Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on school suspensions
Suspension in schools
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on school suspensions
Case 1: Name of Case: Doe v. Withers Basic Issue of the Case – Litigants’ Positions: General education high school teacher, Michael Withers, failed to comply with his student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). D.D. Doe’s IEP required tests to be read orally. Despite knowledge of this IEP and being instructed to follow the IEP by the superintendent, school principal, special education director, and special education teacher, Withers still refused to make the accommodations for D.D.’s handicapping condition. As a result, D.D. failed the history class. His parents filed charges against Withers, arguing that D.D was not afforded the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) promised to all students by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They also filed a claim for injuctive relief against the Taylor County Board of Education to enforce the laws that protect handicapped students. The Stakeholders: 1. John and Jane Doe (parents) filed a complaint on behalf of their son. 2. Michael Withers (Grafton High School …show more content…
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
The proposed expulsions and suspensions from their disability behaviors deprived them of their right to a free and appropriate public education in accordance to the EHA. The Judge ordered the school district from making other disciplinary acts other than a two-to-five-day suspension against any disabled child for disability-related behaviors and ensured that the “stay-put” provision would be in place and no student would be removed. This went to the Ninth-Circuit appeal where the previous decision was affirmed and modified to allow up to a ten-day suspension.
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
2.Facts: This case was originally presented before the district court of Colorado in 1993 on behalf of the parents of Gregory Urban, a seventeen-year-old teen with severe mental disabilities. Gregory and his parents moved to Evergreen, Colorado in 1991. The parents wanted Gregory to go to Evergreen High School but the school district placed him at Golden High School where he participated in support services for children with severe disabilities. The support services at Golden High School were not available at Evergreen High. After the development of Gregory’s IEP his parents voiced objections to what they believed constituted violations of Gregory’s right to a free and appropriate public education. These violations included placement of Gregory outside his neighborhood school and failure to stipulate transition services in his IEP. After initially participating in the IDEA administrative process the parents filed a case with the district court claiming the school district violated Gregory’s rights under IDEA and ADA. The court ruled in favor of the school district by rejecting
The plaintiff, Ruffin, originally sued HISD in 2008 for failing to provide adequate educational assistance as outlined in the individualized education plan (IEP) for the child “L.F.” The result of that hearing was in favor of HISD, thus extinguishing the change of placement, private tutoring, and counseling. In this request for a new trial, Ruffin alleges that the hearing officer in the 2008 suit was engaged in a relationship with HISD’s counsel, stating that the relationship somehow influenced the original decision. Ruffin alleges that the IEP in the 2007 school year was insufficient and that the child should have an extended school year (ESY). However, thenr Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) team meeting determined the child would not
Jeff and Sandy Winkelman live in Parma, Ohio, where they are raising their five children. Their son Jacob has autism-spectrum disorder and is covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); therefore, he is granted the right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and an individualized learning plan (IEP). His parents are also entitled to contribute to Jacob’s education program and participate in an administrative hearing if they cannot reach an agreement. Should that option still leave them with concerns, they also have the right to seek further review in District Court.
