’ Knowledge and Confidence in Dea ling with Students’ First Amendment Rights in the Classroom Dear Name: My name is Ian Call and I am a doctoral candida te at the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL. The focus of my research is the level of knowledge of students’ First Amendment issues in the classroom. The pur pose of this letter is to request your assistance reviewing an instrument I have created to measure pre-service teachers knowledge and confidence in dealing with students’ First Amendment rights in the classroom. The survey will take only 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Completion and return of the survey will be considered permission to use the information you provided in the study. Completed surveys will only be reviewed and utilized by th e researchers working on this study. Although there will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study, your participation may add to the research in teacher education. Thank you in advance for taking time to assist me with my research pr oject. If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact me at (727) 341-4115 or e-mail icall@mail.usf.edu. It is my hope that this study will be of value to the field of edu cation. Your assistance in this project is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ian Call Doctoral Candidate, USF

PAGE 154

143 Students’ First Amendment Rights Survey This survey will gather inform ation regarding your background, academic experiences, and knowledge and confidence in dealing with students’ First Amendment rights in the classroom. Please darken in the circle for the responses that best fit your personal and professional thoughts and practices. First Amendment of the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ex ercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Background Information What is your gender? Male Female What is your age? ____________ Have you ever been employed in a school or school district in one of the following occupations? Please check all that apply. Substitute Teacher Full time teacher Clerical/Administration Have you ever been involved with any of the following experiences? Please check all that apply. Serving on jury duty Participated in a lawsuit either as a defendant or plaintiff Employed in law enforcement Employed in the legal profession other than law enforcement (lawyer, paralegal, etc.) Survey Review Questions Please darken in the circle that represents your answer to the following questions. This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant

PAGE 155

144 Do you have a family member that is involved in law enforcement or the legal profession? If yes, please describe how the person is related to you. No Yes, _______________________________________ As part of your job, have you recei ved any staff development training in educational law? Yes No Academic Background Questions Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? Undergraduate Graduate If you are a graduate student, what was your undergraduate major? __________________________________________________________ What is your Teaching Field? Mathematics English Science Social Studies Foreign Language Please check any of the following courses you have taken as part of your academic program (including general education requirements). American History_____ Political Science_____ Constitutional History_____ Criminal Justice_____ Educational Law_____ This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant

PAGE 156

145Have you taken a course in your program that deals with school law or the First Amendment rights of students? If yes, please provide the title of the course below. If you are willing to participate in an interview for this study, please provide the following information. Name: ____________________________________________ Telephone Number: _________________________________ E-mail Address: _____________________________________ Survey Review Questions What (if any) background information should be collected by the researcher? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ If you indicated not relevant for a ny questions, please describe why? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ This question is Relevant Not Relevant This question is Relevant Not Relevant

PAGE 157

146 Survey Review Questions Please answer the following questions about the Students’ First Amendment Rights Questions. Question 1 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Students’ First Amendment Rights Questions Directions: Please read each of the following scenarios and decide whether the school official in the given scenario did or did not violate the student or students’ First Amendment Rights of freedom of expression or religion. After you have answered the question, provide your level of confidence that your answer is correct. Please circle your choices. First Amendment of the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 1. A high school student arrives in class wearing a t-shirt with the words “Homosexuality is Shameful” and references Romans 1:27. The school does not have a history of conflicts between students over issues of homosexuality and once a year the school participates in a Day of Silence, a national event to protest against discrimination and har assment of homosexuals. The student’s teacher told the student to remove the t-shirt because it did not comply with the school ’s dress code that prohibited clothing that “promotes or portrays violence or hate behavior including derogatory connotations directed toward sexual identity.” When the student refu sed to remove the t-shirt, the teacher sent the student to the office and the principal decided to suspend the student for three days. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s Fir Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 158

147 Question 2 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 3 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree 2. Before school starts, two high school students arrive in the school parking lot with a Confederate flag displayed on their car. The flag violated the principal’s unwritten policy of banning the Confederate flag on school grounds. Previously, the principal had warned the students about displaying the Confederate flag; however, the students felt they were within their rights to display the flag. As a result, the prin cipal suspended the students for three days. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 3. The Gay/Straight Alliance Student Club at Eastern High School organized a panel discussion as part of the school’s annual diversity week. The panel chosen for the discussion consisted of clergy members who believed th at homosexuality and religion are compatible. However, another student and member of the Pioneers in Christ student club, attempted to either name a clergy member who believed homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle or participate in the panel discussion herself. The school rejected her request and did not allow her or the clergy member to participate in the panel discussion. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 159

148 Question 4 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 5 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree 4. Over the weekend, a student decided to create a webpage on her home computer. Among topics such as the upcoming election, she used to the webpage to poke fun at the high school’s official website and criticized how teachers and administrators treated students. She also encouraged visitors to email school officials and complain about the school’s website. When the principal learned other students were accessing the webpage on campus, she suspended her for 10 days because the principal believed the webpage was inappropriate and slanderous. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 5. An eighth grade student, at home, decided to create a web site entitled “Teacher Sux.” The web site made offensive comments about the student’s mathematics teacher. The web site also asked for money to buy a hit man and included a picture of the mathematics teacher with a sever ed head that morphed into Adolph Hitler. After visiting the web site, the mathematics teacher requested a leave of absen ce for emotional stress, and the school board expelled the student. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 160

149 Question 6 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 7 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree 6. A high school student arrives to school wearing a t-shirt that labels President Bush an “international terrorist.” The student’s teacher sent him to the office wh ere an assistant principal told the student to remove the t-shirt or go home. The student chose to go home for the rest of the day. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 7. During the Christmas season, six high school students who were members of the school’s Bible Club, decided to distribute candy canes with Christian messages a ttached. Previously, school officials warned the students not to distribute the messages because school policy prohibited students from distributing any material that did not relate to the curriculum. After the students distributed the candy canes, the school suspended the students for three days. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident Confident

