This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 14 November 2014, At: 21:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Teachers' Knowledge of Education LawMark Littleton aa Tarleton State University , Stephenville , Texas , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Mark Littleton (2008) Teachers' Knowledge of Education Law, Action in Teacher Education, 30:2,71-78, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2008.10463493

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2008.10463493

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

n l T Teachers’ Knowledge of Education Law Mark Littleton Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas

ABSTRACT: The knowledge base of education-related law is growing at a rapid pace. The in- crease in federal and state statutes is rising commensurate with litigation that directs teachers on curricular, professional, and social matters. At the same time, numerous studies provide sig- nificant evidence that teachers lack an adequate level of knowledge of education law. Vari- ables studied include teacher experience, age, sex, teaching level, education level, geo- graphic location, and membership in professional organizations. In most instances, the studies were inconclusive about the effect of the variables on teachers’ knowledge of education law. However, as teachers become older, their knowledge of education law appears to become bet- ter. In an attempt to address the documented evidence of an inadequate level of knowledge of education law, policy makers can require courses in education law, and school personnel can require frequent professional development sessions on relevant school-law matters.

American society is becoming increasingly com- plex, sophisticated, and diverse ( Fullan, 2003). This emerging sophistication has had profound changes in the operation of public schools. Con- comitant with the socially complex issues sur- rounding public school finance, accountability, special education, English-language learners, and religion in the schools, public schools are being inundated with legal problems arising from legislation and litigation (Imber & Gayler, 1988). In fact, in our current environment, “law and education are not only intertwined, they are inseparable” (Heubert, 1997, p. 538).

The tendency toward a more legally focused educational environment requires a shift in the knowledge base of educators. Gullatt and Tollett (1997) surmised that teachers need to have knowledge of education law because the teach- ing profession has been changed by court cases and legislation. Teachers who are ignorant of the law are likely to deny students and parents the rights and privileges provided to them by the constitution and by federal and state laws.

Because of the increased complexity of ed- ucation law and the additive nature to its

knowledge base, educators must be more knowledgeable about the law so that they can act in a preventative nature and so avoid legal entanglements (Moore, 1997; Redfield, 2003b). Reglin (1992) noted that teachers’ knowledge, beyond common sense, “will en- able them to provide proper supervision and to protect the rights and welfare of students” (p. 27). And although few teachers report that they have been personally involved in school- related litigation (Enteen, 1999; Wagner, 2006), ignorance of the law can make them vulnerable (Redfield, 2003a). Heubert (1997) pointed out the consequences of such igno- rance when he cogently noted that “some ed- ucators unknowingly exceed their authority and others unknowingly fail to exercise their authority fully” (p. 540).

Education Law Knowledge Base

As previously noted, the education-law knowledge base has grown through increased

~~ ~

Address correspondence to Mark Littleton, Tarleton State University, Box T-0815, Stephenville, TX 76402. E-mail: Mlittleton @tarleton.edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 30, NO. 2 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

72 MARK LITTLETON

legislation and litigation. Redfield (2003a) writes that “the legal issues confronting schools are legion” (p. 614). Without ques- tion, the most plentiful source of education law resides in state and federal statutes direct- ing the operation of public schools and its pro- grams. Public schools are struggling with the mind-boggling increase in federal legislation attributed significantly to the No Child Left Behind Act (reauthorization of the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act of 1963) and the highly regulatory Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (Redfield, 2003a).

In 1969, the conventional authority of public school educators was challenged in Tin- ker v. Des Moines. A free speech case, Tinker extended constitutional protection to stu- dents. Since Tinker, legal activism has been on the increase in the public schools (Reglin, 1992), and teachers have become fearful of le- gal challenges when dealing with demanding parents (Wagner, 2006). The threat of litiga- tion has had a profound effect on the way that schools conduct business (Clark, 1990). For example, Redfield (2003a), in reviewing edu- cation law reporters, discovered that in 1970 school districts were named parties in approx- imately 300 lawsuits, whereas in 2001 the number had risen to over 1,800. Furthermore, Level 1 hearings involving special education disputes, an area of law that directly affects public school teachers, has increased 92% in 9 years (from 1,574 in 1991 to 3,020 in 2000; Aheam, 2002).

