Court Cases And Decisions

Court Cases And Decisions

Monday: Reading Religious Text in Class

I would allow Goldstein to continue reading the religious book during the reading session. My decision would be based on the First Amendment of the constitution. The Amendment, under the Free Exercise and freedom of speech, allows Goldstein to read any religious material that he wants (“First Amendment,” n.d). Moreover, since he is reading quietly and not infringing on the rights of other students to read the materials they have chosen freely, I would let him finish the study session.

However, after the lesson, I would ask Goldstein for a deeper explanation. I would ask Goldstein whether the religious material belongs to the library or if it is a personal copy. If the book belongs to the library, I would advise that he returns it to the library. Similarly, I would inform Goldstein to tell the students that the religious text is meant for secular studies and not a display of the school’s preference for a particular religion if the copy belongs to the school. Nonetheless, if it is a personal copy, I would tell him to conceal the material during lesson time to prevent the perception of furthering religious studies in a public elementary school, citing the First Amendment and the ruling in Robert v Madigan case (“Roberts v Madigan,” 1990). In Robert v Madigan, Ms. Madigan’s decision to tell Robert to hide his Bible in class to avoid furthering religious studies was supported by the Supreme Court. Moreover, displaying the material is against the Establishment Clause that was created in the Lemon v Kurtzman case by breaking the second clause (“Lemon v Kurtzman,” n.d.). Equally, I would inquire if Goldstein plans to share his religious findings with the students. Sharing religious insights would amount to furthering religious studies. I would tell Goldstein that he has an integral role in showing that the school is not entangled with a religious group.

I would encourage Goldstein to read the religious text, as it is within his rights, but that he should not declare his religious affiliation or preferences as it would jeopardize the school’s image and result in legal battles.

Tuesday: The Pledge

I will take the following steps after the pledge incident. First, I will inform teacher Green that constitutionally, the First Amendment grants her religious freedom. Consequently, it was not wrong for her to conserve her religious beliefs and sit during the pledge. Next, I would tell her that indeed, she was right to claim hers and the children’s freedom to salute the flag, citing the W. VA State Bd of Education v. Barnette case. The ruling in the case indicated that that national symbols like flags should not receive deference that overlooks constitutional protection (“W. VA Bd. v. Barnette,” (n.d.). Hence, observing the First Amendment trumps the reverence to a national symbol. Moreover, the First amendment cannot enforce the unanimity of opinion. Henceforth, I would remind her that she and some students are at liberty to have a different opinion on the pledge. Furthermore, forcing learners and the instructor does not guarantee patriotism. Instead, the learners would be more patriotic if the individuals said the pledge voluntarily.  I would then seek Green’s help in spreading awareness concerning the obligation to state the pledge, to other students and teachers in a public school. When all the students and teachers know their rights, there will be no victimization. I support Green’s decision.

Wednesday: Special Education

I would liaise with the special education supervisor to conduct a few activities before deciding to move the child to a neighboring school. I would first analyze the existing individualized education program (IEP) in my school to ensure that it meets the child’s need for making progress in the general education curriculum, and the meeting the child’s other needs that stem from his disability (“IDEA series,” 2018). If my school comfortably meets these needs, then the child should remain within the school. In addition, I would explain to the supervisor that IDEA advocates for disabled children to learn with nondisabled counterparts as close to their home as possible. The child was already attaining both objectives while enrolled in my school. Hence, if the child is transferred, there will be grounds for a case. I would also conduct an assessment with the child’s former teachers to understand if he disrupted classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, which could not be attained satisfactorily. If the teachers cite that the learner does not disrupt the lessons, there is no need for a transfer. If there are disruptions, I will rely on the Oberti v Clementon case (“IDEA series,” 2018). The court ruled in favor of Oberti, who also had Downs Syndrome, claiming that academic progress in a segregated school did not warrant exclusion from a regular classroom. The Third Circuit Court also added that schools were not expected to offer disabled and abled children the same learning experience. Together with the supervisor, I will analyze the benefits of and integrate versus segregated system, non-academic benefits, the impact of the student on his peers, and the cost of the supplementary services. Previous records will guide the analysis. If positive, the learner should be left in the school. Even when the results are not satisfactory, I will emphasize that being in an integrated environment is better than segregation. I would tell the supervisor to support the parent’s decision.

Thursday: Enrollment of Non-Natives

I would take the following immediate steps in light of the situation. For one, I would tell my secretary to try and get more information about the whereabouts of the family. Similarly, I would have a meeting with the enrollment office staff. In the meeting, I would explain that the school is not allowed to discriminate against children based on residency and documentation. I will then enlighten them on the McKinney-Vento Act (“Homeless education,” n.d.). The Act, I will emphasize, protects homeless people’s right to go to school without producing residential evidence. People staying in motels, as in this case, were also eligible for protection under the Act. Moreover, the children are allowed enrollment in my school, as is the nearest to their home. I will also cite the ruling of the Plyler v. Doe case, where a Texas law prohibiting the admission of undocumented students illegal (“Plyler v Doe,” n.d.). It was held that denying these students education did nothing to improve the quality of learning and that it contravened the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment guarantees protection and equal rights to people residing in the US. Before the meeting ends, I will instruct the Enrollment office to make changes to the enrolment requirements to include the provisions in the Act. The new changes will be communicated to the staff and students via email and MEMOs, and the website. Posters will also be placed in public spaces, hoping that the parent will see the changes and come back to the school.

Friday: Bullying

The student discipline procedure will follow Federal Laws. For one, I will investigate the issue immediately by calling the fighting students, teachers, and a few witnesses. The investigation will be impartial, and statements made will be in writing (“Laws, policies, and regulations,” 2020). As the investigation is ongoing, I will ensure that the two students have minimal contact. If it is determined that an act of bullying had occurred, I will call the two students and their parents or guardians. I am required by the Fourteenth Amendment to give all parties a hearing opportunity before making any decision (“Goss v Lopez,” n.d.). The hearing will be objective and impartial. I will assess the discipline records of the students. One of the students, unfortunately, is a known bully. As such, I will expel this bully. However, I will give a 24-hour notice to the parents as required by law. I will make an informed decision.

After the incident, I will undertake the following restorative measures. I will have school-level strategies. The first activity will be publicizing the prevention practices for bullying. This entails publicizing the school’s anti-bullying policies in a simple language (Rafa, 2019). If need be, I will revise the bullying policies to emphasize that bullying is wrong and that the school does not tolerate the act. I will firmly remind the students that everyone has an equal right to be in the school and should not accept bullying based on their religion, gender, race, or any other traits. In addition, with the aid of the teachers and school counselor, I will formulate lessons that focus on understanding, tolerance, identifying, and reporting bullying. I would also encourage students to understand and forgive each other. Social and emotional studies will also be incorporated in the school. At the case level, I will avail support services, such as extra classes and examination retakes to the suspended student. I will ensure bullying and fighting do not thrive in the school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Education for Homeless Children. (n.d.). Part C: Homeless Education.

Goss v Lopez. (1975). LexisNexis.

IDEA series: The Segregation of Students with Disabilities. (2018). National Council on Disability.

Laws, Policies, and Regulations. (2020). Federal Laws.

Lemon v. Kurtzman. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89

Plyler v. Doe. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-1538

Rafa, A. (2019). Policy Analysis. Education Commission of the States.

Roberts v Madigan. (1990). United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Retrieved from https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/921/921.F2d.1047.89-1014.html

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624