PAGE 161

150 Question 8 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 9 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree 8. While a middle school principal recited the Pledge of Allegiance over the school’s intercom system one student in class refused to participate. The teacher asked the student why she chose not to participate, and the student replied that she thought it was stupid. The teacher told the student that in order to be excused from the Pledge she must have a written request from her parents. Without the written request, the student would have to recite the Pledge. The next day, the student did not have a written request from her parents and the teacher sent her to the principal’s office. As a result, the principal called the student’s parents. The parents believed that their daughter should recite the pledge and refused to give written permission. The principal and the parents agreed that the student would receive work detail for every day that she did not recite the pledge. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident 9. A ninth grade English teacher required her students to write a research paper on a topic that was interesting, researchable, and unfamiliar to the student. The teacher required the students to use at least four sources for information and get the teacher’s approval of the topic. When a student submitted an outline titled “The Life of Jesus Christ” for the paper without getting the topic approved, the teacher rejected it. The student refused to write on another topic and she received a grade of zero. A. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. B. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident

PAGE 162

151 Question 10 The question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree 10. During a class discussion on the role of the United States in the Middle East, a student claims that the United States is obligated to protect the Holy Land because America is a Christian nation. The teacher tells the student that her comment was inappropriate because it is not appropriate for her to discuss her individual religious beliefs while the teacher is teaching and that she may offend other students with her assertion that America is a Christian nation. In this case, the school did NOT violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. In this case, the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. How confident are you that your answer is correct? Not at all Confident Slightly Co nfident Confident Extremely Confident Yes/No questions regarding Students’ First Amendment Rights at School 11. Do schools have greater latit ude in controlling student expression if the expression is within a school-sponsored activity? Yes No 12. Schools can punish off campus e xpression if the expression causes a material and substantial disruption. Yes No 13. Can students use fighting words, words that by their very utterance inflict in jury, at school? Yes No 14. In the state of Florida, if a st udent does not want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, do they need parental permission? Yes No Question 11 question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 12 question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 13 question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 14 question is clear and unambi g uous.

PAGE 163

152 15. Can teachers use the Bible as a literary and historical resource in the classroom? Yes No 16. Can teachers stop students from praying individually or in groups? Yes No 17. Can schools acknowledge religious holidays if it serves an educational purpose and the sc hool does not endorse the religious nature of the holiday? Yes No What (if any) issues dealing with students’ First Amendment rights are not included in this survey? ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________ _______________ Question 15 question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 16 question is clear and unambiguous. Agree Do not Agree Question 17 question is clear and unambi g uous.

PAGE 164

153 Appendix C. Structured Interview Questions Warm-Up Questions Where are you from? Where did you go to High School? Why did you decide to become a teacher? 1. Before seeing the text of the First Am endment, did you know what rights were included in the Amendment? 2. Can you describe the difference between the rights of adults and the rights of students at school? 3. Do you think it is important or not importa nt to prepare pre-se rvice teachers to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom? (Why or why not?) 4. How difficult were the questions on the survey instrument? 5. Why did you indicate that you were confident (not confident) in many of your answers on the survey? 6. Do you think the academic program at the university, including your teacher preparation coursework, has prepared you for dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom? 7. Have First Amendment issues ever been di scussed in any of your college courses? 8. Can you describe any experiences in your teacher preparation program or coursework outside of the College of Edu cation that may help you deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom? 9. Have you ever learned about First Am endment issues from reading the newspaper, internet, or other resources? 10. Did you enroll at the university immedi ately after graduati ng from high school? 11. What do you think would be the best way to prepare pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment i ssues in the classroom?

PAGE 165

154 Appendix D. College of Education Ad mission Requirements and Core Courses In order to be accepted by the College of Education, students must have completed the liberal arts requirements and passed Florida’s College Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST), the Praxis I, or th e General Knowledge Test. In addition, each student must have taken the following three credit education courses: EDF 2005 Introduction to Education Introductory survey course required for admission into the College of Education. A broad overview of the history, sociol ogy and philosophy of education in the United States focuses on education as a field of study and teaching as a profession. Includes lectur e and field experience. EDG 2701 Teaching Diverse Populations Introductory survey course required for admission into the College of Education. Places schools and teaching within the contex t of the U.S. as a pluralistic society. Topics include: the demographics of di versity; prejudice; elements of culture; American heritage of diversity and its value; and barriers to cultural understanding. Includes lectur e and field experience. EME 2040 Introduction to Educational Technology Designed as an introduction to computer technology and its role in teaching and learning processes. Topics include educatio nal software, ethical and social issues, hardware, interactive multimedia, mode ls for integrating technology into instruction, productivity t ools and telecommunications. In addition to the three required course s prior to acceptance by the college, the pre-service teachers are requi red to take the following co re courses prior to their internship experience (USF Course Catalog). EDF 3214 Human Development Application of respondent and operant learni ng principles to clas sroom learning, teaching models for different instructional goals, an alysis of teacher behavior, micro-teaching.

PAGE 166

155 EDF 4430 Measurement for Teachers Concepts and skills related to designing and de veloping classroom test s; evaluating tests, instruction, and student progr ess; and communicating stude nt achievement. Including application of performance assessment te chniques and computer applications for measuring and assessing pupil progress. FLE 4365 ESOL Competencies and Strategies Designed to enable participants to meet the special limitations and cultural educational needs of LEP students in cont ent area classes. Designed to provide a theoretical and practical foundation for ESOL co mpetencies and strategies. ESE 4322 Classroom Management Focuses on classroom management in sec ondary schools including classroom climate, specific strategies to address management issues, school safety, violence, diversity, ethics, and educational law. EEX 4070 Integrating Exceptional St udents into Reg. Classrooms Designed for non-special education ma jors. Includes basic identification techniques and strategies to promot e academic and social integration and interaction of “mainstreamed” exceptional students. Concurrent field experience projects are included. EDF 3604 Social Foundations of Education Social, economic and political context with in which schools func tion and the values which provide directi on for our schools.

