Elizabeth Pettit Versus The State Board Of Education

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 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.

Although the superintendent has the authority to hire and fire teachers, it would be within his best interest to do so based on appropriate legal footing rather than personal bias. The superintendent’s recommendations for Barnhart’s change of employment appears to be grounded in bias. From the beginning he was a dubious supporter of Barnhart as athletic director. He has no proof that she contacted the reporter so is basing his decision on the weak legal footing of assumption. Understandably, he is doing so to balance teacher rights and promoting harmony within the work place which ultimately supports student learning. Several court cases provide guide lines for achieving this balance. The cases of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) and Connick v. Myers (1983) developed a two pronged test to check the balance. First, does the speech address matters of public concern? Assuming Barnhart did contact the reporter, yes, the information is a matter of public concern since it involves Title IX, a federal civil law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education activities. It is a federal law that high schools treat boys’ and girls’ sports equally. Also, can Burnhart demonstrate her speech interest outweigh the harmony of the district leadership? Again, yes, the speech is not affecting her immediate supervisor, principal Tara Hills as supported by Fales v. Garst

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).

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.

In document C, K.K knew and with all intentions made a hate website on S.N. The school wasn’t online stalking K.K. The parents of S.N went the next morning to the school administrators. No parents want their child to feel scared and unsafe. I see nothing wrong with the school trying to prevent what could've been a teen suicide or a

Mo Hock Ke Lok Po v. Stainback (1944) was another court case that gave parents the right to have their children taught in a foreign language. This was a significant victory because it implied that parents had a voice in regards to the education their children were to receive.

This article Discusses the case of Christine Franklin. Franklin was a sophomore at the time of the sexual harassment and abuse claims.

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”

Yesterday my best friend, Brandon, and I went to the library located on Savannah State’s campus to study for our upcoming final exam. Even though Brandon is a Caucasian, people don’t have a negative outlook on our relationship just because I am an African American. It doesn’t make much of a difference to society when we are seen together,considering America symbolizes unity. Must I remind you, it hasn’t always been this way in America. in fact, Whites and Blacks weren 't allowed to attend the same school, let alone the same water fountain because of segregation. to many people this situation was looked upon as ridiculous. Why should a person’s skin tone determine where they should be allowed to go? I shouldn’t. This was going on way too long without anything being done about it. Finally someone decided to take the problem to a new extent to bring about change. Brown vs Board of education is one case that still has great significance in history. Not only did it have a huge effect on segregation, but America as well would not be the same. My surroundings would totally change if this case had not been established. Brandon would not be my best friend, and sadly without the desegregation in schools, we would have never crossed paths.

James Loudermill was dismissed from his job as a security guard for the Cleveland Board of Education for failing to disclose a prior felony conviction on his application. Loudermill, a classified civil servant under Ohio law, filed an appeal with the civil service commission stating Ohio statue provided he could only be terminated for cause; therefore, he was entitled to administrative review of his dismissal. Nine months after the appeal was filed the Commission upheld his termination. Loudermill filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging the Ohio statute that provided for administrative review of a discharged public employee was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges against him prior to being discharged. The suit also alleged the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as applied because he was not given a prompt appeal hearing by the Civil Service

It is reported that a girl was banned from a public Catholic school, the girls was disabled and it was stated that her parents faced accusations of presenting a threat to the mental health of her teachers. Morgan Webb Liddle has cerebral palsy. The teachers at Sacred Heart College took legal steps that were of an "extraordinary' nature to bar the child from the Catholic school based on their feeing "stressed and harassed." (Lee-Potter, 2013, p.1) The teachers at the school filed a notice with the principal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Morgan was ordered to not attend school and her parents ordered not to contact the school. According to John Harding, Head of Cambridge

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.).

The Everson v. Board of Education case in 1947 looked at whether or not church and state should be separate. The Everson v Board of Education case permitted reimbursement of money to parents who sent their children to school on public transportation. The parents who choose for their children to attend Catholic schools were also eligible for this reimbursement. Was the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment violated in this verdict? The Court has not always read the constitutional principle as complete, and the range of separation between Church (religion) and State (government) in the U.S. is a continuing topic of dispute. Religion has to do with what we believe about God, life, morals. Politics is government, order, society, and

You made some valid points in your post. I agree that the exit interviews were a little too late to assist the parents with any problems or concerns but the interviews were insightful for her because she understands why students were withdrawing from the school. However, the principal need to conduct parent surveys throughout the school year. By sending out a survey, a principal can discover a great deal about the community. It would be a great ideal for principal to hold monthly parent meetings but at certain schools, a school event that involves the students have to be in conjunction with the parent meetings to gain an