Recent media coverage involving an ongoing investigation at Elkins High School has raised questions about the boundaries between personal expression and professional conduct within our schools. While I will not comment on any specific personnel matter, I want to address a broader, important issue: how the First Amendment applies in public education and what we expect of our teachers and staff.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and expression. These rights are foundational to our democracy and apply within our public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter school. However, the Court also recognized that those rights may be limited when they disrupt the educational process or infringe on the rights of others.

In West Virginia, W. Va. Code 18A-5-1 grants educators the authority to maintain order and discipline in schools, and 18-2-5 gives the State Board of Education the power to implement rules that ensure a safe and effective learning environment. These laws provide the framework for balancing constitutional rights with our duty to deliver instruction free from disruption, pressure, or bias.

As public employees, teachers have rights as individuals–but they also bear unique responsibilities in their roles as educators. Their influence in the classroom is significant. That is why we expect neutrality regarding non-instructional matters such as personal politics, religious views, or ideological beliefs. When personal viewpoints are introduced into instructional time in a way that could be perceived as coercive or inappropriate, it undermines trust and may violate professional expectations.

This principle has been consistently upheld in decisions by the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board. In Burkhammer v. Upshur County Board of Education (2017), the Board found that teachers must avoid behavior that could be seen as pushing non-curricular beliefs. In Tanner v. Fayette County Board of Education (2006) and Bartlett v. Monongalia County Board of Education (2010), disciplinary actions were supported where educators introduced personal political or religious beliefs in ways that were inappropriate for the classroom setting.

These examples are not about silencing anyone. They are about ensuring that all students, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs, feel safe, respected, and free to learn without undue influence.

As superintendent, I want to reassure our families and the broader community that Randolph County Schools remain committed to upholding the rights of individuals and the integrity of the public education system. We will continue to follow applicable laws, investigate concerns responsibly, and support our educators in maintaining high professional standards.

We ask for your patience and trust as we address concerns with care and due process. Our goal remains to provide every student with a welcoming, inclusive, and academically focused learning environment.

Dilly is the superintendent of Randolph County Schools.