1. Briefly describe your understanding of personnel related to reassignment, duties, and schedules, as outlined in Chapter 5.

The teachers’ contracts and administrators have a clause that says that an employee can be assigned or reassigned at the will of a superintendent. Although the contracts communicate this issue, the reassignments often lead to lawsuits between a reassigned teacher and the supervisors. A lawsuit is employed when the reassigned teacher feels that he or she is reassigned to a duty that is below what he or she was engaged in. In other cases, a reassignment done without due processes is also a subject of litigation. When taken to court, a complaint is only heard if the employee suffers financially. Reassignments from a higher position to a lower position can also lead to a lawsuit. This is because the duties that an employee carried out on their former position were superior to those to which he or she will be reassigned to. The chapter recommends that school principals create schedules in staffing, budgeting, planning, school organization, and staff development. The schedules form the background of school activities and should be followed to the latter.

2. Briefly describe teacher employee benefits.

Employee benefits are dependent on contracts, the district where a school is located, and in some cases, laws set aside by the state. Teachers are entitled to; preparation periods, duty-free lunches, personal leaves, health insurances, assault leaves, pension-based retirements, and temporary disability leaves. The school administration is supposed to adhere to the requirements leading to these benefits. Some of the benefits involve monetary allowances, while some do not.

3. Describe what is unique concerning Texas teacher organizations as compared to teacher organizations in other states.

Texas teacher organizations do not function like other organizations in other states in the U.S. The organizations cannot stipulate that every employee in a school must be a member of the organization. Teacher organizations in Texas are also required not to be a factor in coordinated strikes or work stoppages, as the law suggests. Therefore, if the organization wants to represent its members’ grievances, it should not claim the right to strike. The organizations also require that the schools deduct an amount from the employees’ salary and forward the amount to the organizations as membership fees when the members request the organizations to do so.

Tinker v. Des Moines

The Tinker family acted on behalf of the three students who were suspended by the principal of the Des Moines for wearing black armbands. Several other students were also arrested for being part of the movement. The Supreme Court sided with the Tinkers after the Federal District Court refused to honor an injunction raised by the Tinkers. The court did not find wearing armbands as a disruptive action and that it was an unspoken way of expressing their political views. The students were merely upholding their rights to the 1st Amendment while at school.

The Des Moines Independent School decision was an intentional one because the principals perhaps had an opposing viewpoint about the armbands. The Tinkers thought that the decision was harsh as the students were only expressing their political views and that the school had implied that the students did not have freedom for expression. The central point of argument was that the school maintained that the armbands were interfering with the learning process while the Tinkers said they were not. According to the school, controversial views about politics should not be discussed, and the constitution protects that classroom order. But the Tinkers maintained that the students expressed their opinions by wearing armbands.  These views should also be respected and protected by the school. These two arguments were very critical in the case. In my opinion, the Supreme Court made a just ruling to maintain that everyone is entitled to practice their 1^st Amendment rights, including the students who wore armbands. The students were participating in some silent protest. They were not involved in disruptive actions or indecent behavior that would have seemed inappropriate. For example, if they set the school on fire or were involved in indecent clothing in protest, the school would have been right to suspend them. However, the students only wore black armbands, and the school did not have the right of punishing them as they were only acting towards their constitutional rights.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

This case was brought into hearing after the Hazelwood principal detached two articles from the school newspaper. These articles were talking about students’ experiences with divorce and pregnancy. The principal thought that these articles were inappropriate for students to read. The board supported the principal’s decision, a factor that led to one student journalist, Cathy Kuhlmeier, and several of her colleagues suing the school in the U.S. District Court of St. Louis. The court only supported the students’ right to the 1^st and 14^th Amendments but found no violations. The students presented the case to the U.S. Court of Appeal, which forwarded the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court also ruled on behalf of the principals stating that the newspaper was the property of the school and could be altered in any way the officials found fairness. The school district maintained that the school did not violate the students’ rights when they edited the newspaper, terming their action “for educational purposes.” Kuhlmeier found this act unconstitutional while the school maintained that it had all the rights to do so with the paper as it was not public property. Therefore, the article could be censored. Kuhlmeier believed otherwise. For her and her colleagues, the paper was public since it could be read outside the school environment. She thought that she should be allowed to express her opinions to the community. The central point of the argument was the school image. While the school argued that the school’s image should be maintained by controlling school publications, Kuhlmeier believed that school image should be maintained by the more accurate opinions of students attending the school. When the articles were removed, Kuhlmeier saw it as an action that stifles the students’ freedom of expression, limiting their beliefs to what the school approves.

I agree with Kuhlmeier in this case. The articles were addressing the opinions of students on divorce and pregnancy. These issues are communal as they affect every individual in society and students at large. The fact that I agree with her argument does not mean that I agree with other matters that should be censored, such as obscene content. The principal was wrong in removing the articles from the paper as they did not harm the school’s image.

These two cases are both similar in some areas. They both involve students arguing with school administrators. The two cases also originated from low tier courts to the Supreme Court. Students in both instances were only arguing about the rights that the school administration happened to uphold. The students felt that their 1^st and 14^th Amendment rights were not supported when the school administration prevented them from expressing their views and opinions. As a fellow student, freedom of expression is a fundamental right that every other student should practice. It shows different views regarding a subject concerning the school.