Case Study Signature Assignment
Joanne Lewis-Sawyer
National University
EDA 618
Carl Beyer
4/30/2015
Comprehensive Education Case Study
Abstract
Educational law promotes our interest and understanding in education legal frameworks. This paper seeks to review an assigned education law case study with an aim proving an in-depth analysis of the facts presented in the case. To do this effectively, the author considers relevant education case laws combined with literature on U.S. education law. Where possible, at every stage of the paper, the writer looks at the facts presented and relates them to relevant cases decided in the U.S. as well as uses literature to support the stand taken by the writer. Therefore, it is these court decisions and arguments in literature that inform the position of the author at each point.
- What are the statutory time elements affecting Myron’s employment? Does the 75 percent rule come into play? Is he tenured? In what district?
A teacher attains tenure after satisfactorily complying with certain specific state statutory provisions such as serving a probationary period which generally runs for two to five years (Martin & Loomis, 2013). During this time, the teacher is employed by the school board on a term contract (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). Mr. Stress was thus tenured in the Harpoon Valley Unified School District given that he successfully completed two regular contract years term at Sandpiper Middle School. In Cipu v. North Haven Board of Education, 32 Conn. Supp. 264, 351 A.2d 76 (1974) and Spiewak v. Board of Education, 90 N.J. 63, 447 A.2d 140 (1982), the Courts held that a teacher can only attain tenure after completing a statutory time. As per the provisions of the U.S. Education Code 44954, the issue of 75 percent does not arise given that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that Mr. Stress was released by the school board for purposes of seeking certification qualification during his temporary employment.
- Is there any necessary information regarding Myron’s relationship with Martha? Would his marriage have any effect on the case?
Intimate relationships are rarely permitted in schools because they are viewed by many as compromising teachers’ moral conduct and professionalism, hence rendering the teachers concerned unfit for service (Brubacher, 1969). In Boyd v. Boyd, 131 SW 3d 605 (2004), basing its decision on the facts of the case, the Court ruled that the circumstances evident in the case created a wrong doing because of the harmful nature of the impression such a relationship had on others, particularly the students. The Court further noted that if such moral standards do not apply to a code of proper personal conduct, then, by all means, it should in the teaching profession. While the Court’s decision was guided by the fact that the two teachers were cohabiting and sending a wrong message to the students, the current case does not in any way lend itself to the facts of the case above. Mr. Stress and Martha Croissant married shortly after Mr. Stress began serving at Herman Melville High School. Their marriage does not therefore have an effect on the case.
- What is significant about Myron’s driving the golf team, cheerleaders, and his wife to the golf tournament? Are there any liability issues present? Does the number of students in the van have any relevance to the case? What about the condition of the van? Is that a relevant issue? Do the distance and the destination have any relevance to the case?
Since there is no evidence of the school or the school district giving permission for Mr. Stress to drive the golf team, cheerleaders, and his wife to the tournament, it may be assumed that he did so out of his own will and had not acted on behalf of the school. The legal issue at stake in this case is Mr. Stress’ lack of care and duty to those in the van. In the District of Columbia v. Royal, 465 A.2d 367 (1983), the Court held that the school’s negligence and failure to ensure the safety of students caused students to suffer injuries at the construction site. In another case, in Johnson v. City of Boston, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 24, 490 N.E.2d 1204 (1986), it was the opinion of the Court that shatterproof glass panels posed imminent danger to students. As a consequence, the city of Boston was held liable. Similarly, the condition of Mr. Stress’ van constituted a dangerous condition to the occupants in the van at the time of the accident, hence its relevance to the case. However, the number of students in the van raises no cause of concern as is the distance. Finally yet importantly, while Mr. Stress’ intention to drive the golf team, cheerleaders, and his wife to the golf tournament, one can submit with a lot of certainty that he failed to inform the school administrators of his intentions. Again, this would make him liable.
- Do the known facts regarding the accident have relationship to liability? Might there be any comparative negligence because of the fight within the van? Does Mrs. Stress’ estate have any liability for her action or inaction?
In handling students, teachers and schools are expected to exercise adequate supervision based on the required standard of care (Alexander & Alexander, 2011). In Laneheart v. Orleans Parish School Board, 524 La. Ct. App. So.2d 138 (1998), the Court awarded damages to the student who slipped and ended up cutting his face on glass. The Court found that the school district had failed to adequately supervise the playground, causing injuries to students. In another case, King v. Kartanson, 720 Tenn. Ct. App. S.W.2d 65 (1986), the Court held that the law does not require teachers to personally escort students across streets as a show of non-negligence. It must be noted that the two cases above are different in scope and circumstance. While it is expected of the two teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Stress to supervise the students in the van and ensure their safety, it was not mandatory for Mrs. Stress to act ay more than Mr. Stress given that they both tried to break the fight between the students.
