and Article I, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. Defendant is correct that both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have found public school officials to be state actors, and therefore, the holdings establish that public school officials are bound by constitutional mandates. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 336, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 731; In re D.D., 146 N.C. App. at 316, 554 S.E.2d at 351. However, defendant ignores the fact that in all such holdings, school officials are considered state actors for purposes of constitutional guarantees when they are exercising public authority “in furtherance of publicly mandated educational and disciplinary policies.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 336, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 731; see also Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 574, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725, 734-35 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
holding that a school district was not required to make dramatic changes to its program in order for a child to attend his neighborhood school holding public school principals criticized for their official conduct are public officials for purposes of defamation law holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea recognizing that picture of jesus christ in public school impaired use of school by students and visitors holding that once a state establishes a public school system and require s its children to attend public school officials may not take away a students legitimate entitlement to a public education without adhering to the minimum procedures required under due process