Legal Knowledge

Numerous studies-primarily, doctoral disser- tations-have investigated public school teachers’ knowledge of education law. Unfor- tunately, these studies indicate that teachers possess a dismal comprehension of education law and legal issues pertaining to their jobs. Although no national study exists, studies in Alabama (Potter, 1980), Alaska (Methven, 1976; Oliver, 1990), Florida (Enteen, 1999; Koch, 1997; Steele, 1990), Georgia (Bates, 1981; Paul, 2001), Illinois (Menacker & Pas- carella, 1983; Ogletree & Garrett, 1981), Indi-

ana (Werling, 1986), Kansas (Dunklee, 1985), Michigan (Johnson, 1985), Mississippi (Bounds, 2000; Clark, 1990), Ohio (Wagner, 2006), South Carolina (Reglin, 1992; Single- tary, 1996), Tennessee (Abegglen, 1986; Moore, 1997), Texas (Littleton, Higham, & Styron, 2001), and Virginia (Daley, 1994; Dumminger, 1989) reported that teachers pos- sessed an inadequate level of knowledge of ed- ucation law. However, one study found that New York State middle school teachers possess an adequate knowledge of education law (Przybyszewski & Tosetto, 1991).

Several studies highlighted the lack of knowledge of tort law (Bates, 1981; Daley, 1994; Dumminger, 1989; Dunklee, 1985; En- teen, 1999; Moore, 1997; Oliver, 1990). Other studies noted that teachers possess an inade- quate knowledge of legal issues pertaining to teachers’ rights (Clark, 1990; Paul, 2001; Reglin, 1992), students’ rights (Singletary, 1996), student care and supervision (Clark, 1990; Daley, 1994; Johnson, 1985), and church-state issues (Kuck, 1992). Again, Przy- byszewski and Tosetto (1991) ascertained that teachers in New York were deficient in only one area studied-instruction. However, the study investigated only four areas: teachers’ rights, students’ rights, instruction, and health and safety.

From a geographical perspective, most of the federal circuit court regions are repre- sented in the studies reviewed. No teachers in the states representing the First, Third, and Eighth Circuits were surveyed. The majority of the studies included teachers in the South- ern and Midwestern states, whereas teachers in Western states were unrepresented in the studies. With few exceptions, the studies were quantitative studies that utilized surveys. Many of the surveys queried teachers’ knowl- edge of general educational topics pertaining to education law, but some focused on deci- sions of the Supreme Court whereas others ad- dressed specific legal issues (e.g., tort law and church-state law).

Two studies, 21 years apart, endeavored to ascertain those legal topics most important to teachers (Hughes, 1985; Wagner, 2006). Inter- estingly, the topics identified as being impor-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teachers’ Knowledge of Education Law 73

tant to teachers shifted, at least in part from litigation initiated to legislation initiated. Hughes’s 1985 study reported teacherlstudent rights and teacher contracts to be of high im- portance. Then in 2006, Wagner reported the most important legal issues to be the Individu- als With Disabilities Education Act, the re- porting of child abuse, student discipline, and the No Child Left Behind Act.

One topic that received considerable at- tention, however, was special education. Us- ing an open-ended questionnaire, Harris (2001) ascertained that the most troubling le- gal questions in the Florida public school arena related to special education. And Brookshire (2002) conducted the most com- prehensive study pertaining to teachers’ knowledge of special education law. The au- thor discovered that with regard to most areas of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, special education teachers were more knowledgeable than regular education teach- ers. However, more than 94% (49 of 52) of the special education teachers self-reported that they had a sufficient knowledge of special education law-a fact that was not supported by the study. In fact, Brookshire’s results indi- cate that neither regular education teachers nor special education teachers have a suffi- cient level of understanding of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act to comply with the law and prevent litigation. In addi- tion, the researcher concluded that special education teachers who were parents of spe- cial education students were equally ignorant of many of the provisions of the act. This con- clusion is suspect because of the small number (n = 11) of teacher-parents involved in the study.