Nappi court case went to trial in the district court. The court found that ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was Kathy Stuart. The judge explained that expulsion would reject Stuart from a free and appropriate education guaranteed to special education students in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The expulsion of handicapped children not only jeopardizes their right to an free and appropriate education, but it is also inconsistent with the procedures established by the Handicapped Act for changing the placement of disruptive children. Leagle (1985). STUART v. NAPPI (610 F.Supp. 90). Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985700610FSupp90_1677/STUART%20BY%20AND%20THROUGH%20STUART%20v.%20NAPPI. The court said that expelling students with disabilities will limit their availability to an education in the least restrictive environment. However, the court did rule that school officials could substitute an expulsion with suspension when dealing with a student who met the criteria to be covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In fact, the court ruled that a school district could suspend a student from school for a maximum of only ten days. The court also determined that a school district could also hold a meeting to change the placement of the student if a more restrictive environment was needed. First, school authorities can take swift disciplinary measures, such as suspension, against disruptive handicapped children. Secondly, a (special education committee) can request a change in the placement of handicapped children who have demonstrated that their present placement is inappropriate by disrupting the education of other children. The Handicapped Act thereby affords schools with both short-term and long-term methods of dealing with handicapped children who are behavioral problems. Casetext (1978). STUART V. NAPPI, (D.CONN. 1978). Retrieved from
Rachel’s parent disagreed and with the Districts decision of half time special education placement and placed her in a private school in a general education classroom with supports where she was successfully meeting her IEP goals. Rachel’s parents also appealed the district’s placement decision to a California Special Education hearing officer. After fourteen days of hearing, the hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents and ordered the District to place Rachel in a general education classroom with support services. The District appealed the decision and the courts had to decide if the decision made by the hearing officer complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The courts ruled in favor of the defendant finding that the appropriate placement for Rachel, under the IDEA, was in a general education classroom, with supplemental services, as a full time member of
“The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)1 is unique in providing an elaborate system of procedural due process safeguards to ensure that students with disabilities are properly identified, evaluated, and placed according to its dictates” (Osbourne & Russo, 2014, p. 117). We have procedural safeguards when working in special education ARD meetings. We read assurances at the end of each ARD making sure parents understand that our goal is to ensure all special education children are included with general education children to the maximum extent possible based on individual needs. We ensure that parents understand that they have the right to agree to (as well as decline) a special education evaluation. To make them more effective,
Prior to 1975, educational options for a child living with a mental or physical disability were limited. The family of the handicapped child was most likely forced down an path that lead to the institutionalization of the child and distancing the child from the benefits of receiving a free and public education. It was after federal legislation passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) that monumental changes began to develop that allowed a better understanding of the needs and capabilities of people with various handicapping conditions. Soon after this legislation, Public Law 94-142, also known as the Education for all Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975 (EHA) would further increase the public awareness by providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for children suffering from disabilities. Following the EHA legislation reformations concerning the education of disabled individuals would soon become numerous and legislative acts were passed enabling accommodations for disabled individuals in the fields of vocations and technology. In 1990, President Gerald Ford signed legislation replacing P.L. 94-142 with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA, 20 USC 1400). By definition, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation (US Department of Education, 2011).
Disproportionate identification of minority students in special education is a major concern in schools today. This paper describes the issues in the assessment process with minority students and how we have arrived at a situation where minorities are being misdiagnosed into special education programs. Additionally, several legal cases are mentioned which show numerous actions and rulings that have tried to correct the disproportionate identification in special education. Some of the legal cases discussed include Larry P. v Riles, Diana v. State Board of Education, and Guadalupe v. Tempe Elementary School, which all significantly impacted special education today. Additionally, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act has enforced that minority groups must receive an equal education in the least restrictive environment possible. It is our duty as teachers and citizens to abide by these laws and find different ways to assess and correct the disproportionality of minority groups that exists today.
According to the authors Gartin, B and Murdick, N, (2005).”The Individualized Education Program (IEP) is an essential component in providing a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to individuals with disabilities. The 2004 amendments of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have attempted to reduce the paperwork requirements of the IEP, while simultaneously ensuring that the goal of FAPE is met. Furthermore, the legislation attempts to bring the requirements of IDEA and NCLB into better alignment. Legislative changes to the IEP are described, and possible implications are
Department of Education (2002, August). IDEA’97: Individuals with disabilities educational act amendments of 1997. Retrieved March 23, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA
As a special education program specialist I must know and understand the various federal mandates, policies, and procedures embedded within special education. I oversee several special education programs, which encompass multiple educational professionals. I would closely with speech and language pathologists, psychologist, adaptive physical education therapists, and occupational therapists. I not only have to know about special education curriculum and instruction but I also must know the policies aligned with each special education service. This essential knowledge is vital when striving for proactive interventional that reduce the risk of litigation. I respond to daily inquires relating to special education policies and procedures. In addition, I recognize the importance of responding to each inquiry in a timely fashion, as this provides imperative information that will aid in a student’s ability to access a Free and Appropriate Public Education