Darnall Observation

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

Lopez. In the United States, the court case Goss v. Lopez is the most recent standard set for dictating short and long-term suspensions for public schools. Like secondary students that were suspended from school for violating school conduct code. In the Supreme Court, it was ruled unconstitutional for suspending students up to ten days without a hearing (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Held that due process applies for suspension and expulsion for students (Black, 2015). Mandated that a student has to be aware of the misconduct they have been accused, have a rebuttal to said misconduct which due process implies. In comparison, MMSA has due process cohesive with the principles of Goss v. Lopez (1975). They use Bill Rights life and purpose of happiness and backing of the 14th amendment as reason for due

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the

The school district and other participants were following law and federal regulations, however the general education teacher was not ensuing to the terms set forth in the IEP.

This case was brought forth to the court system under of the laws that were determined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as an appeal to the decision of the district court was well as the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The parents of Zachary Deal believed that the school system failed to provide their son with a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) as well as not placing Zachary in the least restrictive environment (LRE) as outlined as a requirement within the IDEA Act as well as in an IEP. Further, the Deal’s were requesting financial reimbursement for Zachary’s private school tuition as well as any other education related services that were provided and funded by the parents outside of the school. While the ALJ found the school liable for part of the reimbursement, they also found that the school was in violation of IDEA because of substantive violations during the process of identifying assistance for Zachary Deal. Both the Hamilton County Board of Education and the Deal family appealed the ALJ’s findings which escalated the court case to a

Perform a search in the University Library databases and locate four school-related court cases (with outcomes decided), two which involve educators as defendants and two which involve students as defendants. Fill in the table below. When you give your informed opinion, state and discuss whether you agree or disagree with the outcome. Base your opinion on legal and ethical standards as discussed in Ch. 9 of the text. If you do not agree with the outcome, explain what would have been just. Base your explanation upon the rights and responsibilities of those involved. Cite your sources in APA format below the table.

The specific issues to consider would be how CES broke its ruling by not offering a hearing as it previewed for the school officials to notify the parent before an automatic suspension. The board of CES was supposed to hold a full hearing for the third offense to find out if the student is guilty before expulsion, arrest, incarceration for 30 days or confiscating the student's phone permanently. Congress may transfer the authority to create substantive rules that are compatible and in the scope of its statute. CES had a secluded requirement in the statute that allowed their officials to target principally female students because allegedly females talk on the phones than males. CES did not obtain Congressional delegation to target mostly female

The court wrote that “special needs” are in the public school context and that the school district didn’t show a drug problem of plague proportions, there was a background of drug use starting in 1970 that presented an authorized cause for concern. The district court which is a lower court, also said that the drug use was effective because it can barely be discussed that the drug can affect the body and making sure that the majority of students associating in competitive sports and other activities don’t use drugs.The United States court of appeals for the tenth circuit reversed, standing that the policy broke the fourth amendment. The court of appeals agreed with the district courts that the policy must be evaluated in the perfect environment of the school but reached a different conclusion as the policy

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.

Zero Tolerance Policy of Education in America In Bedford, Texas, a 16-year-old honor student was expelled after a

The question in Honig was whether the school could expel for more than 10 days two students who were classified as emotionally disturbed and who engaged in various safetyrelated offenses that were a manifestation of their disability. The U.S. Department of Education interprets an exclusion for more than 10 consecutive days as a change in the student’s placement in special education, but according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), special education students can be removed from their placement only through an agreement between the school and the student’s parents or by a preliminary injunction from a court that finds the student substantially likely to injure self or others. In the turbulent wake of Honig, the lower courts

The immediate action was taken and he was suspended for two months under the school’s policy act. The school board scheduled a hearing for his case and his parents and lawyers looked at possible ways to get Anurag excused from the hearing and further punishment, but the school was firm on his decision against zero tolerance conduct. He made a misstep, which ruined his school life and career. These association impacted Anurag’s school life and academic achievement standards in a negative way.

Does the punishment fit the action? On behalf of my son I’d like to say, he is not a criminal, he is not a bully and he is not a threat. He is in fact a good friend to all. He has always been there for his friends and will stand up for them and what he believes in. He is also a charismatic leader who shines and is very curious. These are attributes which will certainly lead to success in life which you can not learn through school curriculum. He has a tremendous amount of potential if channeled in the right direction. Just dismissing him from his small town school, I feel is a punishment that is not warranted by the crime. He is an impulsive 13 year old child and let that be the operative word CHILD, who is not challenged nor feels a sense of security in his educational environment. Enforcing this type of punishment for a misdemeanor which I don 't think he realized the intensity of, will only create significant damage, crush his spirit, self esteem and lead to further actions. Not to mention affect his entire future for a mistake he made as an impulsive thirteen year old child. He did not bring a weapon, drugs, make threats, bully or create any significant damage. It was an inconvienece to the school which now wants to dismiss him, in order to not deal with him, the situation at hand, and the type of child he is.