A few studies reported that teachers pos- sess an adequate level of knowledge in various aspects of education law. Singletary (1996) found that teachers demonstrate a knowledge of law related to special education, and other studies have obtained similar results related to treatment of student injury in medical emer- gencies (Enteen, 1999; Oliver, 1990) and teacher employment (Paul, 2001). Unfortu- nately, the overwhelming conclusion was that public school teachers do not possess an ade-

quate knowledge of education law and legal is- sues related to their job.

Teacher Characteristics

Many of the studies reviewed attempted to as- certain teacher variables associated with knowledge of education law. The most com- monly investigated variables were experience, age, and sex (or gender). Before the discussion of the variables, a descriptive overview of the current teaching force is provided.

Teacher Workforce

The teaching force in the United States is growing. The Institute for Education Sciences reported that in 2003-2004 there were 3,251,000 teachers in U.S. public schools- approximately, a million more teachers than a mere 20 years earlier. Of those, 75% were fe- male. Over one half (51%) reported the bach- elor’s degree as the highest degree earned, with 41% reporting a master’s degree, and 7% re- porting a specialist or doctoral degree. The age of the teaching force is well distributed, thereby resulting in a well-experienced popu- lation. The public school teaching force is overwhelmingly White, with the Black, His- panic, Asian, Pacific Islander, and American Indian / Alaskan Native teachers composing less than 20% of the total teaching force (Sny- der, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2007).

Teacher Knowledge

Of the studies reviewing teachers’ knowledge of education law, the most studied variable- teacher experience-produced inconclusive results. Seven studies found that teacher expe- rience does not have an effect on teachers’ knowledge of education law (Abegglen, 1986; Bates, 1981; Brookshire, 2002; Enteen, 1999; Moore, 1997; Potter, 1980; Werling, 1986). Other studies found that the more experi- enced teachers have a better grasp of educa- tion law than do the inexperienced teachers (Bounds, 2000; Clark, 1990; Daley, 1994; Koch, 1997). Particularly interesting, Paul

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

74 MARK LITTLETON

(2001) found that Georgia teachers with 30 or more years of teaching experience and teach- ers with fewer than 3 years of teaching experi- ence demonstrated the least knowledge of ed- ucation law. Further highlighting a concern about teachers who are new to the profession, Enteen (1999) stated that “our youngest (novice) teachers pose the greatest risk of liti- gation” (p. 114).

When teacher age was studied, the results proved to be fairly conclusive. Singletary (1996) found that teachers in South Carolina who were 60 years old or older possessed a su- perior knowledge of education law than that of their younger counterparts. Similarly, Da- ley (1994) verified that teachers older than 50 possessed a greater knowledge of laws related to tort liability than that of the younger teachers.

Several studies investigated the variable of sex, all with the same results. Przybyszewski and Tosetto (1991) studied middle school teachers and found no difference in knowledge based on sex. After surveying elementary, mid- dle, and high school teachers on a 45-item questionnaire, Paul (2001) discovered no dif- ference in the knowledge of education law by sex. Studies of teachers in Florida (Koch, 1997) and elementary teachers in Alabama (Potter, 1980) confirmed that sex had no ef- fect on teachers’ knowledge of education law.

Teaching level (elementary, middle, or secondary) apparently had little effect on a teacher’s knowledge of education law as well. Menacker and Pascarella (1983) found no dif- ference in knowledge of major Supreme Court cases between elementary and secondary teachers. Subsequently, in 2001 Paul’s compre- hensive study of Georgia teachers found that middle school and high school teachers com- manded a greater knowledge of education law than that of elementary teachers. However, Paul found no difference in teachers’ knowl- edge of the law at the middle or secondary levels-a result that was confirmed by Brook- shire (2002) in a study of special education law. Although neither level was acceptable, Moore (1997) found that secondary teachers possess a greater knowledge of education law than do elementary teachers.

The education level of teachers was the focus of numerous studies (Abegglen, 1986; Bates, 1981; Dunklee, 1985; Enteen, 1999; Moore 1997; Potter, 1980). As such, no study established that knowledge of school law was influenced by education level or degrees held. Gullatt and Tollet (1997) reported that few states require teachers to complete courses in education law; therefore, it is no surprise a higher degree had no effect on the legal knowledge of teachers.

