Sumter County School District Case Essay

Attempting to obtain information about the district lawyer was harder than I thought. Not lot information was provided. According to the administrators usually in an elementary setting are not so common encounter litigations. Because I was not able to contact the district’s lawyer, the administrator assist me answering some of the questions presented here. The relationship between the law and my school are base in basic standards as curriculum adoption, testing and establishing standards, free and appropriate public education, determining where students can attend school, but nothing as a big litigation against the school. Also, it is addressed the differences in legal framework

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.

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.

Facts: The issue is whether or not the Kentucky General Assembly has fulfilled its constitutional mandate to provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The appellants rather than criticizing the assembly for their work, they wanted to fulfill their constitutional duty to declare that when they consider the evidence in the file and when they apply the constitutional requirement of article 183 to that evidence, it is confirmed that the Assembly General failed on its duty, in other words, the General Assembly of Kentucky is deficient.

Doe v. Big Walnut Local School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 837 F. Supp. 2d 742

This ruling primarily concerned the schools responsibility to “maximize” student achievement and was more focused on the level of services provided rather than the exclusion of benefits due to lack of benefit. (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) The Rowley case ultimately provided a basic “floor of opportunity” and with regard to handicapped children specifically states that … "[t]he Act requires special educational services for children 'regardless of the severity of their handicap,"' … and "[t]he Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied…” (United States Court Of Appeals, 1989) Although Robert Walczak and Karen Walczak V. Florida Union Free School District and Maureen Flaherty produced a ruling that a child should be placed in a program that provides for educational advancement it does not prescribe that a child must show ability to advance before services are rendered.

Mayerson, G. (2012). Analysis of Zachary Deal v. Hamilton County Department of Education . Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/autism.deal.mayerson.analysis.htm

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.

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.

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

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.

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”);

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.