PAGE 167

156 Appendix E. Difficulty Index for Items on the Web-Based Survey In order to determine the difficulty of each item on the Web-based survey, the researcher calculated a difficulty index for each item. The researcher conducted the difficulty index for each question by dividing th e number of participants that answered the question correctly by the tota l number of participants. The difficulty index for each question can be found in Table 14. Table 14 Difficulty Index for the Web-Based Survey Questions Survey Question Difficulty Index 1. In order to protest the Iraqi War, two high school students decided to publicize their opposit ion by wearing black armbands to school. Having heard of the students' plans, the principal of the school adopted and informed students of a new policy concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked immediately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her armband would be suspended until agr eeing to return to school without the band. When students arrived to sc hool the next day, the children were asked to remove their armbands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently suspended until th ey returned to school without their armbands. .76 2. Before school starts, two high school st udents arrive in the school parking lot with a Confederate flag displa yed on their car. The on-duty teacher told the students to remove the flag but they refused. Previously, the principal had warned the students a bout displaying the Confederate flag because the school had a history of r acial conflict and violence; however, the students felt they were within th eir rights to display the flag. As a result, the principal suspende d the students for three days. .58 3. A senior in high school spoke to a school assembly to nominate a classmate for vice president of the student government. The students in the audience were requir ed either to attend the assembly or go to study hall. The text of the speech was filled with sexual references and innuendoes, although it contained no obscenities or vulgarities. The students in the assembly responded to the speech with hoots, cheers, and .64

PAGE 168

157 lewd motions. The next day the prin cipal suspended the student from school for three days. 4. At home, a student created a page with topics such as a discussion of the upcoming election, jokes about the hi gh school’s official website and criticisms of how teachers and admini strators treated students. She also encouraged visitors to email school officials and complain about the school’s website. When a teacher reported other students were accessing the webpage on campus to the principal, he suspended the student who created the webpage for 10 days beca use the webpage was inappropriate and slanderous. .88 5. A ninth grade student, at home, decided to create a web site entitled “Teacher Sux.” The web site made offensive comments about the student’s mathematics teacher. The web site also asked for money to buy a hit man and included a picture of the mathematics teacher with a severed head that morphed into Adolph Hitler. After visiting the web site, the mathematics teacher requested a leave of absence for emotional stress, and the school board expelled the student. .94 6. A high school student arrives to scho ol wearing a t-shirt that labels President Bush an “international terror ist.” The student’s teacher sent him to the office where an assistant princi pal told the student to remove the tshirt or go home. The student chose to go home for the remainder of the day. .71 7. During the holiday season, six high school students, who were members of the school’s Bible Club, decide d to distribute candy canes with Christian messages attached during homeroom. The teacher prohibited the distribution of the messages becau se of the religious content and confiscated the candy canes. Previous ly, the teacher allowed students to distribute material during homeroom th at did not have re ligious content. .50 8. During a high school’s homeroom rec itation of the Ple dge of Allegiance one student in class refused to partic ipate. The teacher asked the student why she chose not to participate, an d the student replied that she thought it was stupid. The teacher told the student that in order to be excused from the Pledge, she must have a written request from her parents. Without the written request, the stud ent would receive work detail for every day that she did no t recite the Pledge. The next day the student did not have a written request and still refused to recite the Pledge. The teacher sent her to the office and th e principal gave her work detail. .82 9. A ninth grade English teacher required her students to write a research paper on a topic that was interesting, researchable, and unfamiliar to the student. The teacher required the studen ts to use at least four sources for information and get the teacher’s appr oval of the topic. When a student submitted an outline titled “The Life of Jesus Christ” for the paper without getting the topic approved, the teacher rejected it. The student refused to write on another topic a nd she received a grade of zero. .52

PAGE 169

158 10. During a class discussion on the role of the United States in the Middle East, a student claims that the United States is obligated to protect the Holy Land because America is a Chri stian nation. The teacher tells the student that her comment was inappropr iate because it is not appropriate for her to discuss her in dividual religious belief s while the teacher is teaching and that she may offend other students with her assertion that America is a Christian nation. .58 11. Do schools have greater latitude in controlling student expression if the expression is within a school-sponsored activity? .94 12. Schools can punish off campus expre ssion if the expression causes a material and substantial disruption. .52 13. Can students use fighting words, words that by their very utterance inflict injury, at school? 1.0 14. In the state of Florida, if a student do es not want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, do they need parental permission? .82 15. Can teachers use the Bible as a litera ry and historical resource in the classroom? .70 16. Can teachers stop students from praying individually or in groups? .88 17. Can schools acknowledge religious holid ays if it serves an educational purpose and the school does not endo rse the religious nature of the holiday? .94

PAGE 170

159 Appendix F. Validation of Them es Using Alternate Reviewers In order to validate the themes and ensure that the units of information accurately reflected those themes, the researcher provide d 23 units of information and seven themes to colleagues in teacher education. The seven themes consisted of experiences, confidence, policy, offensiveness, apprehen sion, and sense of right or wrong. The researcher chose these themes to verify that the themes were comprehensive and that units could not fit into tw o different categories. The researcher provided each reviewer with a spreadsheet containing eleven columns. The first four columns contained the 23 units of information. The remaining seven columns were for the seven themes identified by the researcher. The researcher provided a one-sentence description of each th eme and asked each reviewer to read the units of information and place the unit of info rmation into one of the thematic columns. The researcher sent the spreadsheet to four reviewers. Two of the reviewers misplaced four units. One of the reviewers misidentified three un its and one reviewer misidentified five units. For the most pa rt, the reviewers misplaced units from the confidence and experience columns and th e apprehension and importance of First Amendment rights columns. The mispla cement of units between confidence and experiences was due to the fact that the pr e-service teachers discussed experiences in relation to explaining their an swers and how they learned ab out First Amendment issues, as well as why they were confident in their answers to the survey. While the researcher believes these two themes are unique, they are also closely related. After reviewing the reviewers’ placement of the units, the res earcher separated the apprehension aspect of the units from the importance aspect. For instance, the unit “think

PAGE 171

160 it’s extremely important because say you have behavioral problems and you want to write a referral you need to know exactly wh ere you should stand on the issue,” became two units of information. The researcher review ed the remaining units of information and found instances where units of information cont ained information that could be classified into different themes. The researcher either divided these units into separate units, or decided that the unit was in the proper theme.

