A teacher’s most important duty is to protect the students they are in charge of. This duty includes both reasonably protecting students from harm and, when a student is harmed, reporting it to the proper authorities (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, pp. 103-109). There have been many court cases that reiterate this duty of school staff. One such case is Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) where many staff at a school failed in their duty to protect students and allowed abuse to continue for years. Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) was an appeal of suit brought by two sets of parents on behalf of their children after it was discovered that Samuel Bracigliano, the children 's’ former principal at Gilbert Avenue Elementary School in Elmwood …show more content…
(Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The judges in this case needed to determine of Elmwood Park Board of Education was at all responsible for this act due to lack of supervision of Bracigliano (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The facts of the case explain that Bracigliano obstructed views into his office as soon as he became the principal in 1982, which was against a New Jersey law that required every room used by school staff to have a view into it (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). During his tenure as principal a state inspector ordered that the covering be removed, which it was, but only temporarily (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The School Board was aware that the covering was ordered to be removed by the state inspector, but they never verified that it had in fact been removed (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Staff members were also aware that students frequently visited Bracigliano’s office, the door was locked, and pictures were taken when the students were in there (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Several staff members also witnessed Bracigliano doing inappropriate things to students, but they were unaware of the procedure to report these acts and, therefore, the acts went unreported to Bracigliano’s superiors (Frugis v. …show more content…
No greater obligation is placed on school officials than to protect the children in their charge from foreseeable dangers, whether those dangers arise from the careless acts or intentional transgressions of others. Although the overarching mission of a board of education is to educate, its first imperative must be to do no harm to the children in its care. A board of education must take reasonable measures to assure that the teachers and administrators who stand as surrogate parents during the day are educating, not endangering, and protecting, not exploiting, vulnerable children (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). 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
In the case of Schmidt v. Massapequa High School, the plaintiff, Schmidt, alleged negligent of the voluntary assistant coach and Massapequa UFSD (Union Free School District). On January 22, 2008, Vincent D’Agostino, who was a voluntary assistant coach at Massapequa High School, was allowed to participate in a wrestling practice by Massapequa UFSD. During the practice, D’Agostino picked the plaintiff up and threw him to the ground. While they were matching, D’Agostino’s body fell onto the body of the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff’s injury, fracture. Thus, the plaintiff, Schmidt, argued that Massapequa UFSD did not supervise D’Agostino correctly, and stated that the application of the doctrine of primary assumption is unwarranted. The plaintiff submits his own affidavit, his mother’s affidavit, and an affidavit of Steven Shettner. Since this case was submitted by the plaintiff, it is considered as a civil case. Shettner is an experienced wrestling coach. He states that there is risk of causing an injury in extracurricular sports; however, awareness of the risk assumed is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School district was the first case to decide that students were protected under the freedom of speech when using online social media outside the school. This case is also often cited in other cases related to off-campus speech. In this case, the student used his home computer to post on his website about his principal and other teachers, using vulgar language. The principal found about the vulgar comments through another student. The principal decided to suspend the student for a total of 10 consecutive days, which resulted in the student’s grades dropping drastically, and also asked him to remove his page.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
“‘Look inside a high school, and you are looking in a mirror, under bright lights. How we treat our children, what they see and learn from us, tell us what is healthy and what is sick and more about who we are than we may want to know (Gibbs, 1999).’”(Beger 119). Essayist and managing editor of Time Magazine, Nancy Gibbs tells the public of how unappealing public schools have become due to their carelessness and negligence. Consequently, schools have become power crazed institutions that punish students in the place of a parent. Thus, schools that operate in this manner have begun to scare the public, and it has brought forth court cases because schools searched students unconstitutionally. The Supreme Court of the United State should revise
A new policy is needed and most certainly should start out with holding schools to handle their own discipline situations, rather than relying on school security and police (Wilson, 2014). School administrators must be able to differentiate between what is a true discipline situation and when a student simply made a mistake. The rate of school suspensions have skyrocketed over the last thirty years from 1.7 million nationwide to 3.1 million and growing today (ACLU, n.d.). Each school needs to create policies of when to get school security involved and what the school’s security job involves. Unless there is a true threat to the safety of the school and/or its student’s law enforcement should never be called (Wison, 2014). The instinct to dial 911 at every infraction has to stop. Furthermore the schools must develop a gender and racial fairness; black children should not be receiving harsher punishments for similar infractions of white students (Wilson,
It has been said for years that any case of educational malpractice was doomed from the start. Because of this, it was a huge surprise when the Iowa Supreme Court denied the defendant, Cedar Rapids Community School District’s motion for summary judgement. This was a case where a student sued for negligent misrepresentation by a school guidance counselor. One reason why the court may have denied the motion was because it was trying to protect a category of people who were considered especially vulnerable, the student-athlete.
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
The defendant of this case is the Board of Education of Tecumseh public school who claims that...
When dealing with kids in public school, school violence is a very serious problem to deal with. I will be holding a meeting which will address upcoming plans for the tragic in on dear school. I will also be pointing out six steps on how we can improve on school security so we can our students and staff members in the awake of Sandy Hook. I will be also be addressing how we can respond and also give tip to parents on how to help their child cope. ...
The aforementioned are example of student trauma, that can lead to further bad behavior and many harshly repeated reprimands targeted toward so-called problem students, for minor infractions that use mean a visit to the principal’s office or staying after
...t. Then later it became clear he was having an issue that was making him extremely upset. The concerned parent talked to the teacher and principal and both told her that the student had inattentiveness in the classes. Now very worried the mother took her son to a university to have him examined for any condition. The experts came up empty. The mother withdrew the child from school and found out that the teacher regularly verbally assaulted her son. The article takes an abrupt turn and discusses the how to deal with the issue. One way is to hear other stories to see if what is happening is an actual situation. Another thing to do is document everything that happens. Then complain professionally. Make sure to complain in turn from those with smaller authority to the superintendent. The most important help those who are bullied because they are the most vulnerable.
The school most certainly had the duty of standard care. Torte explains that there needs to be appropriate and reasonable standards of a professional practice (school) (Dragan, n.d.). The school did not act under professional standards in this case. From my understanding in practicing for my criminal justice degree reasonable standard would have been what the social norm would be at that time. Under the circumstances where children were vulnerable to the opposite sex, they opened it up for possible sexual assault on other students.