Ms Sanchez's Argumentative Essay

Michael was being disruptive in class and had to be removed by Ms. Cruz, School Counselor. He was making inappropriate noises, putting his feet on his desk and kneeling on his chair. When corrected he became argumentative and defiant toward Ms. Frazier. As Ms. Cruz was escorting him out of the classroom he pointed two fingers toward Ms. Frazier’s face and mocked what she was saying.

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.

Furthermore, when principals are called to give reference information, that information should be concrete and in specific regard to the position. Principal O’Rourke did not avoid subjective statements. For instance, when he spoke with Randolph’s cousin, he stated that “he was incompetent,” (p. 129); which consequently, was used against the principal in his complaint to the State Commissioner of Education as the reason he could not obtain employment. If Principal O’Rourke decided to share negative, yet factual, information, he must have proof. As an example, he could have deemed him an ineffective teacher that was on a Corrective Action Plan, if that were true.

At a public high school assembly of roughly 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. Fraser had discussed the subject matter of his speech before the assembly to two teachers. Fraser’s teachers had informed Fraser that the speech should not be delivered because the speech was inappropriate and that it could lead to severe consequences. In his speech, Fraser used what some students believed was a graphic sexual image to promote the candidacy of Fraser’s friend. Bethel High School had a disciplinary code that enforced a rule prohibiting conduct that substantially interfered with the educational process

The investigations revealed that Mr. Smith failed to investigate any incidents that were reported by Ryan with regards to his being bullied. Mr. Smith told Mrs. Bright that he would personally handle this situation. If was revealed that one of the bullies was Mr. Bright’s distant cousin. Surveillance tapes were pulled from the time frame the bullying happened. Most of the reported bullying incidents were recorded on the cameras. It showed exactly what Ryan had reported to administrators. Ryan, through his parents, filed a lawsuit against Mr. Smith and the HCSD. The case went to trial and Ryan was awarded the sum of $45,000 for pain and suffering. Mr. Smith received a three day suspension and reassignment to another school within the district due to his negligence in the incident. Mrs. Bright was verbally reprimanded. She escaped further reprimands because her involvement in the case was minimal. Mrs. Bright told me that her intuition bothered her from the beginning. She stated she couldn’t put a finger on it. This was the first time she had been instructed by Mr. Smith not to investigate an incident. Usually, she was the one that initiated student bullying cases and then reported her findings to Mr. Smith. After detailing her

Evidence that proves my claim is in p169 “taunts me in homeroom…Today she spit on me…As I emerged from the cafeteria…shouted all kinds of threats…I got hit across the back with a tennis racquet.” All these hateful actions against her happened at school. Her experience was not worthwhile since, she experienced hateful acts every day knowing that she will be bullied day after day. Similarly, her mom was fired from her workplace because Melba went to Central High. This is shown in p206 where her administrator said, “If Melba were to withdraw from that school, we could talk about renewing your contract.” Her family was in trouble and financial issues because she went to Central High. Her experience was not worthwhile as she felt upset from her mom’s loss of her teaching position. This is shown in p205 as it states, “The loss of Mama’s teaching position upset had upset all the members of our

On April 26, 1983 Matthew Fraser gave a student election nomination speech at Bethel High School. While giving his speech Matthew began to speak about the candidate he was nominating in a profane and sexually explicit manner. Some of Fraser’s teachers said that he spoke about his speech with them and they told him it was, “inappropriate and that he probably should not deliver it,” that and if he did he may face punishment. There were 600 students in attendance at this assembly, some responded to this speech with cheers and lewd gestures, while others were shocked and embarrassed. The next day Fraser was sent to the principal’s office where he was told that, “conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.” Fraser then admitted that he had purposely acted in an inappropriate manner during his speech. Matthew Fraser was punished for his actions by being suspended for three days and having his name removed from the school’s list of candidates to give a speech at graduation. Later, Fraser had the school's hearing officer review the disciplinary action, it was decided that “the