PAGE 172

161 Appendix G. Example of Researcher’s Interview Log

PAGE 173

162

PAGE 174

163 Appendix H. Examples of Interview Transcripts Carrie Carrie’s is a 23-year old mathematics undergra duate pre-service teac her. Her score on the survey instrument put her in the low group. She missed several of the scenario questions and several of the concept questions on the surv ey. The majority of the questions Carrie answered incorrectly were the questions dealing with freedom of religion including the questions re garding distribution of religi ous content, the content of a research paper, the use of the Bible in school, and acknowledge ment of religious holidays. However, Carrie did answer mo st of the freedom of expression questions correctly. On her survey, Carrie answered th at she was confident in all her answers except the question regarding vulgar language. Q: Why did you decide to become a teacher? I like math and I like the edu cational system, always wanted to be involved with it. Q: You like math? Yes Q: You like the educational system? So you have good experiences when you were younger ? Yeah, and I have some family members that we re involved with education. I was always around schools and teachers. Q: Were your parents teachers? My mom is an assistant to the principal. Q: Did you go to the school where she worked? Yes I did (laughter) it was interesting. Q: Let me ask you some questions about the survey. Did you think that the questions on the survey were difficult or easy? Some of them were kind of difficult because of my views of the First Amendment and my views as a teacher and would I want going on in my classroom kind of conflicted in some parts, but on the whole I tried to go with, my first instinct. Q: You said your views of the First Ame ndment, what are your views of the First Amendment? Well, just I think that people should be ab le to say what they want, Freedom of expression, and I completely belief that. Q: As a teacher and educator than you woul d be in favor of giving more latitude to students? Right

PAGE 175

164 Q: Before, seeing the text of the First Amendment did you know what rights were included in the Amendment ? I had a general idea and my family they all have very liberal views and I have been around it my whole life, so I have always heard a little bit and seen a little bit. So I had a general idea so that kind of confirmed it. Q: Can you describe the difference between the rights of adults and the rights of students at school? I think that the rights might be compromise d a little bit, they can express themselves freely, because it’s a disruption, and even though I think people should be able to express themselves, I think in that ki nd of context its no t always the proper thing to do, its not always possible. Q: The school can limit their rights ba sed on disruptions, any other reason why schools can limit their rights? Mostly, just the disruptions and how its going to affect the classroom and the climate of the school. Q: Do you think it is important or not im portant to prepare teachers to deal with First Amendment issues? I would say it is important, becau se it is issues they are going to run into, and it is nice to have some idea of what you are going to see and some idea of how to handle it so, I don’ t feel like I have gotten a lot, not to bash USF. Q: When you say that you have gotten a lo t, does that mean you have not got any..? I think there was a little in my social foundations, I think a co uple of classes have touched on it, but on a whole, I don’t th ink they taught about the poli tically correct way to handle a lot of situations that are going to happen. Q: Have you gone to USF the whole time? Yes, Q: What about in your general education courses, did they talk about First Amendment issues? I took some Sociology classes and they touched on it a little. Q: Do you think different areas, like Social Studies would have more of a background, would be better prepared to deal with? I would say probably so, all my core cla sses have been Math and it never comes up whatsoever. Q: So a course in Constitutional law or Government would better prepare teachers? Yea something like that ad apted to their needs? Q: Now on the survey the first question wa s, In order to protest the Iraqi War, two high school students decided to publiciz e their opposition by wearing black

PAGE 176

165 armbands to school. Having heard of the st udents' plans, the principal of the school adopted and informed students of a new policy concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked immediately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her armband would be suspended until agreeing to return to sch ool without the band. When students arrived to school the next day, the child ren were asked to remove their armbands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently suspended until they returned to school without their armba nds. You put the school did violate the students’ First Amendment rights, why? I don’t think that something like armbands woul d be such a distrac tion and I think that students have every right to voice their opinion about that. Q: So you used that it was a distraction, lets say that some students had parents that are fighting in Iraq at the time and they are upset about the armband, they threatened violence, would that be enough to restrict the armbands. This is where it gets confusing, I think with the threat of violence or something a little serious like that then there is a little bit of justification. Q: You put you were confident, why ? Probably because if I were a st udent I would have done the same thing even with the risk of suspension or expulsion. Q: So you put yourself in th e mindset of the student? Yeah, I can understand where the principal is coming from, but I think I would have sided with the student. Q: Next question, before school starts, two high school students arrive in the school parking lot with a Confederate flag displayed on their ca r. The on-duty teacher told the students to remove the flag but they refused. Previously, the principal had warned the students about displaying the Co nfederate flag because the school had a history of racial conflict and violence; however, the students felt they were within their rights to display the flag. As a result, the princi pal suspended the students for three days. You put in this case the school did violate the students’ First Amendment Rights? Actually a little bit before someone in cla ss had a discussion about how South Carolina has the Confederate Flag in their state flag, I figured if a state in the US has it their state flag then there is no reason why a student should not be able to. Q: You put you were confident, why ? Mostly because that, because you can’t do that and then tell students that they can’t do that. It makes no sense whatsoever. Q: There were two questions about students making web pages. The first was at home, a student created a webpage with materi al topics such as a discussion of the upcoming election, jokes about the high sch ool’s official website and criticisms of

