Sumter County School District Case Essay

The plaintiff’s argument to why the third condition did not meet stated that on previous occasions Foster High School charged the public to hold events on the property. Therefore, the plaintiff states that because the school district has charged the public before to use the recreational space that it is not immune from the liability on the injury on the property.

CASE CITATION: Kurt HOME and Brenda Home, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendants. No. 21696-5-II. (1998)

• During the Catañeda vs. Pickard case a father claimed that his two children were not having their educational rights met at their school in the Raymondville Independent School District. The father, Mr. Catañeda, further stated that the Raymondville Independent School District was not providing a proper bilingual education program for his children.

In the case of Yusef v. Wisconsin Department of Education, the court decided in majority opinion, 9-0, in favor of the Respondent. The Freeman’s Christian Academy is not in violation of neither the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment nor the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI. Without the physical implementation of segregation amongst the students of color, their beliefs of segregation cannot be formally punished. There is a difference between advocation and employment, and because it cannot be proven that the funds received by the voucher system are used to promote the separation of people on the basis of religion and race, a rule set by the case, Lemon v. Kurtzmann, the Freeman's Christian Academy is lawful in receiving federal financial

While conducting research for this topic I consulted the New Kent County Historical Society, VCU’s Special Collections and archives, and multiple online databases. Within these I utilized resolutions, court records, newspaper articles, journals, and literature relating to the topic at hand. The majority of the primary sources I consulted came from the district and Supreme Court records as well as the resolutions provided by the New Kent Historical society. The secondary evidence consulted was in the form of scholarly journals, books, and newspaper articles.

Susan, a young teenager, wanted to attend a better equipped school closer to her family home. This wish, combined with her father’s civil rights involvement, contributed to her family’s decision to file a court case to gain access to an all white school to which she had originally been denied access. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision regarding Clark versus Board of Directors was the first successful school desegregation case in the United States.

The families of the students filed suit in the District Court stating that their First Amendment rights were violated. The case went before the District Court and was appealed to the Supreme Court. The families sought for nominal damages as well (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Title: Rose v. Council for better education. Supreme Court of Kentucky, 1989 790 S.W 2d 186.

The case had an impact in education with shareholders of education, laws, policies, and social interaction with the decision made. In addition, there are legal and ethical considerations to consider with what the Supreme Court’s decision on the Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case. This paper will discuss the summery of the case, the impacts made on education, and the legal and ethical considerations of the final decision.

The provision of resources to handicapped children is subject to a wide variety of federal and state laws and statutes. However, due the varied and spectacular range of disabilities and combination of disabilities it is often difficult to easily decide who should receive benefits and who should not. Often debated both within the court system, and without, is the subject of whether the child with a severe disability can actually benefit from the services and resources being allocated to that student. Timothy W. V. Rochester School District addresses just that issue referred to as “Zero Reject.”

Whereas, certain disputes exist concerning G’onna Jones’ educational program while a student in the District, which claims are described in the case styled G’onna J. b/n/f Nikki Anne R. v. Beaumont Independent School District, 077-SE-1115 (“Claim”);

The court’s found CIC to be a “related service” allowing Amber to have a special education. The Court of Appeals affirmed and accepted the District Court’s conclusion that state law permitted be required schools to hire trained personnel to help with the needs of handicapped children. This entitles an education for those children with special medical needs. “A service that enables a handicapped child to remain at school during the day is an important means of providing the child with the meaningful access to education that Congress envisioned (Eric).”

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

“I would just like to call to the Court’s attention what the realities of that situation are, and I think I can speak with some authority because for the last nine years, my fifteen-year-old- daughter has been denied access to public education…” were the words of Leonard Kalish, a father from the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972), speaking about his daughter not being able to attain a public education (Kemerer and Sansom, 2005). He continues by stating, “…and as a result of which we have had her in private schools…we have spent approximately forty thousand dollars…” (p. 293). Like Mr. Kalish, many parents have gone in front of the courts to fight for their child’s right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and receive financial compensation, like the parents of Jeremy Wartenberg, from Wartenberg v. Capistrano Unified School District (1995) (West Law, 1995). However, before discussing the Wartenberg’s case, it is key to look back on special education and how it has evolved over time.

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.