Blackboard Case Study
Assignment:
Post responses in Discussions on Blackboard for the following questions, and respond to the response of another student:
With respect to the Thompson case, based on what the court said, when do you think a school district might be responsible as part of the FAPE obligation for addressing problems that occur outside the school?
Regardless of what the court said, it is my understanding that a school district is not responsible for providing services to a student outside of the normal school hours. However, it is also important to note that each student has goals that are written in the context of a student’s IEP. If the school district is seeing progress in the student’s goals, there is no need for further action. In the …show more content…
Like it, don’t like it, makes sense, …?
I don’t like the parents reaction in the Beth B case. While I agree and understand the parents want Beth to stay in the regular classroom as she has for the last three years, another facility offsite would perform a much better job meeting the needs that Beth requires. In the current situation at the 7th grade level, school officials claim that Beth follows along with the class using a modified curriculum. While Beth may be folowing the same subject matter that the class is learning, there is no relationship between what the class is learning to what Beth is learning. They are on two completely different levels.
Based on Lathrop, what do you think the “rule” is with respect to whether a student has received FAPE when there are still significant behaviors? Can a student be receiving FAPE if they are making academic progress, but are still exhibiting significant …show more content…
The school district failed to properly train all teachers and staff on proper procedures when events that require disciplinary action occur. In this case, the cheerleading coach made a decision to approach the student's at their home residence after the football jamboree. The cheerleading coach had not yet attended the training session that was required by the district.
Regarding the “Wrongful Death” case: What kinds of acts does “official immunity” protect a person from and what kinds of acts does it not provide protection? Would you say that whether you think official immunity is a good thing depends on whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant?
As stated in the Official Immunity section of the plaintiff versus Special Schol District, the official immunity doctrine protects public employees from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts. I would agree that terming official immunity as a “good thing” would defeinitely depend on whether or not you are the defendent or the plaintiff. In any case such as this one, emotions control one’s ability to make
Post responses in Discussions on Blackboard for the following questions, and respond to the response of another student:
With respect to the Thompson case, based on what the court said, when do you think a school district might be responsible as part of the FAPE obligation for addressing problems that occur outside the school?
Regardless of what the court said, it is my understanding that a school district is not responsible for providing services to a student outside of the normal school hours. However, it is also important to note that each student has goals that are written in the context of a student’s IEP. If the school district is seeing progress in the student’s goals, there is no need for further action. In the …show more content…
Like it, don’t like it, makes sense, …?
I don’t like the parents reaction in the Beth B case. While I agree and understand the parents want Beth to stay in the regular classroom as she has for the last three years, another facility offsite would perform a much better job meeting the needs that Beth requires. In the current situation at the 7th grade level, school officials claim that Beth follows along with the class using a modified curriculum. While Beth may be folowing the same subject matter that the class is learning, there is no relationship between what the class is learning to what Beth is learning. They are on two completely different levels.
Based on Lathrop, what do you think the “rule” is with respect to whether a student has received FAPE when there are still significant behaviors? Can a student be receiving FAPE if they are making academic progress, but are still exhibiting significant …show more content…
The school district failed to properly train all teachers and staff on proper procedures when events that require disciplinary action occur. In this case, the cheerleading coach made a decision to approach the student's at their home residence after the football jamboree. The cheerleading coach had not yet attended the training session that was required by the district.
Regarding the “Wrongful Death” case: What kinds of acts does “official immunity” protect a person from and what kinds of acts does it not provide protection? Would you say that whether you think official immunity is a good thing depends on whether you are the plaintiff or the defendant?
As stated in the Official Immunity section of the plaintiff versus Special Schol District, the official immunity doctrine protects public employees from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts. I would agree that terming official immunity as a “good thing” would defeinitely depend on whether or not you are the defendent or the plaintiff. In any case such as this one, emotions control one’s ability to make