1. The U.S. Supreme Court cases of Pickering (for staff) and Tinker (for students) have established the criteria to evaluate whether someone in relation to a school has a Free Speech right to say and or do certain things.

2. Although students have more free speech rights than School District staff do, there are still limitations on student speech both on and off of school grounds.

3. A person’s comments/actions do NOT need to be intentionally stated/done in order to potentially be deemed a violation of the School District’s policies – the intent of a person’s actions is only relevant when it comes to discipline for the incident.

4. If whatever is said or done causes a “substantial disruption” for the school or a person in the school, the School District has a legal obligation to get involved and to potentially discipline for those actions.

5. School Issued Technology Items (laptops, IPADs/Chromebooks, cell phones, etc.) and the School Internet Server are the property of the School District. Staff/students have no expectation of privacy when utilizing District devices and/or the Internet Server. The District has the ability to confiscate these items at any time, and to view any activity for which they were used by students/staff.

1. Describe your thoughts regarding the free speech rights and limitations for both students and staff utilizing Social Media both on and off of school grounds? Do you think the limitations are fair for staff? For students?

2. Do you agree or disagree with the Arbitrator’s finding that the teacher in the first scenario can be disciplined for her comments posted on her personal, private social media platform (Facebook), off school grounds and on her own time at home?

a. Assuming that you believe the teacher’s explanation that she didn’t intend her comments to be offensive, should that affect whether or not her on-line comments/actions were deemed to have caused a substantial disruption for her School District?

i. Why or why not?

b. Were you surprised that a tenured teacher with a previously unblemished record could be terminated for something that they posted on their personal, private social media platform, off school grounds?

3. Discuss how School District staff that post comments on any personal, private social media platform could potentially cause a substantial disruption for students and/or the School District.

4. Discuss your thoughts about the case where the students texting each other ultimately became a confirmed HIB against the Freshman.

a. Prior to the Freshman testing his antisemitic comments, how would you describe the exchange of emails between the two students?

i. Mutual teasing/trash talk and/or joking around? Does there appear to be evidence of a student conflict prior to the antisemitic comments by the Freshman?

ii. Does there appear to be a potential HIB situation prior to the antisemitic texts by the Freshman while off of school grounds?

iii. Is there a difference as to how you would assess the text exchange that occurred during the school day (on school grounds) vs. the text exchange off school grounds later in the day? Why or why not?

iv. Does it matter that each of the students were using their personal cell phones both on and off school grounds?

v. Do you agree that the Freshman’s actions were properly deemed a HIB for the antisemitic comments made to the other student? Why or why not?

5. Discuss examples of problems that can occur when someone says/does something that causes a substantial disruption for another person and/or the School District due to something that was posted on any Social Media platform and/or texts or emails, by a staff member. Student examples?

Here is a study plan for educators spanning a one-hour staff meeting:

The Assessment included in the document should be used as a mandatory post-meeting task. Staff can be instructed to complete the 10-question multiple-choice quiz as an online form (e.g., SurveyMonkey) to verify understanding of the content, with the answers provided in the document serving as the answer key for grading.

Here is a study plan for educators spanning two one-hour staff meetings, incorporating viewing and discussion of the video and providing work for the interim period.

Phase 1: Initial 1-Hour Staff Meeting (Group Training)
This meeting focuses on reinforcing the non-delegable duty to report and the immediate protocols for critical issues.

Phase 2: Individual Work (Self-Paced Completion and Submission)

Policy Review and Student Scenario Reflection
1. Review District Policy: Consult your school district’s code of conduct for staff and students to verify any limitations placed on speech and social media use.

2. Student Scenario Reflection: Review the student-based HIB case in the video where a freshman student sent insulting Instagram messages to a Jewish student about her religion. Consider the following questions (which will be discussed in Meeting 2):

◊ Did the earlier text exchange about soccer skills constitute an HIB violation? Why or why not?
◊ What evidence showed the religious Instagram comments caused a substantial disruption?
◊ Did the freshman have a First Amendment right to send the religious messages?

Phase 3: Follow-up 1-Hour Staff Meeting (Review and Commitment)

This meeting closes the loop by addressing collective feedback, clarifying remaining ambiguities, and finalizing a commitment to protocol.

