such as a science fair, for example. If a student’s project explodes, or someone accidently is stabbed with a needle or sharp object, or has an allergic reaction to an edible experiment, that individual may attempt to hold the district liable. However, educators should know that “enlightened courts are aware of the fact that an unrealistic interpretation of tort law could” (Seitz, 1971, p. 551) lend to this reaction from teachers and do what they can to rule reasonably with this in mind. An example of when this discretion could be applied differently is if four students ask to stay inside alone during recess to complete a group project. While an accident without supervision is possible, if the students are known to be responsible, a teacher …show more content…
This includes physical education, technical education, family and consumer sciences, science classes that include laboratory projects, and technical courses where special needs students are present. Not only are teachers in these areas responsible to hold the same standards of supervision, but also are responsible for explaining the uses and mechanics of the machine and tools with which students will engage during the course of the class (Seitz, 1971). Beyond those special interest classrooms, there are also special situations that administrations should pay extra attention to, which include field trips, movement between classes, activities at school-sponsored activities, dances, athletic contests, and the school bus (Seitz, 1971). These types of situations would clearly fall into negligent liability, since the teacher doesn’t prepare for risks “inherent in certain activities” (Ripps, 1975, p. …show more content…
“Sovereign immunity” describes the concept that state law often protects school districts from the ability to be sued both in civil or criminal court; even though that immunity does not extend to teachers, it is found that “in most instances it tends to discourage lawsuits and curtails any type of redress that could have been made available to the injured student” (Ripps, 1975, p. 19). Many states have waived sovereign immunity, but not all have done so, so it is important for administrators to discuss this idea with the faculty staff at every
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
“‘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
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.
The leading issue of the WA DoE Duty of Care for Students Policy is stated in Section 1.A “Teaching staff owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety and welfare of students whilst students are involved in school activities or are present for the purposes of a school activity” (WA DoE, 2007, p. 3). This means teachers are legally responsible to protect students from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm whenever a relationship exists between a teacher and a student. Some examples include in the playground, the classroom or during a school excursion. The second important issue addressed in the WA DoE Duty of Care for Students Policy is how teachers use their professional judgement to assess dangers, guard against risk of injury to students, and determine levels of care required, based on their knowledge of individual students and the type of school activity undertaken.... ...
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
Groves, S. L., & Groves, D. L. (1981). Professional Discretion and Personal Liability of Teachers in Relation to Grades and Records. Education, 101(4), 335-340.
The first list of obligations in the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida contains 9 rules that has involved with the educator and their students. They involve protection, safety, restrains, points of view, learning subjects, embarrassment, legal rights, harassment, discrimination, relationships and personal information. Many of these rules are important for an educator to r...
20 May 2014. This article shows a majority of the cases that are relevant to the topic and research questions; it clearly shows the articles that are involved with public schools and how and what they did. It helps answer that research question because it shows that some of the schools are capable of bypassing the system, but sometimes get overturned. Paulson, Ken. A.
Everyone knows that parents’ first worry is the safety of their children. With the increase of violence in schools, parents have started to wonder if their children are really safe in the school setting. Shootings like Sandy Hook and Columbine left parents, administrators, and educators feeling the need to be proactive towards children’s safety. Reacting to situations like these is not good enough when children’s lives are on the line. Administration has started to brainstorm different ways to help insure the protection of their students. The idea of having teachers carry concealed weapons has been on the front burner for quite some time. As a result of this extreme idea, insurance companies have started to increase or even cancel policies with schools that have armed teachers because of the high risk they are putting themselves at. Parents and administrators also worry about the idea of children getting their hands on one of the teachers’ weapons and injuring themselves or other students. Because this idea seems quite extreme, I believe there are other alternatives that are less dramatic and more positively out looked, such as having armed security guards in schools.
The largest and first assault on the rights of students to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures occurred in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In 1980 at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J. a few girls were caught smoking in the bathroom. After being brought to the principal's office one of the girls, T.L.O., denied that she had been smoking. The principal then searched her purse looking for cigarettes. After finding a pack of cigarettes the search continued until the principal discovered evidence of drug dealing. This evidence was used to prosecute T.L.O. and ultimately she received a year of p...
The Johnson County school board may be very resistant to the idea of allowing public access for the use of facilities to improve physical activity in the community due to liability concerns. These liability concerns are issues of additional cost, such as having to acquire additional health insurance to cover uninsured persons and for maintenance or damages that could occur to the school faciliti...
These cases and due process standards allow for a protection of students within the school, and ensure that student’s constitutional rights do not stop at the schoolhouse gates. Moreover, these cases ensure that administrators are running schools in a manner that is fair and consistent, and not arbitrarily disciplining students without due process. I think they provide for an efficient school because students will understand what they are being disciplined for, and have the ability to engage in a defense of the...
The school is to protect the students from any wrong doing towards them. Such act, parents, school official and other authorities will be contacted. The case in Oakland County MI, opens many eyes for students and parents. The school board has responsibility to report such harm. This is not taken lightly, serious offense. Students could face years in prison, or face felonies.
... crying.” The plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 (2000) and civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2000). The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the basis of qualified immunity. The court dismissed the state law claims but found that the defendant had in fact violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights due to the fact that “a state actor, through his agents, cannot randomly beat a student.” The defendant was also denied dismissal of the claim based on qualified immunity because a state actor cannot arbitrarily commit violence against a student. The plaintiff was able to show that Coach Edmundson’s conduct did violate his constitutional right of substantive due process to be free from the infliction of malicious corporal punishment by school official.
Which can be having armed officers walk though halls, making sure the school is safe from any harm that could potentially happen.