Despite receiving specific knowledge and notice of the attack, Lyons-Burke failed to protect Martina Toole, and is thus in breach of its duty. Because schools cannot be reasonably expected to prevent each and every altercation between students, a plaintiff must establish that the school recovered actual or constructive notice before the attack. In the prevailing months before the attack, the mother of the victim notified the school about the specific threats Ivy made against her. As in the Wilson case, this placed the school on notice regarding the “aggressive and confrontational” behavior from the attacker. Ivy Toxicone also had a disciplinary record that should have put the school on notice regarding her behavior in general. In MacCormack

The hearing panel met three or four time during the period of April 19, 2010 and May 3, 2010. Brown did not appear before the panel during this time. On May 3, the hearing panel issued their dismissal of the academic misconduct claim again Brown because it did not violate a specific university rule. However, the panel noted that Brown’s application and letter of certification made clear that he could potentially be expelled for any withholding or false information. By signing the application, Brown acknowledged the law school’s right to dismiss him for false information on his application. Thus, the decision was left to Dean Gail Agrawal, who consulted with the University’s Office of General Counsel. She sent Brown a letter on May 26, 2010, notifying him of the intent to dismiss him effective June 8, 2010 for “falsification, misrepresentation, and failure to supply complete, accurate, and

The plaintiff, Wilbur, bears the burden of proof, thus the impact the accuser must come across in order to win their case. About two months ago, Wilbur was attending an anger management counseling session with Chuck, who works for a Limited Liability Company XYZ Counseling Agency. During the session, Chuck became very angry at Wilbur for failing to improve and beat him up. In this case, Chuck’s assault towards Wilbur is

At approximately 9:57 PM while supervising the Collings House students and Haddon House peer, student Jonathan Rojas was smacked in the back of the head by another peer witch lead to a physical altercation (Rojas punching another peer in the eye). Mr. Ricks Immediately separated the two students and instructed Rojas to go to the Haddon House for some time away. Student Rojas complied with staff directives. Mr. Ricks then call Mr. Taylor who was driving back form court for staff support. Immediately after contacting Mr. Taylor the other peer became agitated and belligerent and fled the Collings House headed toward the Haddon House. Mr. Ricks exited the Collings House and entered the Haddon House where he observed the peer destroying property.

Per the List the Findings of Facts That Support the Expulsion document in Joseph's discipline packet, submitted by Cane Ridge, and accepted by the Discipline Office we have a "cut and paste" of the description of the incident used on the SSD Discipline Office Expulsion Referral Form. A description of the incident, and the Facts gathered to support are obviously not one and the same. Once again we have an example of the arbitrary and unfair handling of this case. In prosecuting this case the school and Discipline Office exhibit a wonton disregard for Joseph's due process rights. The school by claiming that a description of the incident, were the Facts of the incident, and the Discipline Office for accepting such.

Furthermore, standard 1.7 of the educators’ code of conduct expects teachers to adhere to local, state, and federal laws and policies, particularly in the decision-making process. Richard knowingly and intentionally made a decision not to comply with district policy to complete the expulsion papers for David. Chapter 37 of Texas Education Code mandates the expulsion for students who unlawfully carry prohibited weapons in the school premises. At a building principal’s perspective, it is not up to administrators to determine whether or not to expel David. Ultimately, rules are implemented to ensure safe learning and teaching environment for students and staff, and it is the responsibility of school principals to ensure that all campus personnel complies with school board policies, despite the

This is one of multiple student-related incidents that have occurred with Ms. Harris since the beginning of the school year. Prior to

Based on the evidence and scenario presented in this case, I believe there are as many as seven or more individuals or groups of people that could possibly be affected by Christine's decision to write the letter of recommendation. First, Marco will be directly affected by the decision because it may influence the college’s perception of his character denying him entrance to the institution. Without this opportunity, Marco may not be able to pursue a college degree which could provide options to enhance his quality of life. Even though the information should be confidential, rumors could develop about Marco and his discipline problems that could give him and his family a negative reputation leading to adverse connotations surrounding their name.