A teacher and a student's constitutional rights can be protected within the classroom as long as the educational process is not disruptive. (Tinker vs. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 1969). In Hazelwood, the Principal prohibited the publication of articles he deemed inappropriate but the Court ruled the articles promoted educational goals and to prohibit publication would violate free speech. (Hazelwood Sch. Dist. vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). A school's action to suppress free speech can also depend on the age and maturity of students; the relationship between teaching method and valid educational objective; and the context and manner in which the material is presented. (Ward vs. Hickey, 1993). School officials have broad discretion to restrict school-sponsored speech to further educational goals and the right to impose regulations to ensure students receive age appropriate educational materials. (Hazelwood Sch. Dist. vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). Although the Icebreaker was a school-sponsored assignment, the Plaintiff departed from the School District's curriculum when he did not get the school's approval to implement this particular assignment. The school determined the assignment lacked the maturity level and could be an insensitive assignment for seventh and eighth students. Students may or may not be mature enough to draw or even see other classmates draw the male reproductive system while other students may be tempted to make inappropriate and/or vulgar comments. The School District had a responsibility to ensure teaching methods further the educational goals of the classroom and ensure Icebreaker exercises were age appropriate assignments, therefore deemed the Icebreaker assignment was not suitable to
A teacher and a student's constitutional rights can be protected within the classroom as long as the educational process is not disruptive. (Tinker vs. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist., 1969). In Hazelwood, the Principal prohibited the publication of articles he deemed inappropriate but the Court ruled the articles promoted educational goals and to prohibit publication would violate free speech. (Hazelwood Sch. Dist. vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). A school's action to suppress free speech can also depend on the age and maturity of students; the relationship between teaching method and valid educational objective; and the context and manner in which the material is presented. (Ward vs. Hickey, 1993). School officials have broad discretion to restrict school-sponsored speech to further educational goals and the right to impose regulations to ensure students receive age appropriate educational materials. (Hazelwood Sch. Dist. vs. Kuhlmeier, 1988). Although the Icebreaker was a school-sponsored assignment, the Plaintiff departed from the School District's curriculum when he did not get the school's approval to implement this particular assignment. The school determined the assignment lacked the maturity level and could be an insensitive assignment for seventh and eighth students. Students may or may not be mature enough to draw or even see other classmates draw the male reproductive system while other students may be tempted to make inappropriate and/or vulgar comments. The School District had a responsibility to ensure teaching methods further the educational goals of the classroom and ensure Icebreaker exercises were age appropriate assignments, therefore deemed the Icebreaker assignment was not suitable to