Involuntary Transfers Essay

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

Corporal punishment, as a measure of correction or of maintaining discipline and order in schools, is permitted. However, it shall be used only when all other alternative means of discipline have failed, and then only in reasonable form and upon the recommendation of the principal. If found necessary, it shall be administered by a certificated administrator in the presence of a witness who is an employee of the school district. It should never be inflicted in the presence of other pupils, nor without a witness. Corporal punishment shall be administered only by swatting the buttocks with a paddle. When it becomes necessary to use corporal punishment, it shall be administered so that there can be no chance of bodily injury or harm. Striking a student on the head or face is not permitted. The teacher or principal shall submit a report to the superintendent, explaining the reason for the use of corporal punishment as well as the details of the administration of the same.

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

In 1974, Dwight Lopez and eight students were suspended for 10 days on behalf of destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment at Central High School in Columbus, Ohio. Lopez testified he was a bystander and he was innocent. In addition, Lopez testified approximately 75 other students were suspended as well. Lopez claimed his suspension without a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. During this action, the principals did not perform hearings for none of the affected students before ordering the suspensions. Due to the students not given a hearing, the principals’ actions were challenged and a class-action suit was filed asking for declaratory and injunctive

In this paper I will address a due process rights afforded to a student in a scenario presented by The American College of Education. I will explain the substantive and procedural due process rights as they relate to student discipline in the situation. I will give concepts, and examples relating to freedom of speech and privacy. I will address the IEP educational rights as I understand it within the scope of California and the federal IDEA legislation.

Petitioner does not allege that the Respondent made a change in his educational placement based upon a violation of a code of student conduct or that he disagrees with a manifestation determination. To the contrary, Petitioner is seeking as his sole request for relief a “Law suit (sic) on Beaumont Independent School District for allowing my son JaCorian to stay in a (sic) abusive classroom where he was assaulted.” Petitioner is not disagreeing with a change in placement based on discipline that would entitle Petitioner to receive an expedited due process hearing. Petitioner is disagreeing with the teacher assigned to his classroom. Since the Petitioner did not allege facts that constitute a disciplinary change of placement and thus that the mandatory provisions of Section 1415(k)(4)(B) for an expedited due process hearing do not

Following with the majority opinion on this case, the Supreme Court rules that student rights were violated. Thoroughly reviewing previous cases similar to Broker v Oakwood, the Court finds a large resemblance to a case from 1969, Tinker v Des Moines. Students at the Des Moines school district protested their

Students’ do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate, and their civil liberties much be protected by precedent demonstrating that any attempt by an administrative body to rob students of their rights must be legally valid, and, if not, must be struck down immediately, as was done in the Tinker case. As students in high school, Margery, Washington, and millions of young adults like them are preparing for their transition into adulthood, and being introduced to their rights of citizenship; we cannot show them that these can be violated so easily. Schools and other educational institutions must remember “that they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes” (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943). Failing to keep in mind the significance of this responsibility would be improperly educating the future of the nation, something which goes against the core purpose of all educational

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

Before discussing arguments concerning these issues, several matters of fact need be established. St. Michael’s School Board as an elected body governing public school facilities acts as with the authority of the State of Missouri. The policy of public school officials constitute state action. The state policy at issue in this case opens public school facilities for use of the public after school hours, but restricts access to those facilities from groups like the petitioner’s who intend

(Cleveland Bd. Of Ed. v. Loudermill, 1985). However, different guidelines may be sued in school decision depending on if it is an academic or disciplinary judgment (Harris v. Blake, 1986). For academic decision, the school can satisfy due process by notifying the student before termination or suspension. Disciplinary actions, however, require an oral or written notice of charges, an explanation of the evidence, and the opportunity to tell their side of the story. For this case, the Plaintiff argues his case is disciplinary and the court concurs. However, the procedures implemented by the Defendants satisfied the requirements for due process for a disciplinary dismissal. The May 26, 2010 letter written by Dean Agrawal provided notice to the

If a student does not act on their right to due process then the administration will decide the final punishment. In the case of Tate v. Board of Education, the students who were suspended did not meet with administration to argue their side of the story. They refused to bring any evidence under jurisdiction to appeal this situation. (Tate v. Board of Education, 1972). Tillamook high school makes a personal attempt to reach any student who may be under jurisdiction for suspension. The school administration is very open to hearing every side to the story to ensure justice and fairness are

This violated the 2004 Amendment to the IDEA. The IDEA stated that a student could not be suspended longer than 10 days and that suspending a student can create a bad reputation against the student. The 2004 IDEA Amendment also stated schools have to handle behaviors in the school, not remove the student from school. Darnall's situation was not handled at school. Once the suspension was over, the parent was notified that Darnall was expelled and would not return for the rest of the school year. The school district did not provide Darnall with a chance to defend himself before the expulsion. The school district did not tell Darnall's mother her procedural rights once she learned of Darnall's expulsion. The school district did not provide adequate schooling for Darnall once removed from school, which violated the

Upon speaking with Mr. Milstead, we identified few major areas of concern regarding due process that he sees as particularly important. The first of which is discipline in the schools. With regards to discipline, we acknowledged that the administrator handling that particular student’s case must address both, the student and the parent or guardian, before issuing the discipline. Once, they are both aware of the situation they must have the opportunity to refute the claim or defend themselves of the accusation. He pointed out that a majority of the discipline is actually handled by a dean or an assistant principal, and

This report is designed to address an issue related to a school administrator acting in an ethical and fair manner. For the sake of maintaining confidentiality in this report, I will use a false name for the school administrator. I will also use a false school district. However, the policies outlined in the report are directly from the state and school district.