Education Law: Amendments, Student Rights, and Legal Requirements

This essay provides a comprehensive overview of education law, beginning with an introduction to the U.S. administration's interest in schooling and the significance of various amendments. It delves into specific amendments, including the Tenth Amendment and its impact on state responsibilitie...Read More

1
Education Law
Name
Course
Date

2
Introduction
Over the past several years the U.S administration in one approach or the other has raised its
deep interests in schooling.1Various amendments have been made each with various importances
that aim at making operations in the public school system effective and smooth.
1. Specific Amendments Pertaining Education
To begin with, the tenth correction of the ordinance, it avails the background in lawful
approach for making schooling a responsibility of the country. The amendment says that “The
authority not given to the America by the Ordinance, nor outlawed by the country, is kept to the
country in particular or to the residents”.2 The effect of this amendment in directing the America
to bear the full liability of availing schooling has not been less. It furnishes for the substantiation
of the countrywide teaching system. It gives the state responsibilities to define in details the
structure for maintaining and organizing the public education system. The Supreme Court, as
well as the state courts, have on numerous occasions captained that tutoring is a responsibility of
the government.
Secondly, we have the so called Student Speech and the First Amendment. Freedom of
speech is the highly shielded individual liberties in the States. Most probably children were not
1 J. Stahl, 10 important Supreme Court cases about education. October 30, 2015. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-
important-supreme-court-cases-about-education/ (accessed October 29, 2018).
2 Swann Lesley, "Constitutional Schooling. On Education." Tenth Amendment Center, 2011: Online.

3
giving up their constitutional rights as a condition to attend public schools. This was recognized
by the U.S Supreme court in the mid-twentieth century. It came to the recognition of the
legislation that open school was a good medium in which the reference of such precisions could
be instilled. Schools function as a marketplace of thoughts. It is a solitary interest of this initial
correction (Keyishian v. Association of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 87 S. Ct. 675, 17 L. Ed. 2d 629
[1967]) that such ideas must be exchanged widely without any fear of victimization. In case
policies are reasonably designed to tackle special issues of the education environment, students’
rights to free expression may be curtailed. The board of the school under this amendment was
given powers to determine the kind of speech appropriate in assemblies and classes. The school
authorities were also given discrete powers to determine for themselves the kind of expressions
that are in line with their schools’ objectives. The public school officials were given the mandate
to discipline learners whose expression and speech substantially and materially affect the smooth
running of the educational surrounding (Bethel School Dist. 403 v. Fraser). In addition, the
institution’s leaders have the responsibility to control the distribution and content of reproduced
materials at the institution (Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier).
2. Legal Requirements for A Negligence Cause of Action
Negligence can be defined as the failure to administer required or expected care that is
ethically ruled to be exercised amongst stated circumstances.3 There exist some things that have
to be established by any person who wants to sue in negligence. This is the commonly referred to
like elements or requirements of negligence. It is mostly said by many jurisdictions that the
3 Raz Joseph, "Responsibility and the Negligence Standard." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2010: 1-18.

4
requirements for negligence action are only four.4 First, we have the duty as the first requirement.
In this, the defendant has a responsibility to apply rationale heed to others or the plaintiff.
Secondly, we have the breach. In this requirement, the defendant breaches that duty through a
culpable omission or an act. Thirdly, we have damages. As a result of that omission or act, the
plaintiff suffers an injury and lastly but not the least, we have causation. In this requirement, the
injury to the plaintiff can reasonably be foreseen as a consequence of the defendant’s omission or
act.
Common Defenses to a Negligence Claim
Negligence is like any other type of liability. It can make use of the same defenses as in the
rest of the civil liability cases. There exist some common defenses to negligence claims.5 To
begin with, we have the contributory negligence. In this, if the injured person or party was in any
way either fully or partially responsible for their injuries, their damages or injuries may be fully
eliminated or even reduced. Secondly, we have the limitation of the liability. In this defense,
various statutes or in short terms in a contract may reduce the plaintiff’s ability to recover for the
negligent acts of the defendant. Additionally, we have the assumption of risk.6 This applies in
cases where the plaintiff knew the risks that may arise from a certain action before taking part in
the action. The risks may be assumed if at the end the action results in any harm. Lastly but not
4 Owen David G, "The Five Elements of Negligence." Hofstra Law Review, 2010: 1671-1686.
5Bauchner, Joshua, "The Linear Contruct of a Negligence Claim." New Jersey Law Journal, 2015: Online.
6 Dietrich Joachim, and Iain Field, "The "Reasonable Tort Victim": Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care and the
Equivalence Theory." Melbourne University Law Review (advance), 2017: 1-44.

