Recent Changes

Friday, September 30

  1. page Chandler v. McMinnville edited Posted By: Hannah DyalChandler v. McMinnville School District 978 United States Supreme Court Ar…
    Posted By: Hannah DyalChandler v. McMinnville School District 978
    United States Supreme Court
    Argued/Decided 1992
    Background:
    Teachers in school district 968 were involved in a strike. The school hired replacement teachers during that time. Two of the teachers involved in the strike had children in the school. The two students went to school with buttons on their clothing which contained language such as “scab” and “we want our real teachers back”. They were asked to remove the buttons. Once they did not, they were suspended for willful disobedience for the remainder of the day. The following day, they returned to school with buttons still attached. They were asked again to remove the buttons and felt that their first amendment rights had been violated.
    Decision and Rationale:
    The court decided that the students’ rights were not violated. They were never asked to remove the buttons that said “we want our teachers back” or “Students united for fair settlements”. They were only asked to remove the buttons with the word “scab” which is considered offensive and disruptive. The court also stated that administrators do not have to wait for a disruption to occur before asking students to remove lewd articles of clothing.
    Impact on Teaching:
    Teachers can ask a student to remove any article of clothing that is considered vulgar or offensive. Students are protected by the first amendment but may not go overboard because of that protection.
    Question:
    True/False: Teachers are not allowed to ask students to remove lewd articles of clothing.
    Randall McCarty
    Chandler v. McMinnville School Dist.
    978 F.2d 524; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27834 (9th Cir.,1992)
    Background
    After their fathers joined other teachers in a strike at McMinnvile High School in Oregon, two students Chandler and Depweg expressed their displeasure by wearing buttons to school. When a large number of teachers went on strike the school hired temporary replacement teachers. The buttons wore by the boys were in silent protest of the situation. The two students were told to remove the buttons by the school principal, Whitehead, but they refused and were suspended for the remainder of the day. Whitehead suspended the two because he felt their buttons were being disruptive, although a teacher contended they were not, as well as their disobedience.
    Decision and Rationale
    Chandler and Depweg filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. @ 1983 claiming their buttons were not disruptive and the requested removal of them was in violation of their freedom of expression which is protected under the First Amendment. The school district moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the motion, stating that the slogans on the buttons were "offensive" and "inherently disruptive." Nonetheless, schools cannot deny students the right to freely express themselves, but do maintain the authority to decide what is acceptable according to its mission as an educational institution.
    Implications
    Teachers will do well to protect the rights of students seeking to express themselves, if it is done in a manner that is acceptable by the school,offensive, and does not conflict with the overall goal of the school. In addition, protecting such rights allows for teachers do experience the same freedom of expression within the same bounds as the students. Teachers should always defer to an administrator in situations that seem too difficult or sensitive to be handled in a classroom to protect themselves against any legal action that may be taken.
    Question: According to Chandler v. McMinnville can a school justify limiting a student’s freedom of expression?
    Hi
    (view changes)
  2. page Chandler v. McMinnville edited ... Argued/Decided 1992 Background: ... school district 978 968 were involved Decision and…
    ...
    Argued/Decided 1992
    Background:
    ...
    school district 978968 were involved
    Decision and Rationale:
    The court decided that the students’ rights were not violated. They were never asked to remove the buttons that said “we want our teachers back” or “Students united for fair settlements”. They were only asked to remove the buttons with the word “scab” which is considered offensive and disruptive. The court also stated that administrators do not have to wait for a disruption to occur before asking students to remove lewd articles of clothing.
    ...
    Chandler and Depweg filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. @ 1983 claiming their buttons were not disruptive and the requested removal of them was in violation of their freedom of expression which is protected under the First Amendment. The school district moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the motion, stating that the slogans on the buttons were "offensive" and "inherently disruptive." Nonetheless, schools cannot deny students the right to freely express themselves, but do maintain the authority to decide what is acceptable according to its mission as an educational institution.
    Implications
    ...
    by the school, is not lewd or offensive,school,offensive, and does
    Question: According to Chandler v. McMinnville can a school justify limiting a student’s freedom of expression?
    (view changes)

Saturday, February 20

  1. page Fallon v. INDIAN TRAIL SCHOOL edited Michael Mooney Fallon Michael MooneyFallon v. INDIAN Background: ... hazardous activitie…

