Introduction

The advancement of technology has led to many changes in the education system in America. As an elected Trustee on the Lincoln Board of Education, I face these challenges everyday and have to weigh the advantages of the new technology with protecting our students and providing a productive learning environment. A live Presidential address on the first day of school, social networking sites, overwhelming amounts of spam, internet access, and electronic grades all created a need for schools to reexamine their standing policies that address technology as well as cause the courts to reinterpret the existing laws. A lack of policies or judicial interpretations will cause school districts to react to controversial issues in a wide variety of ways as shown below.

The most recent controversial challenge faced by improved technology occurred during the live Presidential address by President Obama to students on the first day of school in 2009. Many parents were outraged when they heard about the President's intentions to address their students in school and demanded the school district not show the live broadcast. A few days before the first day of school, the White House released a statement saying that President Obama will address the students on the first day of school. This statement did not include what the President would say; however, it included a sample lesson plan for teachers to use on the first day of school.

Some teachers and parents did not support the content of these lesson plans because it included taking detailed notes, writing a mock speech that they would give to students if they were President, and reexamining the origins of African American culture in the United States. Aside from the content of the lesson plans, the speech itself sparked three very controversial debates. Many teachers and parents argued that the President should not be able to politically address polarizing issues in the classroom. They also felt that the federal government should not be able to dictate what is taught in the classroom and that school districts should be able to censor the President's speech. The first debate addressed politics in the classroom; should the President of the United States be given the special privilege of sending political messages to our students? Since the White House did not release the contents of the speech when the lesson plans were sent out, many people relied on the lesson plans to foreshadow what the president may discuss. One part of the lesson plan hinted at the fact that students may be pushed to discuss some contentious social issues or to write a letter to themselves outlining what they can do to help the President. This vague language caused many parents to worry because their children may be discussing topics like abortion, gay rights, and the war in Iraq in the classroom.

The parents contended that these issues should be discussed in the household where the parents have the responsibility for monitoring what political information the students are exposed to. In Wisconsin vs. Yoder, the Supreme Court agreed with the parents when it said that parental direction in religious upbringing is an interest worth protecting. Some school districts countered by siding with the minority opinion of the Wisconsin vs. Yoder case that hints at the fact that student interests may differ from parental interests, possibly allowing the students to see the address regardless of parental consent. This led some school districts to have a mandatory viewing of the presidential address for all of its students. Interestingly enough, several Presidents in the past, including George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, gave speeches that were arguably more politically charged than President Obama’s.

The second issue sparked by the Presidential debate involved the control of the education system. Historically, control of the education system was exclusively a power delegated to the states. Many conservatives feared that the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’, coupled with the Big Three bail out and the government's overhaul of the financial system, proved that the federal government was trying to assert its power over the local school districts as well. Some people felt that this presidential address, unlike the past Presidential addresses, was trying to co-opt local control. Ultimately, it was still up to the teachers to use the lesson plans and up to the individual school districts to decide if they wanted to show the address. Some parents even requested that their students be taken out of the classroom so they would not have to view the address. There is some debate as to whether the President changed the tone of the address following the controversy it created but the Department of Education just cited poorly worded documents causing the changes. Regardless of the reason for the changes, the end result was a charismatic speech encouraging students to work hard and stay in school.

The final and most powerful debate that this brought up was if school districts could censor the presidential debate without violating the freedom of speech of its students? Outraged parents called their school district demanding the address not be shown when they heard of the President's intentions. Many school districts did not have a policy in place to address a school-wide live address by the President nor did they have enough time to create a policy. With several days of notification for the speech, no information about the content of the speech, and no school policy to fall back on, local Superintendents were scrambling to decide the best course of action.

In one of the few cases on students' rights, Tinker vs. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not shed their constitutional rights of freedom of speech or expression when they enter the classroom. Some people felt that any attempt by school districts to delay or not show the Presidential address would constitute some form of censorship which may compromise the legal justification of the school district. Unfortunately, no Supreme Court precedent exists to address this special scenario but the Supreme Court has stated that it was hard to teach democratic norms in an institution that does not support democratic practices.

The most applicable precedent for this situation was set forth in 1968 by the Supreme Court of the United States of America during Epperson ET AT. v. Arkansas. Arkansas had a state statute that made teaching evolution in the classroom a criminal offense. Eventually a Zoology teacher who wanted to teach this subject challenged that statute in the Arkansas Supreme Court where it was upheld under the state’s power to dictate the education curriculum. Since the Arkansas Supreme Court did not rule if the statute violated the students’ freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with the Chancery Court’s ruling that the statute, “tends to hinder the quest for knowledge, restrict the freedom to learn, and restrain the freedom to teach.” The Supreme Court felt the monopoly of religion in this statute was the most egregious issue at hand so this judicial ruling was limited as well. Even the most applicable standing judicial decisions were not enough to provide guidance to the school districts.

Does censorship of a Presidential address fall under the category of free speech or religion? Many school districts who delayed or did not show the speech justified their actions by citing the first day of school is too hectic for the speech to be shown. Again, no clear guidelines have been articulated by the courts about the ability of schools to restrict this sort of information from its students. This led to some school districts completely banning the live feed of the Presidential address and others delaying the address by twenty four hours.

As a result of the lack of adequate policies in place, school districts had a wide array of responses to the parent complaints surrounding the Presidential address. Schools banned the address from being showed, delayed the address by 24 hours to allow parents to opt out, left the screening of the address up to the teachers, and made the screening of the address mandatory for all students. This wide variance in individual responses stemmed from the decentralization of the education system and the lack of precedents set by the Supreme Court about what should be taught in the classroom. Every school district was either acting in a manner that they felt would best support a positive learning environment for their students or better support their Superintendent's personal political agenda. Regardless of the actions taken by the school district, many School Boards decided to reexamine their policy about live broadcasts to help provide their Superintendent with a better sense of direction during controversial issues like these.

In a draft policy being examined by the Lincoln Board of Education, the Board of Education is considering giving the Superintendent the authority to unilaterally decide whether to show the live broadcast, delay it for 24 hours, or completely censor the live broadcast if it is deemed inappropriate for the classroom. This policy change will give the school district the flexibility to address non-controversial issues as well because the Superintendent can choose not to take action and allow the broadcast to be shown. Many other districts are taking a similar path as Lincoln to update their policies regarding technology to ensure the Superintendent has the authority necessary to deal with these issues as they arise.

As one can see, the lack of judicial interpretations about students' rights, coupled with inadequate school policies around new forms of technology, led to mixed feelings about President Obama's address to students on the first day of school. After the dust settled, many schools revamped their policies on technology in the classroom but as long as technology continues to play a larger role in the classroom, schools will need to continuously revamp their policies to stay current with whatever policy needs that may arise from technological advances.