Board Of Education V. Rowley Case

The third case, Daniel RR v. State Board of Education, was documented in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June 12, 1989. This case discussed whether a child with disability is given a right to receive mainstream education.

The first key principle of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is that any student regardless of their disability is entitled to a free and appropriate public education. The term zero reject is commonly used to summarize this principle. An important component of zero reject is for school administrators to understand that the state is responsible for locating, identifying, and providing for students with disabilities from birth through age twenty-one. School officials play an important role in carrying out the state responsibility under the zero reject principle. This principle both implies and specifies the concept that no matter how severe the disability may seem, all children can learn, benefit from, and are entitled to a free and appropriate public education.

The district argued that the Individuals with Disabilities Education act (IDEA) does not state that a district must exhaust all possible services before an alternative placement for a student (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). IDEA applies to Wally’s case in that this act discusses the issue of whether or not a student’s behavioral issues are related to their disability.

It can be concluded Teachers are held to a higher standard then non-educational occupations, as “The Supreme Court has acknowledged that a “teacher serves as a role model for…students exerting a subtle but important influence over their perceptions and values” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 251). Teachers must be conscious to the ideology their actions, words, and mannerism can directly influence their student audience. The 1st amendment freedom of expression offers protection to teachers as it applies to the following clause, “Public employees’ comments on matters of public concern are protected expression if they are made as a citizen and not pursuant to official job duties” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 233).

In the Emerson v. Board of Education Case New Jersey passed a law authorizing local school boards to provide transportation of children to and from school. The Board of Education of Ewing Township, following this law, authorized reimbursement to parents of money spent by their children on public buses. However, Arch Everson, a resident and taxpayer in the Ewing Township school district, learned that a reimbursement was going to parents who sent their children to Catholic schools as well. He then claimed that this money supported religion and violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Ultimately, the court ruled that the new law was not in violation of the establishment clause.

The topic I’ll be discussing will be the biasedness in media about a particular topic, the US Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education. The case involved a previous Supreme Court ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, where they gave schools to desegregate public schools “with all deliberate speed.” 15 years passed and school districts were still segregated, so the courts gave them till the beginning of the next year, 1970. This gave some schools a very abrupt shock as they had to conform to the decision. As something that opinionated, it allows news media to explore and write about such a topic.

Based on the presented facts, it is the opinion of this writer that the educator’s termination will be upheld and the defendant will win the case. Using Fowler v. Board of Education, 819 F. 2d 657 (1987), as precedent, the actions of the plaintiff caused a substantial disruption to the learning environment. While educators are afforded the right of academic freedom “to speak freely about their subjects, to experiment with new ideas, and to select appropriate teaching materials and methods” (Hillman & Trevaskis, 2014, p. 7-12), one should err on the side of caution, as “great deference is paid to the local board of education since they have the power to determine the curriculum and the materials used”

In 1991 the Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This law was passed to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. It requires that each child with a disability “have access to the program best suited to that child’s special needs which is as close as possible to a normal child’s educational program” (Martin, 1978). The Individualized education program (IEP) was developed to help provide a written record of students’ needs and procedures for each child that receives special education services. The IEP will list all the services to be provided, the student's performance level, academic performance, and

Board of Education v. Pico is a Supreme Court case that was argued from March 2, 1892 to June 25, 1982 (Island Trees…). This case presents the issue of banning “vulgar and immoral” books from school libraries (Board of Education, Island).

All schools should ensure that we protect the speech rights of their staff members. In this course, previously we learned how complicated speech rights can be, especially in this day of age, when more people are using social media to express their concerns. As educators, we need to know when we are protected and we also need to be careful as we express our concerns about our school’s or district policies. Usually our staff handbook has guidelines and procedures as to how we should communicate with news media outlets.

A more recent case which is similar to Everson v. Board of Education, is Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. The taxpayers of Arizona were challenging the fact that a state law was providing tax credits to those who were donating to school tuition organizations in order for the schools to provide scholarships to those attending private/religious schools. The claim was that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.), which is the first of several pronouncements within the First Amendment within the U.S. Constitution, or the first ten amendments within the Bill of Rights, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Bill of Rights, 2016.). The Supreme Court had ruled 5-4 and argued that the plaintiff did not have enough information and standing to bring to the suit. Justice Kagen, in her dissent, stated that “cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government object; to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations.” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.). Although the ruling was made on “narrow grounds”, according to Peter Wooley, a political science and direction of the PublicMind Poll, the plaintiff in one “guise or another will be back another day” (Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2016.).

I remember learning about the Everson v. Board of Education case in school. We talked about it for a while just because it had to deal with students. The issue was that a tax funded school district provided repayment to parents of public and private schooled kids taking the public transport system to school.

This case is about public teachers’ ability to choose their speech was being violated due to state involved agency requires public employees to pay union “agency” fees include who are non-member of this agency .This court should reverse the lower court decision and hold that mandatory agency fees that is an equal portion of the bargaining costs violates public employees’ freedom of choose the speech that is protected by first amendment for two reasons. First, people who opted- out or non-members were required to pay fees for union, and second, fees were automatically taking out from their paychecks.

According to Essex(2012), drug testing students would be in violation of the fourth amendment and would be difficult to justify because the students are protected under their privacy protection rights.As discussed in the text it was decided in the year 2002 during the case of Board of Education V. Earls when the supreme court had ruled that students who are participating in extracurricular activities must undergo a mandatory drug screenings and it became constitutional (Essex, 2012,p.35).

Artifact number four will review a scenario in which a seasoned high school principal refuses a disabled student education due to extraordinary expense and a view that the school might not be the best placement for Jonathan. The topics discussed all pertain to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), Cedar Rapids v Garret, Board of Education v Holland, and Timothy v Rochester. The facts that will be reviewed in this information will be discussed which could be used to defend Young’s decision, but make sure that Jonathan’s rights are not being stepped on.