5
the least, we have an argument that disqualifies or invalidates either of the requirements of
negligence. For example, an insurance company may claim that an injury claimed by a vehicle
accident was caused by a former injury and not the accident as it is claimed.
3. Categories of Liability Affecting School Liability
In America’s schools, school personnel face the fear of litigation as they work each day. The
law has increasingly affected the operations of schools in the present society. It has become a
norm that almost every year the Supreme Court must make a decision that has impacts to schools
and their personnel.7 School personnel are faced with two broad categories of liabilities. These
include intentional liabilities and negligent liabilities. In almost all the schools across the United
States, students, teachers, and other personnel are in the school have been found liable for
committing torts which are intentional. As the name implies, intentional torts are the individual
intends or attempts to harm or cause harm to others. For intend to occur, the individual must be
aware that the act will result to harm. In the educational setting, there exist four classes of
intentional torts.
These include; defamation, assault, false imprisonment and battery. An overt trial to
physically cause an injury on someone or create a fear feeling or an injury is referred to as an
Assault. The actual physical happening threatened by the assault is known as battery. The wiling
full immurement by immediate material means by the assertion of legal authority is referred to as
false imprisonment. An example of an intentional liability is when a teacher grabs a student by
the arm in a bid to get their attention but the student screams that he or she is being abused. This
can attract a possible tort law liability. Secondly, we have the negligent torts, this is where a
7 Thorn Karen B, "Tort Liability for School Personnel." Dissertation, 2015: 1-348.

6
school personnel fails to adhere to the five elements of negligence which include duty, breach,
cause, injury and proximate for example, in a case where a teacher decides to let one of their
student to lead the rest in a chemistry practical. In case one of the students gets hurt during the
practical, the teacher is hereby held liable for negligence.
4. The Holding of Goss V. Lopez
Goss v. Lopez was a condition in which the United States Chief Lagislature ruled that public
school learners facing suspensions have the right to notice and hearing.8 This ruling was done on
1st 22, 1975, in accordance with the Fourteenth Correction’s due procedure. Dwight Lopez plus
other eight learners from different open insttitutions in Columbus, Ohio were centered in the
case. The students were suspended for up to ten days on the bases of misconduct. Among these
students, none had been subjected to hearing. They claimed that their Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process were violated. In the case, Norval Goss the then archon of student
manpower for the Columbus section was titled as an operant. It was decided in favor of the
students by a federal court. The Ohio rule that mandated heads to adjourn learners for up to 10
dates without hearing was declared null and void constitutionally.
The case was pleaded in front of the Commanding Court of the U.S on October 16, 1974.
The court ruled that the right to a hearing and due process was mandatory before suspending any
student as the suspension affected their future employment opportunities. The court ruled that an
oral and a written notice should be served to students before they are suspended for ten or few
days. In cases where the student denied the claims, then the evidence that the management has
8 Nathan Casey B, "Confronting a Double-Edged Sword: Providing Bullies Due Process Protections Without Undercutting
Massachusetts’ Efforts To Combat Bullying." Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice, 2014: 111-149.

7
against him or her was to be issued. This case seeks to define the duties and rights of learners as
well as school officials. The case makes it possible for educational leaders to increasingly
recognize the student’s right to due process in school decisions is fundamental and clear. The
issues surrounding capricious action by the educational leaders against the learners have been
following the due procedure since the hearing of the Goss v. Lopez case.9
5. Student Rights
Students just like any other person have their own rights such as constitutional, consumer and
contractual rights as well as civil rights which regulate their freedoms and allow them to make
use of their educational investment.10 This might include the right to; privacy and safety, to due
process, free speech, and association as well as accountability in contracts and advertising. These
rights regulate the student’s treatment by administrators and teachers.
A school principal only requires a reasonable suspicion of an unlawful behavior to carry out
a search on the student.11 For example, when a student is seen in an area commonly known for
drug activities, he or she can be taken to the principal’s office for a rummage. The rummage
should not be devilishly intrusive in light of the learner’s sex, age and the nature of suspicion. On
the other hand, police officers must obtain a court warrant to perform a search.12 Both the
9 Kim Catherine Y, "Policing School Discipline." Brooklyn Law Review, 2012: 861-903.
10 Leibold Nancyruth and Laura Marie Schwarz, "The Art of Giving Online Feedback." The Journal of Effective Teaching, 2015:
34-46.
11 Nowak Benjamin A, "Students’ First and Fourth Amendment Rights in the Digital Age: An Analysis of Case Law."
Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of, 2014: 1-120.
12 L. Anderson, When to Say No to a Police Officer. September 7, 2017. https://lifehacker.com/when-to-say-no-to-a-cop-
1800955539 (accessed October 29, 2018).