Here is a structured study plan designed for a principal or supervisor to use with a staff member who needs to improve their understanding of legal boundaries, free speech, and professional conduct.

Meeting 1:  The Legal Framework of Staff Free Speech

Pre-Meeting Work (1-2 Hours):

• Listen: The LEGAL ONE Podcast: “Staff Free Speech Rights and Pickering v. Board of Education”.
Read: The article “Understanding Political Speech for School Staff: Key Legal Considerations, Risks, and Best Practices,” focusing specifically on the section titled “Legal Framework for Analyzing Staff Member Speech”.
• Review: The school district’s code of conduct and electronic communications policies.
• Reflection Task: The staff member should write a brief summary explaining the three-part Pickering test used by the U.S. Supreme Court to evaluate staff speech, and note how staff free speech rights differ from student rights.

Meeting 1 Discussion:

• The Pickering Standard: Review the three questions used to evaluate staff speech: 1) Did the staff member speak on a matter of public concern? 2) Did they speak as a private citizen rather than pursuant to official duties? 3) Did the speech threaten to disrupt close working relationships or school operations?.

• Staff vs. Student Rights: Clarify that while students’ rights are evaluated under the Tinker standard, staff members often have more limited First Amendment protections.

• Official Duties: Discuss that when an employee is engaged in official duties or speaking for the district, they do not have a First Amendment right to substitute their personal views for those of the district.

• Policy Connection: Review the district’s code of conduct to ensure the staff member knows where to locate the specific limitations placed on employee speech.

Independent Work Between Meetings 1 & 2 (1.5-2 hours):

• Listen: The LEGAL ONE Podcast: “Staff Evaluation and Accountability… Beyond Staff Observations”.

• Watch: Legal One on the run Video 16 and review the companion guide 

• Reflection Task: Have the staff member answer the following prompt in writing: Were you surprised that a tenured teacher with a previously unblemished record could be terminated for a post on a personal, private social media platform off school grounds?. Why does an employee’s intent not matter when determining if a policy was violated?.

Meeting 2 Discussion: 

• Accountability Beyond the Classroom: Discuss how staff evaluation and accountability extend well beyond formal classroom observations, encompassing communications with parents, interactions with colleagues, and conduct outside of school or on social media.

• Substantial Disruption: Focus heavily on the concept of “substantial disruption.” If a staff member’s comments or actions—even on a personal social media platform off school grounds—cause a substantial disruption for the school or an individual in the school, the district has a legal obligation to intervene and potentially issue discipline. Explain how certain online behavior can “poison the well” and destroy the close working relationships necessary for a school to function.

• Intent vs. Impact: Emphasize that a person’s comments or actions do not need to be intentionally offensive to violate school policy; the intent of the action is only relevant when determining the level of discipline.

• Privacy Expectations: Remind the staff member that there is no expectation of privacy when using district-issued technology (laptops, phones) or the district’s internet server, and the district can view any activity on these properties.

Independent Work Between Meetings 2 & 3 (1.5-2 hours):

• Read: The remainder of the “Understanding Political Speech for School Staff” article, focusing on “Other Key Legal Considerations,” “Relevant Case Themes,” and “Best Practices Considerations”.

• Reflection Task: The staff member must draft a personal action plan outlining 3-5 specific behavioral changes they will implement to separate their personal speech from their official duties and ensure their actions do not create a hostile environment.

Meeting 3 Discussion: 

• Anti-Discrimination Laws: Discuss how inappropriate political or ideological speech can violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights if it targets protected classes or creates a hostile educational environment. Discuss how derogatory posts—even those made off-duty—can lead to severe discipline, including termination or loss of public confidence, as seen in recent cases.

• Maintaining Boundaries: Review the importance of separating personal speech from professional duties. The staff member should be directed to clearly speak as a private citizen on their own time, off school property, and without using district resources or logos. They must also avoid boundary-blurring interactions, such as “friending” or direct messaging students from personal accounts.

• Moving Forward: Review the staff member’s action plan. Reinforce that words and actions have consequences and that any future behavior that causes a substantial disruption will result in further progressive supervision and disciplinary action.