PAGE 177

166 how teachers and administrators treated st udents. She also encouraged visitors to email school officials and complain about the school’s website. When a teacher reported other students were accessing the we bpage on campus to the principal, he suspended the student who created the webpage for 10 days because the webpage was inappropriate and slanderous. The second question was a ninth grade student, at home, decided to create a web site en titled “Teacher Sux.” The web site made offensive comments about the student’s mathematics teacher. The web site also asked for money to buy a hit man and incl uded a picture of the mathematics teacher with a severed head that morphed into Ad olph Hitler. After visiting the web site, the mathematics teacher requested a leave of absence for emotional stress, and the school board expelled the student. On the fi rst question you said that it did violate Students’ First Amendment Rights on the second it did not violate students’ First Amendment rights, why? I would take the second one as whether he was kidding or not, I would take it as a direct threat, yea you can voice your opinions, if you do it tactfully. A nd you I mean it sounds like the first student didn’t make any threat s just kind of criticized, you are allowed to criticize, the direct threat is a different thing. Q: It was the threat that made it unconstitutional. Yea Q: Both were off-campus, did that factor in your thinkin g? The fact that they were on their personal time and it was you know, just probably not, it was mostly the difference in the threat. Q: Let say that the first student had done the webpage at school. Do you think it would have been ok to suspend them? In a sense it is not what they’re there for, it is not what the school is to be used for, so it could justified in that case. Q: Next question, during a high school’s homeroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance one student in class refused to pa rticipate. The teacher asked the student why she chose not to participate, and the student replied that she thought it was stupid. The teacher told the student that in order to be excused from the Pledge, she must have a written request from her parents. Without the written request, the student would receive work detail for every day that she did not recite the Pledge. The next day the student did not have a wr itten request and still refused to recite the Pledge. The teacher sent her to the offi ce and the principal gave her work detail. You put that the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. The student wants to choose not to and it wasn’t instruction to the rest of the class, I don’t know maybe it was in that case. I think they have every right to do it if they want to or not, I mean it’s a free country. I th ink that is one of those things. Q: The next question says a ninth grade English teacher required her students to write a research paper on a topic that wa s interesting, researchable, and unfamiliar

PAGE 178

167 to the student. The teacher required the st udents to use at least four sources for information and get the teacher’s approval of the topic. When a student submitted an outline titled “The Life of Jesus Chri st” for the paper without getting the topic approved, the teacher rejected it. The stude nt refused to write on another topic and she received a grade of zero. You put that the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights. I think as long as they are completing the as signment and they are supporting their ideas then they can’t really be wr ong if its an impending paper. Q: Lets say you are a math teacher, you s ay that you give them an assignment to write a Math person, some famous math person and they come back with Jesus? Do you say no? If they could support it, which I think would be very difficult, but if they prove to me that they really worked on it and they really trie d to support their ideas th en I would let them. Q: Let say if you didn’t do you think it would be a violation of their rights? Mmmmm, I don’t know in that context, if they could prove to them that he did something mathematically significant then I would defi nitely go along with it, but I can’t say if I knew if he did or not, so but if they could pr ove to me that that was so, then I would go with it. Q: Last question from the survey. During a class discussion on the role of the United States in the Middle East, a student cl aims that the United States is obligated to protect the Holy Land because America is a Christian nation. The teacher tells the student that her comment was inapprop riate because it is not appropriate for her to discuss her individual religious beliefs while the teacher is teaching and that she may offend other students with her assert ion that America is a Christian nation. You said that the teacher did violate the student’s First Amendment rights. I don’t agree with it, but it is a pretty popular opinion out there and I don’t think you should hush it just because you don’t agree with it. Q: Do you think it is a free speech i ssue or a freedom of religion issue? Both, I think you have a right to state your opinion and even if it is about a religious issue. Q: You put you were confident in all your answers, why did you put you were confident? I think it was just the way I wa s raised, in a very liberal home and I have strong feelings towards you know First Amendment rights a nd how the Government should act towards its citizens. Q: Do you think the fact that your family is involved in ed ucation does that give you more experience in dealing with it, or is it the liberalness of your family?

PAGE 179

168 I think just the liberalness, because I say what I think in this, but if it actually happened in the classroom, I mean, I don’t know what my fi rst instinct would be what I really think, so. Q: Lets take the one with the student co mes to school wearing a t-shirt that say President Bush is an international terro rist, and its homeroom and you see this shirt, and you see some students looking at it, what would you do in that situation. To be honest, I wouldn’t say anything unless it became an issue and then I might try to intervene in some way, but if they did not bri ng it up or cause a discus sion about it, then I would probably just sit b ack and not do anything. Q: Lets say if the student moved on to second period and a teacher has a real problem with the shirt and sends him to th e office would you say anything to that… before they send them to the office and you share an office with the teacher and the teacher says that they are going to send the student to the office, what would you do? I would probably ask if it was a disruption, and you know if it really was then it if really was an issue in their class then I might tell th em that is the right thing to do, but if it wasn’t a disruption and it was just the teach er singling them out while they are sitting their doing work then I would tell her that it is perfectly fine for hi m to be doing that and he didn’t do anything wrong. Q: What if she says I am still going to send him to the office and the principal sends the student home? I would probably talk to the principal and br ing up the point, was it a disruption, it wasn’t a disruption in my class and they didn’t sa y anything about it, if it wasn’t a disruption then he should have every right to wear it and continue the day. Q: So you would advocate on the part of the student? As long as it wasn’t a disruption as long as it wasn’t becoming an issue and interfering with the lesson. Q: Lets take the Confederate Flag issue, the student comes into your room and wearing a shirt with the Confederate Flag on it and students are kind of looking at it and you get a feeling that there is some ra cial conflict within the school you are teaching at. Now so what would you do in that case? Probably try to get a second opi nion real quick. Maybe talk to another teacher that has been there a little bit longer and tell them the situation and ask them how they would handle it. Q: What do you think is mo re difficult to deal with in the classroom issues of freedom of expression or freedom of religion? I would say it is probably harder to deal with freedom of religion because I think that a lot of people, especially other students a nd maybe other teachers have strong opinions

