Respond to at least two colleagues in one or more of the following ways:
- Provide additional or alternative suggestions on how to safeguard against the violations identified in the court case.
- Suggest additional or alternative ways on how the ruling might affect future actions of educators and leaders.
- From personal experience, describe a contract-related decision you have made that you would decide differently, based on this week’s learning.
- At least ONE response to a classmate must contain a citation and a reference which is APA 6th edition compliant.
(Note: I posted two of my colleague’s responses to the discussion post below, please respond to their posts. You may begin the response with Hi Daun & Hi Abiodun) (I need a half page response for each person) The instructor is very strict with references and citations. If you do not know how to properly cite references please look it up, my grade will decrease with every reference error. Please use APA 6th edition format. Do not forget to list your references and you must include the in-text citations. Also please use current (meaning within the past 2 years) scholarly journal articles as references. Thanks.
In the 1977 case of Ingraham v. Wright, Ingraham, a 14 year old, eighth grade, Floridian student, was taken to the principal’s office for his disruptive behaviour in the school’s auditorium. According to court documents, he was given five swats by the principal. His refusal to accept responsibility for his actions led him to be forced down where he received 20 swats. James sustained injuries to his body which led him to seek medical attention. He was out of school for 10 days. James and his mother sued the principal and other school officials, claiming that they had violated his Eighth Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishments.” Corporal punishment was permitted in the school district.
The Supreme Court ruled in judgement of the principal and school officials. The Court maintained that reasonable physical discipline at school doesn’t violate the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment, the Justices said, was designed to protect convicted criminals from excessive punishment at the hands of the government; not schoolchildren who misbehave.
The Supreme Court in its ruling, chided the teachers and principals to be cautious when administering corporal punishment to students. The Justices recommended that school officials consider the seriousness of a student’s infraction, the student’s attitude, past behaviour, the age, the physical condition of the student, and the availability of a less severe but equally effective means of discipline.
In the future, the educators should allow the district and states to allow for someone else other than the educators to carry out corporal punishment since the states and districts set the policy regulations.Under Tort Liability 101, litigations under corporal punishment result in assault and battery or child abuse. Educators will be more proactive in trying to avoid litigations.If a kinder and gentler society is to be created, we must get rid of violence, including those against our children as a means of correction, and there is no better place to start than in our schools. There are better ways to discipline children. Training is probably necessary for educators, along with parents to learn these better ways.
School board and parent could have first tried to resolve the issue. Failure to do so, could see the intervention of lawyers. Lawyers from both sides could have worked out an amicable settlement or resolution to the problem. However, under The 1974 National Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, school leaders, teachers, administrators and school counsellors must report known or suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. Failure to do so can subject educators to criminal penalties under the law.
As an educator and thinking about my contractual agreement, the first thing that came to my mind was the Convention on the Rights of the Child: devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Every right stated in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity and harmonious development of every child. (Unicef, 2009). Researchers have shown that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student’s self-image and school achievement and may contribute to disruptive and violent student behaviour. Why, then, do teachers, administrators and other school staff, in the name of discipline, often contribute to students’ misbehaviour and aggression? We must always act in the best interest of the child.
Jacobs, T. (2007, Sept.15) 10Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know. New York Times
Educator Resources. (n.d.)Tort liability101: When are teachers liable?Retrieved from
UNICEF 2009. Convention on the rights of the child. (Online).
The court case that i shall be discussing is titled ‘Evans-Marshal versus Board of Education of the Tipp City Empted Village School District”.
The case was about Mrs Shelley Evans- Marshal who accuses her School’s board for terminating her appointment on the ground that she violated the policy that has to do with using books that had been marked by the authority as ”not to be used” this policy was put in place by the board. She allowed her students in English class to pick books from the unit that had been censored by the board, she also asked her students to read some selected portions of some books that are not to be used by the school. This generated a controversy in the community that made them wrote a petition against her. The board terminated her contract after a petition had been received from about 500 parents.
She became unhappy when her contract was not renewed in March, 2002. She took the board of the school to court in 2005 alleging that the way they terminate her appointment was a violation of her ”first amendment free-speech rights”. She won the ruling from the 6th Circuit this allowed her case to survive a motion to dismiss by the defendants (Mark Walsh, 2010). The court said at that time that it appeared that Evans-Marshall’s termination was ”due to a public outcry engendered by the assignment of protected material that had been approved by the board.”
The suit continued until a group of defendants came up with a motion that Evans-Marshall could not link the public outcry with the decision of the board not to renew her contract. In 2006, the high court held that public employees do not have First Amendment Protection for speech ”pursuant to” their official duties. It was further established that is only the board that has the power to decide what could happen in the classroom, no teacher has no right to amend or adjust in anyway the curriculum that had been approved by the board (Mark Walsh, 2010).
I feel this case should not had gone to court in the first place if measures are in place and always emphasized by the educators, board, and those that are custodians of the policies to stakeholders, policies that guide teachers, students, parents, and administrators. Before the termination of Mrs Evans-Marshall, there should have been a discussion between her and the administration of the district school to warn her and if possible necessary measure taken within leadership of the school that will serve as deterrent to others and the same administration will serve or should serve as mediator between the woman in question and the parents that an understanding will be reached on how the mistake(s) had been dealt with and how it was rectified and the petition would had been prevented.
In my local district there was a case that involved a staff who slapped the other staff, the staff handbook specified that if such happens the one who slaps should be asked to leave and not to return but the then administration felt instead of sending the one who slapped away there should be a due process called ”fair hearing” and that process was followed and it was discovered that the one that was slapped was the one who was wrong and allowed for incident to occur, he actually pushed the one who slapped into doing what he did. The handbook dealt with slapping but not with provocation.
The case was settled within the house without hurting feelings, it was settled amicably.
Educator Resources. (n.d.) Tort liability 101: When are teachers liable? Retrieved from http:// www.educator-resources.com/pdf/Teacher%20Tort%20Liability.pdf