Few studies investigated the relationship between teachers’ knowledge of law and their geographic location. However, in 1983, Men- acker and Pascarella utilized a 10-statement true-false survey predicated on major Supreme Court cases, and they compared the results of teachers in Chicago with those of teachers in suburban Chicago. Using the limited data from the survey, the researchers concluded that urban teachers possess a knowledge of mi- nority rights better than that of suburban teachers but that suburban teachers are more knowledgeable on student discipline legal matters than urban teachers are. Przybyszewski and Tosetto (1991), in their study of New York State middle school teachers, concluded that urban teachers possess a greater understanding of education law than do rural teachers. Yet, Paul (2001), in an extensive study of Georgia’s public school teachers (n = 505), revealed that community size does not affect teachers’ knowledge of education law, except in two ar- eas. Paul concluded that urban teachers (com- munities over 100,000) are more knowledge- able about legal issues of liability and religion than are teachers from smaller communities.

Two researchers considered the effect of membership in professional organizations on teacher’s knowledge of education law-with conflicting results. Bounds (2000) established that teachers who were members of two or more organizations have a greater knowledge of education law than do teachers who are members in only one. In addition, teachers who are members in one organization have a greater knowledge of education law than do those who profess no organizational member- ship. Yet, this study queried only teachers who served as student-teacher supervisors in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teachers’ Knowledge of Education Law 75

teacher preparation programs from three state universities in Mississippi. Furthermore, the areas of law found primarily affect teacher ac- tivities (e.g., search and seizure, speech, tort li- ability), not student activities. Therefore, it is not surprising that these results conflict with those of Dumminger in 1989, which revealed that membership in professional organizations had no effect on Virginia teachers’ knowledge of education law, including legal responsibili- ties regarding students.

The Problem

Given that public school teachers possess an inadequate knowledge of education law, what can be done to close the legal knowledge gap? Paul (2001) noted that “teachers ignore or re- main ignorant of the law at their own peril, endangering their professional careers and their reputations” (p. 178). The literature re- vealed three notable ways to address the knowledge-base problem with teachers. The first involved structured course work; the sec- ond, periodic professional development ses- sions; and the third, membership in organiza- tions that inform members of legal issues.

An obvious means of addressing the prob- lem is to incorporate more training in the teacher preparation programs through struc- tured course work. In fact, most researchers recommended adding courses at the under- graduate- and graduate-level teacher educa- tion programs. Despite evidence that a course in education law can improve the knowledge level of education law for teachers (Clark, 1990; Ogletree & Garrett, 1981), the data are not conclusive (Enteen, 1999). In fact, few states require courses in education law in their teacher preparation programs (Gullatt & Tollett, 1997). Also, too few universities take the initiative to provide courses in edu- cation law for their preservice teachers (Hag- gard, 1981); in fact, Wagner (2006) reported that 75% of the teachers in the study had not taken a course in education law. Merely pro- viding a unit of instruction within a course was found to be ineffective in improving one’s knowledge level of education law (Werling,

1986). Factors such as the instructor’s teach- ing style (Schlosser, 2006), the topics cov- ered, and the time since prior instruction were found to be important in improving the learner’s knowledge of education law (Dum- minger, 1989).

Because approximately 88% of the teach- ing force has more than 3 years of teaching ex- perience, one can draw the conclusion that a large percentage of the current teaching work- force is far removed from its teacher prepara- tion course work. Not surprisingly, the authors of the studies commonly offered the recom- mendation for more undergraduate and gradu- ate course work, with a further recommenda- tion to incorporate periodic-and fiequent- professional development sessions on educa- tion law to practicing teachers. Apparently, when periodic training was provided to teach- ers, it proved to be the most popular and effec- tive method (Bounds, 2000; Harris, 2001; Koch, 1997).

One study found that teacher knowledge of education law increased as membership in professional organizations increased. Ergo, Bounds (2000) recommended that profes- sional libraries be established, where possible, to encourage teachers to become more in- formed of education law and job-related legal issues.

In response to increased education-related litigation (Valadez, 2005), Hughes (1985) cautioned that “no attempt should be made to make quasi-lawyers out of teachers” (p. 159). Yet, as legal standards and education norms become increasingly intertwined (Heubert, 1997), teachers will bear the burden of operat- ing within the established legal standards.