- What are the issues surrounding Arnold Bogey? Is sexual harassment a possible issue? Could he be disciplined in the same manner and using the same procedures as other students? Do you think Arnold was correct in his remark?
Since Arnold Bogey is a special education student, he needs a lot of care and supervision in order to control his behavior and aggression towards others. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999), one of LaShonda Davis’ classmates repeatedly subjected her to months of harassing behavior. The boy was later charged with sexual battery to which he pleaded guilty. Despite the evidence presented before the Court, the district court dismissed the case arguing that Title IX had not provided for a basis with regard to student-on-student sexual harassment. However, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, found that the district court had erred in its determination of the case. Johnson (2001, p.786) states that the Supreme Court’s decision was qualified because the principal and the school, as recipients of federal funds knew about the harassment yet chose to behave indifferently towards such harassment allegations. Based on this ruling, sexual harassment is an issue. As a consequence, this paper does not support nor finds his remarks appropriate. Due process should therefore be followed to discipline him.
- What search issues are involved regarding the student who was found to possess marijuana? Is the amount of marijuana relevant? Are there any mandatory expulsion issues?
The search issues commonly associated with schools ad students were illuminated in Rhodes v. Guarricino, 54 F. Supp. 2d 186 (1999) where the students were notified prior to the room checks that the school reserved the right to carry out checks for drugs and other suspicious substances. During a school funded field trip to Disney World, the chaperone suspected that the students were using marijuana. Upon checking, he discovered marijuana and alcohol. As a consequence, the students were sent home and suspended. In this case, Mr. Stress is taken as acting loco parentis making the search legal. For possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, the SB 2450 removes criminal penalties but replaces such penalties with civil fines for first offenders and a sum of $500 for repeat offenders (Hawdon & Kleiman, 2011; Welner & Chi, 2008). As such, the student would receive at least a criminal penalty. In Hinds County School District v. R.B., 10 So.3d 387 (2008), the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the school’s mandatory expulsion for students possessing weapons and knives within school. Similar parameters are evident in the current case. As such, the issue of mandatory expulsion arises.
- Have the school and the Rev. Pulpit acted properly? How should the funeral have been handled?
Reverend Pulpit and the school administration failed to act appropriately by conducting the funeral service of Mrs. Stress at the school during school hours. It would be expected that the funeral service would have been held outside the school or outside the school hours. Also, it is not good practice to compel all students to attend the funeral service. This contravened their right to choose whether to attend the funeral procession or not.
- What leave rights does Myron have? How should he access them?
As per the U.S. Education Code 44977, Myron is entitled to a sick leave which includes any accumulated sick leave he might have forgone. During this sick leave, he is entitled a five-month leave period which should run consecutively. Also, the Educational Code 44981 does not require Myron to secure advance permission for leave for the death of his wife, Mrs. Stress as well as for the injuries he suffered during the accident.
- Does Heather Medalist have any liability or special education claims against the district?
That a school has duty to its students is not new. Duty in this context refers to the formal link that exists between a school’s or representative of the school conduct and liability before the law (Alexander & Alexander, 2011). In Nylander v. Oregon, 292 P.2d 1286 (1981), the Court determined that that a school had a duty to provide a person that is injured as a result of noncompliance legal remedy. Heather suffered a broken back which caused her permanent disability accompanied with a limited likelihood of regaining full coordination of her legs. Heather had wanted to compete for a gymnastics scholarship once she gets to college as well as become a professional dancer upon graduating from college. The accident seems to shutter this dream. The Mariner View Unified School District is thus legally liable to provide her with a legal remedy that is likely to cater for her special education needs given that she suffered a severe back likely to cause her permanent disability. This would be resonate with the decision in Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972) where the district court held that all school-aged children with disabilities must be provided with free and adequate public education (Palestini & Falk, 2012).
- Does Bernard Center have claim to a future scholarship? Does the district have any liability should he not get a scholarship? What about the liability regarding the other students?