PAGE 180

169 about religion and are not necessarily might get fired up about someone else expressing their opinion of their religion, it could cause a lot more tension, depending on the topic. Q: Do you think student teachers should have more exposure to learning about students’ First Amendment issues? I think so, because the only education course that I had that touched on it, would have been my as far as first Amendment issues w ould have been social foundations and a lot of those were from the 1800s, so I mean I know a little bit about the First Amendment rights that they discovered back the n, but nothing current at all. Q: Lets say I was the Dean of the Colle ge of Education and I am worried about student teachers and their la ck of knowledge about educational law in general, and I asked you how we should fix this problem what would your recommend? Either incorporating it into an existing c ourse or maybe setting up a new one, I know I don’t want to take any extra courses. Maybe incorporating into an existing course something like these scenarios and what you should you do and what best way to handle it and if you don’t know what to do and talk to them and just gi ving them a general overview of what might pop-up a nd the best way to handle it. Q: What course would you put it into? I would put it in th e social foundations. Q: So if you had to choose between including educational law into a course and creating a new course you would a dd it into social foundations. I would probably advocate for putting it in th e social foundations because I think that a lot of students really don’t want to take an extra course especi ally in something like that I mean they need to know what is going to happen and what is could come up, but I don’t think they have too much interest in it. Q: If the Dean said he was going to make it an elective do you think students would be interested? I would be interested in it, and I can think of a few more that probably would, but I think most of the people I know at the College w ouldn’t be interested in it at all. Q: Can you think of any other course besi des Social Foundations where it should be included? I am not sure, maybe in your methods classes to uching upon it, I think that in the Intro to Ed or the teaching diverse populations I don’ t think that it would really get through to the people because you are not really far along in the program its not going to really have that much an impact on you, you are not re ally think about te aching, you are thinking about the next three years. Q: Have you taken the cla ssroom management course? I am taking it over the summer, my last one.

PAGE 181

170 Q: Do you ever remember seeing about Firs t Amendment issues in the newspaper or on the Internet? I am sure I have, but I can’t thi nk of anything off hand right now.

PAGE 182

171 Stacie Stacie is a 24-year-old Social Studies gr aduate student. Her score on the survey instrument put her in the average group and her answers about her confidence put her in the average confidence group. Q: In your opinion how difficult were th e questions on the survey instrument? I would say fairly difficult. Q: Why would you say fairly difficult? It was difficult to apply the First Amendment to the specific situati ons, because it could kind of go either way. I could see it going one way or the other way, knowing what I know about the First Amendment so I wasn’t always in confident in my answer. Q: Before seeing the text of the First Amendment did you know what was included in the Amendment? Yes Q: Can you describe the difference between the rights of adults and the rights of students at school? I can try, the rights of adults they are not any under any institution, but when you are a student some of the rights are different becau se depending on the district or whatever is in the handbook might take away some of the rights that you have, the safety of other students and the functioning of the school. Q: So the school or school board can limit students’ rights based on safety and what else? Safety I am trying to think of, cultural can th ink of the word I apol ogize, diversity trying to protect diversity and or something along those lines keeping people from begin offended. I am having difficulty finding the proper word. Q: Any other reason why they might be ab le to restrict the rights of students? They’re minors. Based on past events or something that have happened. Q: On a lot of your answers you put th at you were slightly confident, why? Because I thought they might be right, but I wasn ’t really sure, so I didn’t want to put down that I was very very confident, but I don’t know, I tried to apply what I thought based on my interpretation what my answer would be. Q: I want to ask you about the specific quest ions on the survey. Lets start with the first question. I will read it to you. In order to protest the Iraqi War, two high school students decided to publicize their opposition by wearing black armbands to school. Having heard of the students' plans, the principal of the school adopted and informed students of a new policy concernin g armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to school wo uld be asked immediately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her armband would be suspended until

PAGE 183

172 agreeing to return to school without the ba nd. When students arrived to school the next day, the children were asked to remove their armbands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently su spended until they returned to school without their armbands. You put that the sc hool did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights. Trying to remember, lets see, maybe because it was against dress code and it went against what was in the student handbook. Q: Lets say you are in your internship and tomorrow, students come in wearing armbands to protest the Iraqi war and the principal suspends th em, and that really does not violate their Constitutional rights? I don’t know, now that I am thinking about it, I starting to want to change my answer which is where that slightly certai n thing came in or not quite certain. Q: Why would you want to change your answer? It is one of those things that could go either way, it could be a violation of their rights, they are not doing anything that is threatening to other indivi duals it is a non-threatening issue and an armband in of itself is not offensiv e directly it does not it is not racially or culturally offensive. If it wasn’t violati ng their rights, I don’t know I was thinking more about the dress code. Q: Next question. Before school starts, two high school students arrive in the school parking lot with a Confederate flag displayed on their ca r. The on-duty teacher told the students to remove the flag but they refused. Previously, the principal had warned the students about displaying the Co nfederate flag because the school had a history of racial conflict and violence; however, the students felt they were within their rights to display the flag. As a result, the princi pal suspended the students for three days. You put that the school di d violate the students’ First Amendment rights. I put that they did, I wonder if I was answering these, I don’ t know if I misread them or something. Q: If you think they did not, why not.. Because with the Confederate Flag issue, ba sed on the school that I am at now, they are not allowed to wear the anything the Confederat e Flag because it is considered offensive, but they are also not allowed to wear the Puerto Rican Flag or things of any other Flags. I was thinking more along the li nes of my specific school. Do es it violate their rights. I think their rights, the First Amendment rights would be violated because I think it would be under your Freedom of Speech, but I wa s just going based on my school, so I don’t know how they really came to that basis. Q: There were two questions about students c reating web pages. The first question was At home, a student created a webpage with material topics such as a discussion of the upcoming election, jokes about th e high school’s official website and