8
principal and the police officers ought to have a rational misdoubt to conduct a rummage but that
of police officers must be based on specific and articulate facts.
There is a difference between the search of a cell phone and the search of a locker. If the
school considers the locker to be a personal property of the student, then it may not search it
unless there is a reasonable suspicion that it contains something against the law but if the locker
is considered to be the property of the school, then it may be searched. On the other hand, the
privacy of the phone is protected by the U.S Constitution and only under emergencies with a
search warrant from a judge can a student’s phone be searched.
Breathalyzers are devices used to estimate the content of alcohol in the blood from a sample
of a breath.13 They test the alcohol level. Breathalyzers can be administered to students when
there is a suspicion that the students are under the influence of alcoholic drinks.
6. Anti-Bullying Program
The use of force or threat to intimidate, abuse or dominate over others aggressively is known
as bullying.14 This behavior is often habitual and repeated. Such behaviors include harassment,
physical assault or threats. As a school leader who has been mandated to start an anti-bullying
program, I will first begin by recruiting student representatives, at least two students from each
class, the school student leaders, and class teachers from each class as well as one parent
representative from each class. As the mastermind behind the program, I will be the key
13 Nassi Ben, Lior Rokach and Yuval Elovici, "Virtual Breathalyzer." Dept. of Software and Information Systems Engineering,
2016: 1-10.
14 Jan MS.Afroz, "Bullying in Elementary Schools: Its Causes and Effects on Students." Journal of Education and Practice,
2015: 43-56.

9
implementer of the program. Each student representative will also be responsible for co-
implementing the program since they are in touch with the other students.
The program will be composed of several components. To begin with, the school, there will
be a bullying prevention program team, in other words, the coordinating committee. I will also
draft the program implementation guide that will help in administering the program. The goal,
mission, slogan statement, as well as the logo of the program, shall be drafted. I shall also draft a
supervision plan as well as offer training on quality supervision. Parents and the community shall
also be represented in the program. In addition, I shall draft safety plans for the targets of
bullying.
Regular meetings by the program committee shall be held to discuss ways in which the
school environment could be organized to become conducive for all learners. Teachers and
parents shall meet regularly to discuss issues in bullying. Students will be required to report
cases of bullying to the discipline teacher. The faculty and the parents shall be responsible for the
guidance and counseling of victims of bullying. The law enforcement shall discipline students
who bully others. Serious meetings shall also be conducted by the program committee to see how
effective the program is.
Bibliography
Bauchner, Joshua, "The Linear Contruct of a Negligence Claim." New Jersey Law Journal, 2015:
Online.

10
Dietrich Joachim, and Iain Field, "The "Reasonable Tort Victim": Contributory Negligence,
Standard of Care and the Equivalence Theory." Melbourne University Law Review (advance),
2017: 1-44.
J. Anderson, When to Say No to a Police Officer. September 7, 2017.
https://lifehacker.com/when-to-say-no-to-a-cop-1800955539 (accessed October 29, 2018).
Jan MS.Afroz, "Bullying in Elementary Schools: Its Causes and Effects on Students." Journal of
Education and Practice, 2015: 43-56.
J. Stahl, 10 important Supreme Court cases about education. October 30, 2015.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/10-important-supreme-court-cases-about-education/ (accessed
October 29, 2018).
Kim Catherine Y, "Policing School Discipline." Brooklyn Law Review, 2012: 861-903.
Leibold Nancyruth and Laura Marie Schwarz, "The Art of Giving Online Feedback." The
Journal of Effective Teaching, 2015: 34-46.
Nassi Ben Lior Rokach and Yuval Elovici, "Virtual Breathalyzer." Dept. of Software and
Information Systems Engineering, 2016: 1-10.
Nathan Casey B, "Confronting a Double-Edged Sword: Providing Bullies Due Process
Protections Without Undercutting Massachusetts’ Efforts To Combat Bullying." Boston College
Journal of Law & Social Justice, 2014: 111-149.
Nowak Benjamin A, "Students’ First and Fourth Amendment Rights in the Digital Age: An
Analysis of Case Law." Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of, 2014: 1-120.
Owen David G, "The Five Elements of Negligence." Hofstra Law Review, 2010: 1671-1686.
Raz Joseph, "Responsibility and the Negligence Standard." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies,
2010: 1-18.
Swann Lesley, "Constitutional Schooling. On Education." Tenth Amendment Center, 2011:
Online.
Thorn Karen B, "Tort Liability for School Personnel." Dissertation, 2015: 1-348.