    Michael Mooney
    Fallon
    Michael MooneyFallon v. INDIAN
    Background:
    ...
    hazardous activities.
    Decision and Rationale:
    The original decision of the courts was to dismiss the counts of contention and rule in favor of the defendants. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court as they agreed to the dismissal of the charges. The court agreed that the case, City of Joliet v. Harwood (1877), does contain and define ultra hazardous activity, however, the subject of trampoline and trampoline usage does not fall into the parameters of the law. The court added that negligent use can be a basis for liability, but the ordinary use of a trampoline does not make it abnormally dangerous, Snow v. Judy (1968), 96 Ill. App.2d 420, 423. The final portion of the case, the negligent hiring of the teachers in question, was also dismissed. The court concluded there was not sufficient evidence that would show the school system knew the teachers were able and willing to do harm to others citing the case, Gregor v. Kleiser (1982), 111 Ill. App.3d 333 where the employer had previous knowledge of inherent dangers.
    ...
    What was the case Gregor v. Kleiser about?
    Reviewed by: David Boeck
    ...
    931 (1986)
    500

    500
    N.E.2d 101
    MARY JANE FALLON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    INDIAN TRAIL SCHOOL, ADDISON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 4, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 85-0806.
    ...
    Second District.
    Opinion filed October 31, 1986.
    Rehearing denied December 2, 1986.
    (view changes)

Sunday, November 8

  1. page Wood v. Strickland edited ... et al. penis Supreme Court of United States Argued October 16, 1974 Decided February 25,…
    ...
    et al. penis
    Supreme Court of United States
    Argued October 16, 1974 Decided February 25, 1975
    (view changes)

Saturday, October 24

Thursday, August 27

  1. page Honig v. Doe edited ... It is scary to think that a student could be a real danger to teaching staff and other student…
    ...
    It is scary to think that a student could be a real danger to teaching staff and other students, but the procedures that have been set in place must be honored. This requires diligence in communicating with administrators and parents. Documentation is also very important if resolutions are to be found.
    Quiz Question
    ...
    the classroom butt setting for
    Reviewed independently by Eileen Boyd
    HONIG v. DOE, 484 U.S. 305 (1988)
    (view changes)

Saturday, March 14

Tuesday, March 3

  1. page 2012 East Hartford Education Association v. Board of Education edited Betsy Crumbliss Seth Jacobs Court Case 9 East Hartford Education Association v. Board of Edu…
    Betsy Crumbliss
    Seth Jacobs
    Court Case 9
    East Hartford Education Association v. Board of Education
    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    (view changes)

Monday, February 23

  1. page Honig v. Doe edited ... Decided January 20, 1988 Background ... Doe” was going to be Decision and Rationale …
    ...
    Decided January 20, 1988
    Background
    ...
    Doe” was going to be
    Decision and Rationale
    The District Court ruled to stand by the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) as it was written. It requires states to provide “free and appropriate public education” for children with disabilities. It guaranteed that parents are included in the decision making process. The “stay put” clause is the sticking point here. Students must be allowed to stay in their existing educational assignment until the situation is evaluated by the proper authorities, unless an agreement is made between parents and educators.
    ...
    Students in Southern California with severe emotional problems were in danger of being expelled from the school program. The first student "Doe" was suspended multiple times and up for expulsion. The superintendent was hoping that with the documented incidents of verbal and physical outburst would be grounds to remove students with this type of disability from the school program based on the fact it disrupted learning and a safety threat to others. Another student "Smith" was also facing similar action and had already been attending half day of school instead of a full day because of his behavior. Parent's of "Doe" sought legal help and was granted an injunction allowing the students to return to school until a decision was made.
    Decision/Rationale:
    ...
    Also the
    "stay-put" provision prohibits state or local school authorities from unilaterally excluding disabled children from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive conduct growing out of their disabilities. This essentially states that even though the behavior may be violent in nature it is not consider or under the same rules and regulations as others due to the student's disability. Students are allowed to stay in their learning environment until the matter can be fully investigated and adressed. The only exception to this is when the educators and parents reach an agreement for other accomodations. By the time the case was heard "Doe" was 24 and "Smith" 21 so they no longer were protected by the EHA making the case moot but the ruling was upheld and was based on the fact that there was no provision or clause that would exclude students who were violent and abusive due to a disablity.
    Impact on Teaching:
    (view changes)

More