PAGE 184

173 criticisms of how teachers and administrato rs treated students. She also encouraged visitors to email school officials and comp lain about the school’s website. When a teacher reported other students were accessing the webpage on campus to the principal, he suspended the student wh o created the webpage for 10 days because the webpage was inappropriate and sland erous. The second question was A ninth grade student, at home, decided to create a web site entitled “Teacher Sux.” The web site made offensive comments about th e student’s mathematics teacher. The web site also asked for money to buy a hit man and included a picture of the mathematics teacher with a severed head that morphed into Adolph Hitler. After visiting the web site, the mathematics te acher requested a leave of absence for emotional stress, and the school board expelled the student. You said both did not violate students’ First Amendment Rights why? I just hearing everythi ng with myspace and all that st uff recently, I had heard stories about students posting things about teachers, negative comm ents, and there being tried for it so that’s why I was kind of thinking along those lines, that maybe with the cyber bullying then it fell somewhere underneath that s ubject and that is why I put that. And on the second one, because of the violence, the threat of violence and everything and the teacher safety. Q: Next question. A high school student arrives to school wearing a t-shirt that labels President Bush an “international t errorist.” The student’s teacher sent him to the office where an assistant principal to ld the student to remove the t-shirt or go home. The student chose to go home fo r the remainder of the day.You put the school did violate the student’s First Amendment Rights Just because I don’t think that wearing a t-shir t would be more of a dress code issue and not a First Amendment issue. Q: Let say the t-shirt did not violate the d ress code, then it woul d be a violation of the students’ First Amendment rights? Yes, I think so, that is what I was thinking along that lines, because it wasn’t something that was threatening, and as an adult you are allowed to wear shirts like that. Q: Did any of your courses in undergrad, any courses, any Social Studies courses and courses here do you think the academic program has prepared you for dealing with First Amendment issues in the classroom. Maybe not so much in the classroom, I thi nk personally and actually I was going to say this to you, I think it would be a good idea to include it in the program here at the school to have some kind of educational law program be part of the program, because as I was filling out the survey, I was thinking to myse lf, wow I really know less about this than I though I did and I think that it could be very beneficial. Q: Had you ever thought about that before you took the survey, that wow I don’t know that much about educational law. Maybe a little bit, discussing it in other classe s, and then with the Confederate Flag issue I was at the school I am interning at, that be ing outlawed, made me kind of think about it,

PAGE 185

174 what are you allowed to wear and what are you not allowed to wear, and things like that, so I thought about it, but I neve r really given much thought to it, because it had not been relevant yet in my life, anything I had l earned with the First Amendment it had been more along the lines with adults. Q: In your College courses, have you ever discussed First Amendment issues.. Classroom management it was discussed I thi nk along the lines of a bout what students if you were to come across a note or something wh at would be considered allowed for them or what could be considered criminal or thre atening violence. And then I took a religion in politics class and that candy cane example that was on there was something that we talked about. And we had talked a little bit about students rights but it was more focused on the First Amendment with more like religion tied in, in that class, but it really hasn’t been much of a discussion in the classes I have taken here. Q: Lets look at the question about the Pledge of Allegiance During a high school’s homeroom recitation of the Pledge of A llegiance one student in class refused to participate. The teacher asked the student why she chose not to participate, and the student replied that she though t it was stupid. The teach er told the student that in order to be excused from the Pledge, sh e must have a written request from her parents. Without the written request, th e student would receive work detail for every day that she did not recite the Pledge The next day the student did not have a written request and still refused to recite the Pledge. The teacher sent her to the office and the principal gave her work detail. If you were a teacher and one of the your students did not sta nd, what would you do? At the school I am at the rule is that y ou can stand, you have to stand, everybody has to stand, but you don’t have to do the actual pledge itself, so that, I would say that they need to stand up, but they don’t have to salute, they don’t have to say the words. They can opt out in the actual reci ting of it and hold the hand across the chest, but they are required to stand during that time. Q: A ninth grade English te acher required her students to write a research paper on a topic that was interesting, researchable and unfamiliar to the student. The teacher required the students to use at least four sources for information and get the teacher’s approval of the topic. When a student submitted an outline titled “The Life of Jesus Christ” for the paper withou t getting the topic approved, the teacher rejected it. The student refused to writ e on another topic and she received a grade of zero. I put that because I had always learned that it was ok to discuss re ligion as long as you weren’t trying to convert another person or practice it at the school But if it was a research paper it is perfectly acceptable to us e the Bible as a reference in the classroom, you can talk about he Bible in the classroom. So that is where my reasoning behind that is coming, I didn’t think it was violating, I thoug ht that the teacher was violating because the student wasn’t doing it along religious li nes, it was more like a research paper.

PAGE 186

175 Q: What do you think would be the best w ay to prepare pre-service teachers to deal with First Amendment issues in the classroom? I think it would be have some form of educa tional law course would be a great idea even specific to the student rights would be even if you were to narrow the course. I don’t know I like law, it seems like it would be interesting to me, in addition, I think it would be very helpful it would give new teachers protection for themselves and for their students, they would know if they were to co me across the situation in the classroom they would know what their rights are and what th e rights of the students were instead of playing guessing games with that. I don’t know, I was kind of surprised that USF does not have a class like that here. Q: What if students came into your cla ssroom wearing armbands, what would you do? If I was a first year teacher, I, you know admi nistrators can be a li ttle intimidating. But I would like to think that I would at least want to if especially if it was one of my students. I would probably be in correspondence with th e administrator about it and I think I would maybe let the administrator know that just wear ing the armband in and of itself if it is not violating the dress code or so me other kind of rule that it is not directly threatening anybody else,. So I don’t know, I would say that I would think that they should be allowed to wear them as long as it was not causing any kind of dist urbance. I don’t know approaching an administrator can be testy. Q: What if it was another teacher? If it was another teacher yea, department h ead, then I don’t know maybe. But, if it was just some other teacher, then I would definite ly let them know how I felt. Especially if I was aware that it was protected under the const itution if I had that awareness just because that could get the school in so much trouble an all those things, save a big lawsuit, I would definitely want to let them know. Q: Do you think a teacher should be an advocate for the student? Yea, I think, and the classes that I teach I am all about letting them express what they want to say and a lot of we disagree we are on completely different sides other political spectrum. But, they are always willing, allo wed to share their opinions and their beliefs and everything as long as it does not offend anyo ne or it does not using vulgarity. I think it is very important for students to have freedom of expression and be able to talk that way. Q: During the holiday season, six high school students, who were members of the school’s Bible Club, decided to distri bute candy canes with Christian messages attached during homeroom. The teacher pr ohibited the distribution of the messages because of the religious content and confiscated the candy canes. Previously, the teacher allowed students to distribute mate rial during homeroom that did not have religious content. You put in this case, th e school did not violat e the students’ First Amendment rights why?