Discussion

Teachers display an alarming lack of knowl- edge of education law and legal issues that per- tain to their job. They tend to regard the legal process with apathy or disinterest (Reglin, 1992). At the same time, the U.S. Congress and state legislatures are creating more law that affects educators. Moreover, the courts appear to give new direction to teachers on a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

76 MARK LITTLETON

frequent basis regarding issues such as special education, students’ rights, and negligence.

What effect, if any, does this legalization of the educational environment have on class- room teachers? Although we know that teach- ers’ knowledge base is abysmal, there is a paucity of research on its effect. Still, class- room teachers would be wise to pay heed to the words of La Morte (2008):

Those educators who “fly by the seat of their pants” or who act on the basis of what they think the law “should be” may be in difficulty if sufficient thought is not given to the legal implications and ramifications of their policies or conduct. (p. xxv)

Teachers who possess an inadequate level of legal knowledge may fail to recognize poten- tial legal problems; similarly, the inadequate legal knowledge may discourage risk taking and innovation (Heubert, 1997).

As the education law knowledge base con- tinues to grow, uniformed teachers who grap- ple with difficult situations may elect the po- litically acceptable response in lieu of the legally correct response. As such, the rights of individuals with the minority opinion can tac- itly or overtly be abridged at the expense of the majority or popular opinion.

To address the documented lack of knowl- edge of education law by teachers, policy mak- ers would be well advised to require teacher preparation programs to incorporate a course on education law into the curriculum. The in- clusion of course work appears to be counter to the current trend to scale down university course requirements. Continued substantive research that reveals the need for additional education law training, combined with astute political maneuvering, is needed to combat the ignorance of job-related legal issues of teachers.

Furthermore, school district personnel would be wise to provide periodic training on education law topics specific to the teaching environment. Topics of primary interest in- clude special education, tort liability, students’ rights, and religion. Although questionable, the studies seem to suggest that the older, more experienced teachers have a better grasp

of job-related legal issues. Consequently, the younger, less experienced teachers should be the major focus of the training sessions. W

References

Abegglen, W. P. (1986). Knowledge of United States Supreme Court decisions affecting education held by selected Tennessee public school personnel. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8616545)

Ahearn, E. (2002, April). Due process hearings: 2001 update. Alexandria, VA: National Asso- ciation of State Directors of Special Educa- tion.

Bates, 1. L. (1981) An assessment of Georgia elemen- tary school teachers’ knowledge of teacher duties and liabilities. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8120122)

Bounds, H. M. (2000). Mississippi educators’ and prospective educators’ knowledge of school law as it relates to selected components of student rights and tort liability. (ProQuest Digital Disserta- tions No. AAT9988737)

Brookshire, R. 0. (2002). Selected teachers’ percep- tions of special education laws. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT3049563)

Clark, T. R. (1990). Mississippi superintendents’ and secondary educators’ knowledge of school law as it relates to student rights in selected areas. (Pro- Quest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9106562)

Daley, E. K. (1994). An assessment of the knowledge of tort liability law, in the areas of duty and stan- dard of care, bj selected teachers and principals, in the specific areas of sexual misconduct between professional school employees and students. (Pro- Quest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9411855)

Dumminger, 1. C. (1989). Virginia teachers and school law. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT90 10707)

Dunklee, D. R. (1985). An assessment of knowledge about tort liability law as possessed by selected public school teachers and principals (negligence, duty, care, litigation, claims). (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8604779)

Enteen, A. L. (1999). Elementary classroom teachers’ knowledge of tort llability for negligence. (Pro- Quest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9952375)

Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Gullatt, D., & Tollett, 1. (1997). Education law: A requisite course for preservice and inservice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Teachers’ Knowledge of Education Law 77

teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 129-135.

Haggard, C. L. (1981). A descriptive analysis of school law for prospective teachers as provided by the four state universities in Indiana. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8120503)

Harris, J. C. (2001). An inquiry into problematic K-f 2 public school law issues within the state of Florida. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT3002697)

Heubert, J. (1997). The more we get together: Im- proving collaboration between educators and their lawyers. Harvard Educational Review, 67,

Hughes, W. R. (1985). Legal education necessary for adequate preservice training of teachers, principals and superintendents in Nebraska. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8606964)

Imber, M., & Gayler, D. E. (1988). A statistical analysis of trends in education-related litiga- tion since 1960. Educational Administrution Quarterly, 24(1), 55-78.

