School Safety – Part C Part C: Crisis Reflection and Planning (NELP 6.2) School Safety – Part B: Crisis Management (NELP 6.3) Begin the assessment by reading through the safety scenario, Parts A, B,

School Safety – Part C Part C: Crisis Reflection and Planning (NELP 6.2) School Safety – Part B: Crisis Management (NELP 6.3) Begin the assessment by reading through the safety scenario, Parts A, B,
Resources:  Mississippi Department of Education Office of Safe and Orderly Schools https://mdek12.org/OSOS/HomeLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.Pupil Transportation https://mdek12.org/OSOS/PTLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.School Bus Safety https://www.mdek12.org/OSOS/SBSLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.Mississippi Public School Accountability Standards https://www.mdek12.org/Accred/AASLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.National School Transportation Association  http://www.yellowbuses.orgLinks to an external site. Links to an external site.American School Bus Council http://www.americanschoolbuscouncil.orgLinks to an external site.
School Safety – Part C Part C: Crisis Reflection and Planning (NELP 6.2) School Safety – Part B: Crisis Management (NELP 6.3) Begin the assessment by reading through the safety scenario, Parts A, B,
Case Brief 1 January 26, 2005 Name______ Citation: Dorothy Nicole Summers, By And Through Her Next Friend, Johnnie Dawson, Johnnie Dawson and Timothy Summers, M.D. V St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, INC, 759 So. 2d 1203, May 11, 2000. Facts before the court: Dorothy Nicole Summers (“Nikki”) was a five year old enrolled in kindergarten at St. Andrew’s School. On May 13, 1996, an incident occurred on the playground involving Nikki and some of her classmates. There is no dispute that the incident happened. However, the characterization of the incident is disputed. Nikki submitted three affidavits, with each varying somewhat from the other two. Nikki’s counsel represented to the court that these variations were oversights and that the subsequent affidavits were submitted to clarify or correct the oversights. The court assumed Nikki’s competency and accepted her affidavits as competent, true testimony. After hearing and considering the matter, the circuit court decided the plaintiffs would bear the burden of proof at trial on the issues noted, and that St. Andrew’s need only demonstrate an absence of evidence in the record in support of an essential element of the plaintiffs’ claim. The court found that the undisputed material facts mandated that summary judgment be entered in favor of St. Andrew’s on plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages claim. The court also held that the actions of St. Andrew’s, even assuming arguendo that an issue of fact existed as to the issue of underlying liability, did not support any finding that the actions were willful, wanton, or malicious, and as such ordered summary judgment on the punitive damage claim. Aggrieved by the circuit courts’ judgment, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi and assign four issues as error. Questions before the court: I. Whether the circuit court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for recusal. II. Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the parent’s claim for relief. III. Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the claims of the minor child. IV. Whether the circuit court erred in finding that punitive damages were not recoverable. Holding of the court: I. The judge did not manifestly err in refusing to recuse himself in this case. II. The circuit court did not err in dismissing the parents’ claims. III. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on Nikki’s negligent supervision claim. IV. The court held that punitive damages were not warranted. Legal Reasoning: I. The judge’s cross-examination of Dr. Summers more than five years ago does not create any reasonable doubt about the impartiality of the judge in this cause, and it was not an abuse of his discretion to deny the motion to disqualify. II. The parents did not prove any evidence of an injury resulting from St. Andrew’s conduct. III. St. Andrew’s has relied on the fact that by having a teacher for each class of 16 children it has fulfilled its duty of providing adequate supervision. However, the adequacy of the supervision under the prevailing circumstances is an issue for jury determination. IV. Under the totality of the circumstances and reviewing St. Andrew’s conduct in the aggregate, a reasonable trier of fact could not find either malice, gross negligence or reckless disregard. Summation: The court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the decision of the lower court. The court affirmed for the defendant in questions 1, 2, and 4. However, the court reversed and remanded in part question three for the plaintiff, Nikki Summers.
