Essay on Case Study-Hurry vs Jones

Truly, I don’t know anything about this court but I did read the website of what happened but yet somehow the Tinkers won in the court case mainly because the school did not lay any good arguments on the table.

It was also concluded that the IHSAA broke one of their own rules in regards to the Hardship Rule. According to the Transfer Rule: Rule 19, even when B.J. was granted partial-eligibility, the IHSAA was violating Rule 19.4: “A student should be ineligible for 365 days if he or she transfers schools for athletic reasons”. On top of that, the IHSAA often times issues grants to children who move schools because of their parents. Yet, the IHSAA ignored the facts provided by the plaintiff and his family that would counteract their decision. Furthermore, the IHSAA claimed that the exception holds true when it includes children and/or public interest. The court agreed upon these standards, proving more reasons as to why B.J. should’ve been given the

Assuming that the school district was not justified in its actions, does Susie have a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

If Phillip Malloy had sued the schools the school would have won. There were plenty of witnesses telling of what Philip did, and plenty of examples of why Philip was wrong.

The applicants are morally correct as long as their action promotes their long term interest. If their action produces or will produce for them a greater outcome of good, versus evil in the long hall than any other alternative, than that action is the right one to act on, and the individual should take that to be a moral act. An Assessment of Morality by Ethicsinbusiness.net

Supreme Court reasoned that the “stay-put” provision does not limit the authority of courts to award appropriate relief to either a parent or the local educational agency. Rather, the Court asserted that the “stay-put” provision created a presumption in favor of leaving children in their existing educational placements unless educators could prove that they were likely to harm themselves or others.

T.M., by A.M. and R.M., his parents, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. Cornwall Central School District United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Docket nos. 12-4301, 12-4484(XAP). Decided: April 2, 2014

The benefits of this decision is that Mrs. Kay Williams and the School Board along with the majority of the community and students will have their rights upheld as outlined in the First Amendment. Superintendent Noble will have “made a stand” as he stated in the newspaper article.

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier was a lost fight for the First Amendment rights in schools. When a couple of school journalists’ articles were blocked by the principal of Hazelwood East High School, the students decided that they needed to take their case to the courts. One of the articles was a story about

This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered.

Mayerson, G. (2012). Analysis of Zachary Deal v. Hamilton County Department of Education . Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/autism.deal.mayerson.analysis.htm

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.

* Mr.Dee is a hard-working person that he studied in Berkeley and did his master in international trade. At the same he got married but he is has some unknown and blind factors which causes him to change his job a lot and lost his family. He needed to become more self-aware.

Build the management-research question hierarchy, through the investigative questions stage. Then compare your list with the measurement questions asked.