Johnson, J. M. (1985). Educators’ knowledge of legal issues affecting students: Considerations for teacher education (social studies, administration). (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8600466)

Koch, R. E. (1997). Effect of an inservice on the teachers’ knowledge of general school law, Section 504, and the meta consent decree. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9816377)

Kuck, C. L. (1992). A study of public and parochiul teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices relat- ing to student rights. (ProQuest Digital Disserta- tions No. AAT9310136)

La Morte, M. (2008). School law: Cases and concepts (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Littleton, M., Higham, R., & Styron, K. (2001, November). Analysis of legal knowledge of school officials in Texas. Paper presented at the meet- ing of the Education Law Association, Albu- querque, NM.

Menacker, I., & Pascarella, E. (1983). How aware are educators of Supreme Court decisions that affect them? Phi Delta Kappan, 64(6), 424-426.

Methven, M. P. (1976). Knowledge of school law needed by Colorado public school teachers entering the profession. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT7708736)

Moore, S. J. (1997). An assessment of selected knowl- edge of school law from public educators in the state of Tennessee. (ProQuest Digital Disserta- tions No. AAT9806345)

531-582.

Ogletree, E. J., & Garrett, W. (1981). Teachers’ knowledge of school law. (ERIC Document Re- production Service No. ED214869)

Oliver, H. 0. (1990). The relationship of tort liability knowledge level of Alaskan elementary school teachers to selected demgraphic variables. (Pro- Quest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9120366)

Paul, G. N. (2001). An analysis of Georgiu public school teachers’ knowledge of school law: lmplica- tions for administrators. (ProQuest Digital Dis- sertations No. AAT3029769)

Potter, C. (1980). A study to determine the legal knowledge of elementary schoolteachers in the state of Alabama. (ProQuest Digital Disserta- tions No. AAT8114896)

Przybyszewski, R., & Tosetto, D. (1991, October). How informed are middle school teachers about laws which affect them! Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeast Educational Re- search Association, Ellenville, NY.

Redfield, S. (2003a). The convergence of educa- tion and law: A new class of educators and lawyers. Indiuna Luw Review 36, 609-643. Re- trieved August 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.

Redfield, S. (2003b). Tell me a story: A cautionary tale of the lawyer and the educator. Maine Bar Journal, 18, 198-201. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from LexisNexis.

Reglin, G. L. (1992). Public school educators’ knowledge of selected Supreme Court deci- sions affecting daily public school operations. J o u m l of Educational Administration, 30(2), 26-31.

Schlosser, R. A. (2006). An analysis of principal in- terns’ legal knowledge and legal instruction in principal preparation program. Doctoral disser- tation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.

Singletary, I. R. (1996). South Carolina superintend- ents’ and secondary educators’ knowledge of school law as it relates to selected areas of student rights. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9806690)

Snyder, T., Dillow, S., & Hoffman, C. (2007). Di- gest of education statistics 2006 (Report No. NCES 2007-017). Retrieved January 22,2008, from Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed .gov/programs/digest/dO6/index.asp

Steele, D. J. (1990). Educators’ knowledge of the constitutional rights of secondary school stu- dents. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT9 101 620)

Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14

78 MARK LITTLETON

Valadez, L. (2005). An analysis of legal services and truining of selected Texas school districts: Proac- tive 01s. reactive approaches. (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT3190057)

Wagner, P. H. (2006). Perceptions of the legal literacy of educators and the implications for teacher preparation program. (ProQuest Digital Disser- tations No. AAT3227423)

Werling, F. M. (1986). Knowledge of Indiana school law possessed by Indiana public secondary school teachers (tenure, student discipline, tort liabil-

ity). (ProQuest Digital Dissertations No. AAT8609042)

Mark Littleton is professor and director of the doctoral program in the Department of Educa- tional Leadership and Policy Studies at Tar- leton State University. His research interests include education law and governance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:33

14

Nov

embe

r 20

14