An intentional or reckless act that causes or has the potential to cause physical injury to a teacher or school staff on school grounds or at a school-sponsored activity. What is the title/heading of the above paragraph: Assault of Teacher or Staff What is the Subject of the above sentence? - An intentional or reckless act Jaws ran from the 1100 hallway to the first floor commons area where a fight had occured. He saw another student being restrained, so he grabbed the administrator from behind as an attempt to free the female student. Subject/Predicate of first sentence - Jaws/ran Next sentence is a little tricky. He saw another student being restrained, so he grabbed the administrator from behind as an attempt to free the female student. …show more content…
Code Ann. § 49-6-3401. (I'll link it at the end of this) What we are concerned with is section (i) : (i) Notwithstanding subsection (a) or (b) or any other law to the contrary, if a pupil is determined, via a fair and thorough investigation made by the principal or the principal's appointed representative, to have acted in self-defense under a reasonable belief that the student, or another to whom the student was coming to the defense of, may have been facing the threat of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, which the student honestly believed to be real at that time, then, at the principal's recommendation, the student may not face any disciplinary action. A little confusing with all the legaleze...well maybe only the first word, so I used good ole Google and got this: notwithstanding - adverb: meaning - nevertheless; in spite of Applying our good sense, we know that If a student is coming to the defense of another, fearing for their safety, then that student may not face any disciplinary action, at the principals recommendation. Jaws was coming to the defense of the female student, as is stated by the schools own
202 U.S. 101; 26 S. Ct. 588; 50 L. Ed. 949; 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1522. Date Accessed: 2013/12/04. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
The minority countered this argument when the school board said, “it is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our school from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers” (qtd. in Board of
Washington Law Review, Vol. 86, Issue 4 (December 2011), pp. 841-874 Barnum, Jeffrey C. 86 Wash. L. Rev. 841 (2011)
JustAnswer (2014). Read the Application Case 15 – 1 on pages 503 – 505 of the Textbook. Retrieved from:
The General Court. "General Laws." : CHAPTER 265, Section 37. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. .
388 U.S. 1; 87 S. Ct. 1817; 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1082. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/05/20.
When working practitioners must not only protect the children they work with when in the school setting and off site, but also themselves. Whether in school or off-site the school safeguarding policy should be referred to, to give guidance and adhered to at all times.
The primary student in this critical incident scenario is fourteen years of age, is a
The steps to due process, is that before a student can be suspended from school because of a wrongdoing; they must be given the right to an informal hearing that discusses the accusations and evidence against them which resulted in a disciplinary suspension. Moreover, if a student is facing expulsion the student is entitled to a formal hearing before a neutral body, and the student may have a lawyer and who can cross examine witnesses. Furthermore, students facing these disciplinary actions have a right to remain silent, and do not have to answer any questions without an attorney.
In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension. J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language. J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.
Kress, Victoria, Drouhard, Nicole. (2006). Students Who Self-Injure: School Counselor Ethical and Legal Considerations. Professional School Counseling, 203-208. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from www.schoolcounselor.org
195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Pearl, 89 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Utah 2000).
This case is known for the monumental move the Court made by determining in contrast to the probable cause standard applicable to law enforcement, “no warrant is necessary for administrators and the school only needs to have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search.” Using this new standard, the court found Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion the student had cigarettes on her given the fact the teacher had reported she had been smoking and her purse “was the obvious place to find them.” Thus this reasonable suspicion lead to a more thorough search which the court held was also constitutional. Ultimately, the court weighed the student’s legitimate expectation of privacy and the school’s equally legitimate need to maintain a safe environment and found the school’s interest had more weight.
“Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
[A]ny conduct or method of initiation into any student organization, whether on public or private property, which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person"(Anti- Hazing Policy).