As employees of a public school and the state of Indiana, we are held to much tighter restrictions of the 1st Amendment.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) applies the Lemon test which prohibits the following from public schools, classrooms, and teacher behavior:
Additionally, the Endorsement test prohibits:
Lastly, the Coercion test prohibits:
More or less, you are an adult with authority over a captive audience. You should not attempt to proselytize students in any fashion. However, if religion is used in an academic manner it is permissible. Additionally, it is in one's best interest and best practice to not impose political beliefs upon a student outside of academic purposes.
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) ruled on issues of public importance. A publicly employed individual previously had protections that kept them from being dismissed by voicing an opinion of public importance (and not knowingly or recklessly false information); i.e. In the case of Pickering, a public criticism of a superintendent over money-saving initiatives. Pickering has since been overruled by Garcetti.
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) ruled that as a public employee you cannot make statements pursuant to your professional duties. Any public employee is restricted from any public statement directly pursuant to information accredited to their job.
Essentially, any information not given to the general public (i.e. disciplinary action against another employee, handling of inter-district business, and/or general classroom or school information including specific execution of school district policy) can be used in a disciplinary action against a teacher or employee.
Do NOT post (on social media) or discuss subjects about other teachers/ employees or students unless the information has been made publicly available by the school administration.
Information provided by Cambron-McCabe, Nelda H., et al. Legal rights of teachers and students. 2nd ed., Boston, Pearson Education, 2009.