School Safety – Part C Part C: Crisis Reflection and Planning (NELP 6.2) School Safety – Part B: Crisis Management (NELP 6.3) Begin the assessment by reading through the safety scenario, Parts A, B,
CASE BRIEF 2 FEBRUARY 9, 2005 Name_________ Citation: BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 403 ET AL. v. FRASER 478 U.S. 675 (1986) Facts Before the Court: A high school student delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student government. The speech was given at an assembly of about 600 students, many of which were 14 years old. The entire speech was filled with sexual metaphors such as “he’s firm in his pants”. During the speech, some students reacted by yelling and making sexually suggestive gestures while others appeared to be embarrassed. Before delivering the speech, the student had been advised by two teachers that the speech was “inappropriate” and that its’ delivery might have “severe consequences”. The morning after the speech, the student was notified that the school considered his speech to have been a violation of the school’s “disruptive-conduct rule”. He was suspended for three days and his name was removed from a list of potential graduation speakers. The student brought action against the school in U.S. District Court seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the sanctions violated the student’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and awarded damages. They also enjoined the school district from preventing the student from speaking at graduation; therefore, he was elected and spoke at graduation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court, rejecting that the speech had a disruptive effect on the education process and that the school district had an interest in protecting students from lewd and indecent language in a school sponsored activity. The U.S. Court of Appeals requested a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Questions Before the Court: 1. Did the school’s sanctions violate the First Amendment? 2. Did the circumstances of his suspension violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding of the Court: Question 1: The First Amendment did not prevent the school district from disciplining respondent for giving the offensively lewd and indecent speech at the assembly. Question 2: There was no merit to respondent’s contention that the circumstances of his suspension violated due process because he had no way of knowing that the delivery of the speech would subject him to disciplinary sanctions. Legal Reasoning: Question 1: Under the First Amendment, the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. It is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Question 2: Given the school’s need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code. The school disciplinary rule proscribing “obscene” language and the prespeech admonitions of teachers gave adequate warning to respondent that his lewd speech could subject him to sanctions. Summation: The United States Supreme Court reversed both the U.S. District Court and the U. S. Court of Appeals.
School Safety – Part C Part C: Crisis Reflection and Planning (NELP 6.2) School Safety – Part B: Crisis Management (NELP 6.3) Begin the assessment by reading through the safety scenario, Parts A, B,
CASE BRIEF 3 FEBRUARY 16, 2005 Name_______ Citation: WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. WILKINSON 500 So. 2d 455 (1986) Facts Before the Court: On June 1, 1984, Renee Wilkinson, a 16 year old student at Warren Central High School and a friend were at Renee’s home one morning after her parents had left for work. They each drank two or three sips of beer that belonged to Renee’s dad. They then left the residence and went to school. It was the final day of school for the 1983-84 school year. Renee was exempt from all exams because of her perfect attendance and good grades. Sometime after lunch, the other child admitted the above facts to a school authority. Between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m., the school principal removed Renee from class and extracted from her an admission that she and her friend had drunk beer at home before coming to school. There was no odor of beer on Renee’s breath or any evidence of misconduct or disruption of any kind. Since Renee had caused absolutely no interruption to the orderly learning environment and the school day was over in a few minutes, the principal determined that she had committed a “Type IV Offense” against the policy of the Board of Education promulgated in the student handbook. The principal sent a letter to Renee’s parents explaining the situation and informing them that Renee would have to appear before the Board of Education before returning to school. By agreement, the matter was set for hearing before the Board on July 12. By letter, Renee’s father requested the appearance of certain witnesses at the hearing; two of these were teachers who did not attend the hearing. At the meeting, Mr. Wilkinson presented a written motion requesting dismissal of the charges on the grounds that the Board of Education lacked authority over matters which occurred off school grounds. The motion was denied. Mr. Wilkinson then requested that he be allowed to act as legal counsel for his daughter and was allowed to do so. After a lengthy discussion, it was the unanimous decision of the Board that Renee had violated the school rules and that she would therefore lose all credit for the second semester. The Wilkinsons elected to seek an injunction for violation of constitutional rights in chancery court. The question before the chancery court was whether the rights of the child under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution had been violated. The court concluded that the Injunction must issue for lack of procedural due process, it was not necessary to consider the validity of the other constitutional issues raised. The relief sought in the complaint was granted. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Question Before the Court: Was procedural due process afforded to the appellee? Holding of the Court: We, therefore, hold that the Chancellor was correct in stating that procedural due process was not afforded the appellee. Legal Reasoning: A student facing suspension has a property interest that qualifies for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The failure of the Board of Education to have the accusing teachers for examination as requested was a denial of procedural due process to the child. It makes no difference whether their testimony might have changed the mindset of the Board of Education. Summation: The Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld the Chancellor’s ruling that due process was not afforded the appellee.