Scholarships are often awarded at the discretion of the school board. Basing this paper’s stand in Brands v. Sheldon Community School, 671 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Iowa 1987) where the Court held that the decision to award scholarships rested with the college coach and that the plaintiff could not “invoke his expectation that he would earn a scholarship at the state tournament in order to claim a property interest” (Alexander & Alexander, 2011, p.508; Russo & Mawdsley, 2002). Therefore, the district does not have any liability, at least not directly in this case. However, the district might still be liable in relation to the other students based on issues concerning their care and supervision while in and out of school.
- What rights does Sam Chatsworth have to print his story about Myron? Can George Ismael suspend him? Did Corrine Comma act properly? Did George Ishmael treat Corrine Comma fairly and legally?
Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution. In Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), Justice Brandeis held that the freedom to speak and think were important in the discovery and dissemination of political truths. In the ruling, his Lordship further stated that such freedoms protect against the spread of noxious doctrine and that this is a fundamental principle in the American Constitution (Alexander & Alexander, 2011). This means that Sam had the right to print the story about Myron, regardless of the fact that it received least favor from the principal, George. As such, George cannot suspend Sam on grounds that he printed Mr. Stress’ story. It was best for George to investigate the incident before taking any decision, particularly toward Corrine, the newspaper faculty advisor. Also, such an investigation would have revealed that it was Sam’s idea to include the ‘Have you Heard’ column without permission from Corrine. Treating Corrine the way George did, without a hearing, was thus illegal and unfair.
- Can the Harpoon valley board promise Martin his job back at a private meeting? If he does get it back, is he tenured? Does the 39 month rule apply?
In Elvin v. City of Waterville, 573 A.2d 381 (1990), the Court held that the employment of a public school teachers was controlled by the statute. To reinstate a teacher to service, there has to be an investigation and a due notice for hearing issues and a hearing thereon before a teacher can be reinstated or dismissed from service. The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. Back to the current case, it would therefore not be right for the Harpoon Valley board to promise to give Mr. Stress his job back. The due process has to be followed: investigations done, notice of hearing issued, and thereafter a hearing held to examine the facts of the case and determine his suitability to offer service (Alexander & Alexander, 2004). If employed by the Harpoon Valley Unified School District, he would be tenured since it was there that he got his tenure. According to U.S. Education Code 44956, since Mr. Stress is not out of employment yet, the 39 month rule does not apply because it is employed for persons who were out of employment and would like consideration for reappointment.
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2004). American Public School Law (6th edn). Belmont,
CA: Cengage Learning.
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2011). American Public School Law (8th edn). Belmont,
CA: Cengage Learning.
Brubacher, J. S. (1969). The Law and Higher Education: a Casebook: Students, professors. v. 2.
Administration, academic program, torts. New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Hawdon, J., & Kleiman, M. (2011). Encyclopedia of Drug Policy: “The War on Drugs” Past,
Present, and Future. Washington, DC: SAGE.
Johnson, J. W. (2001). Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2 (2nd edn). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2011). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices (6th
edn). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Martin, D., & Loomis, K. (2013). Building Teachers: A Constructivist Approach to Introducing
Education (2nd edn). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Palestini, R., & Falk, K. P. (2012). Law and American Education: A Case Brief Approach (3rd
edn). Plymouth, PL: R&L Education.
Russo, C. J., & Mawdsley, R. D. (2002). Education Law. New York: Law Journal Press.
Welner, K. G., & Chi, W. C. (2008). Current Issues in Educational Policy and the Law.
Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Case Laws
Boyd v. Boyd, 131 SW 3d 605 (2004)
Brands v. Sheldon Community School, 671 F. Supp. 627 (N.D. Iowa 1987)
Cipu v. North Haven Board of Education, 32 Conn. Supp. 264, 351 A.2d 76 (1974)
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999)
District of Columbia v. Royal, 465 A.2d 367 (1983)
Elvin v. City of Waterville, 573 A.2d 381 (1990)
Hinds County School District v. R.B., 10 So.3d 387 (2008)
Johnson v. City of Boston, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 24, 490 N.E.2d 1204 (1986)
King v. Kartanson, 720 Tenn. Ct. App. S.W.2d 65 (1986)
Laneheart v. Orleans Parish School Board, 524 La. Ct. App. So.2d 138 (1998)
Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972)
Nylander v. Oregon, 292 P.2d 1286 (1981)
Rhodes v. Guarricino, 54 F. Supp. 2d 186 (1999)
Spiewak v. Board of Education, 90 N.J. 63, 447 A.2d 140 (1982)
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|