PAGE 187

176 I said that because I have heard about the case before, but I couldn’t remember which way that it went, which one was the right answer. But, because it was, more along the preaching lines, like passing out the message s with the Christian messages on their I think there was a story with something about Christmas on their, with the candy canes I thought that it wasn’t violati ng their rights because it wasn’t just saying that I am Christian, it was putting it too mu ch out there. If they had wanted to pass out the candy canes themselves, that would have been accep table since the teacher had allowed other students to distribute things but because it ha d the religious message on their, I did not know what the rules were for being able to di stribute religious mate rials and school and I though maybe that might be illegal underneath the First Amendment Q: Why did you put you were confident? I put it I was confident because it I like th e good middle of the road because if I got it right then yea, looks like I was confident, but if I get it wrong, then I covered myself, I don’t know. With some of them it just kind of seemed like it could go either way and I could, and some could find a way to argue fo r it or against it based on what I knew.

PAGE 188

177 Appendix I. Analysis of Variance After Limiting the Questions Based on Reliability After conducting an item analysis for the knowledge portion of the survey instrument, the researcher decided to limit th e number of items with low reliability to investigate if this would change the results of the analysis of variance. The researcher removed seven questions from the survey. Th e researcher removed th e questions that had item-to-total correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.82. The remaining ten questions had item-to-total correlations ranging from 0.12 to 0.45. Table 15 shows the mean, standard deviation, range skewness, and kurtosis of the pre-service teachers’ scores on the survey instrument after limiting the questions. Table 15 Pre-Service Teachers’ Scores on the Stude nts’ First Amendment Rights Survey by Academic Subject Area and Academic Level M SD Min. Max. Skewness Kurtosis Total ( n = 110) 70.55 17.18 20 100 -0.54 -0.08 Social Studies ( n = 54) 69.06 13.19 20 100 -0.52 -0.47 Math, Science, English, and Foreign Language ( n = 56 ) 71.92 19.44 30 100 -0.38 0.07 Graduate ( n = 38) 70.51 19.59 20 100 -.087 -0.04 Undergraduate ( n = 72) 70.57 15.96 30 100 -0.21 -.32 Note. The above table is from 10 questions on the knowledge portion of the survey instrument. The ten questions consisted of 6 scenario questions and 4 concept questions. Table 15 also shows that the scores were approximately normally distributed. In addition, the researcher used Le vene’s test to find that th ere was not a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance F (3, 106) = .1.62, p = .19. The researcher conducted a two-way analysis of variance to determ ine if there was a statistically significant difference between the sc ores of social studies and math, science,

PAGE 189

178 English, and foreign language pre-service t eachers, as well as between the scores of graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers. The analysis of variance showed that there was not a significant difference, F (1,110) = .01, p = .93, between the scores of social studies pre-service teachers and the sc ores of math, science, English, and foreign language pre-service teachers. The analysis of variance also showed that there was not a significant difference, F (1,110) = .76, p = .39, between the scores of graduate and undergraduate pre-service teachers. In additi on, the analysis of variance showed that there was not a significant interaction, F (1,110) = .01, p= .94 between the subject area and level of the pre-service te achers. The researcher calculat ed the effect size to examine the relationship between scores of the preservice teachers and their subject areas and their level of degree. In addition, the rese archer calculated the effect size for the relationship between scores a nd the interaction between the pre-service teachers’ subject area and level of degree. Using Cohen’s descriptions of effect sizes, the effects of level of degree, subject area, and the interacti on on the pre-service teachers’ scores on the survey are all very small. The results of the an alysis of variance with the effect sizes can be found in Table 16.

PAGE 190

179 Table 16 ANOVA Summary Table for Differences Betwee n Scores on the Survey Instrument After Eliminating Questions with Low Reliability Source df F Level of Degree (A) 1 0.01 0.01 Subject Area (B) 1 0.76 0.08 A x B Interaction 1 0.01 0.01 S within group error 106 Note. The level of degree (A) was a comparison of the means of graduate ( n = 72) and undergraduate preservice teacher ( n = 38). The subject area (B) was compar ison of the means of social studies ( n = 54) and math, science, English, and foreign language ( n = 56) pre-service teachers.

PAGE 191

About the Author Ian Call received his Bachelor’s in Hist ory and Master’s Degree in Social Studies Education from the University of Florida. Pr ior to entering the Social Studies Education PhD program at the University of South Fl orida, Mr. Call was a middle and high school social studies teacher for four year s and taught Geography, World History, and Psychology courses. Mr. Call currently work s at St. Petersburg College developing curriculum to train emergency responders. While completing his PhD at the Univers ity of South Florida, Mr. Call taught middle school methods and technology courses. Mr. Call made several presentations at national conferences including the National Council for the So cial Studies (NCSS) and Society of Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE). Mr. Call also became active in the Florida Council for the Social Studies (FCSS) making presentations at the annual conference and serving as the desi gn editor for Trends and Issues, FCSS’ quarterly publication.