Libertad académica en las escuelas públicas de los Estados Unidos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53798/suprema.2021.v1.n2.a64Palabras clave:
Libertad académica, Primera Enmienda, Panorama jurídico, Desafíos curricularesResumen
En este artículo, examinamos varios de los problemas legales relacionados con la libertad académica en las escuelas públicas K-12. Para empezar, establecemos el contexto en los Estados Unidos, donde cada estado y sus respectivos consejos escolares locales tienen un gran impacto en la libertad académica de los maestros de escuelas primarias y secundarias. A continuación, describimos las tendencias en los precedentes de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos relacionados con este tema, para proporcionar los antecedentes necesarios. Después de explicar como algunos de estos casos históricos se aplican a las escuelas primarias y secundarias públicas y como se emplearon los métodos de investigación jurídica, examinamos varias decisiones judiciales ilustrativas para demostrar el panorama jurídico sobre este tema. La observación de estas decisiones apoya nuestra conclusión de que los maestros tienen una libertad académica limitada en los entornos de las escuelas públicas. El artículo se cierra con algunas implicaciones generales y recomendaciones para la práctica.
Descargas
Citas
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1940). 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure.
Byrne, J. P. (1989). A “special concern of the First Amendment.” Yale L.J. 251, 251-340.
Chemerinsky, E. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The courts’ role. North Carolina Law Review, 81(4), 1597–1622.
DeMitchell, T., Eckes, S., & Fossey, R. (2016). The marketplace of ideas in the university classroom: All views welcome. Education Law Reporter, 330(2), 1-24.
DeMitchell, T. D., & Connelly, V. J. (2007). Academic freedom and the public school teacher: An exploratory study of perceptions, policy, and the law. BYU Educ. & L.J., 2007, 83.
Fetter-Harrott, A., Irwin, C., & Eckes, S. (2016). Keep Voldemort out of our schools. Principal Leadership, 58-60.
First, P., Vines, J., Elue, C., & Pindar, L. (2015). Researching legal topics from a policy study perspective. In S. Permuth, R. Mawdsley, & S. Silver (Eds.) Research methods for studying legal issues in education, No. 72 in the monograph series (pp. 127–161). Cleveland, OH: Education Law Association.
Flarherty, C. (2018, July 9). Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court backs Marquette faculty blogger. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/09/wisconsin-supreme-court-says-marquette-must-reinstate-professor-it-wanted-fire (discussing professor who was reinstated after criticizing a student in a blog).
Fries, K., Connelly, V. J, & DeMitchell, T. A. (2008). Academic freedom in the public k-12 classroom: Professional responsibility or constitutional right? A conversation with teachers, Education Law Reporter, 227, 505.
Hutchens, N., Fernandez, F., & Hulbert, A. (2016). Faculty, the courts, and the First Amendment. Penn State L.Rev., 120, 1027-1046.
Magnusson, L. W. (2010). Adopted speech: Summum’s implications on government-sponsored student speech, BYU Educ. & L.J., 2010, 407.
McCarthy, M. (2010). Legal research: Tensions involving student expression rights. In W. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Analyzing school contexts (pp. 229–253). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
McCarthy, M. M., Eckes, S. E., & Decker, J. R. (2019). Legal rights of school leaders, teachers and students (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon/Pearson.
Rogers, J. (2017, Oct.). Teaching and learning in the age of Trump: Increasing stress and hostility in America’s high schools. UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. Retrieved from https://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/teaching-and-learning-in-age-of-trump.
Russo, C. (2006). Legal research: The traditional method. In S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education, No. 72 in the monograph series (pp. 5–25). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
Schimmel, D. (1996). Research that makes a difference: Complementary methods for examining legal issues in education. Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
Spurgeon, L.D. (2013). The endangered citizen servant: Garcetti versus the public interest and academic freedom. J.C. & U.L., 39, 405-466.
Superfine, B. M. (2009). The evolving role of the courts in educational policy: The tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision-making in Kitzmiller v. Dover. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 898–923. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345398.
Uerling, D. F. (2000). Academic freedom in K-12 education, Neb. L. Rev., 79, 956-975.
U.S. Department of Education (2019). National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics, 2017 (NCES 2018-070), Ch. 2. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/ch_2.asp.
Walker, T. (2018, Dec. 11). Education is political: Neutrality in the classroom shortchanges students. NEAToday. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2018/12/11/political-neutrality-in-the-classroom-shortchanges-students/.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Suzanne E. Eckes, Janet R. Decker
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
