The educational processes at the both elementary and secondary schools across the United States of America are replete with various situations of different legal complexities. One of the most intricate situation involves the circumstances when the student allegedly violets the FCPS Rights and Responsibilities Act and is subjected to expulsion or transfer to another educational establishment, or educational placement, as defined by the legal instrument in question.
The landmark case in this respect is the well-cited and legally renowned AW1 represented by his parents Debra D. Wilson and Christopher D. Wilson acting as plaintiff-defendant and Fairfax County School Board acting as Defendant-appellee. The case was tried by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit on January 22, 2004. The court decision was delivered to the general public on June 24, 2004.
In 2013 the situation very similar to the procedural and substantive matters of the discussed legal case took place. The student in this case, the one named Daniel Smithers can be hypothetically expulsed from his educational establishment shall he meet all the prescribed criterions.
The most important aspects of the court decision in question are the establishment of the legal definition of the term “educational placement”. The proper determination of this term succors considerably in defining whether it is legally permissive to transfer a person from one educational establishment to another and to ensure that the provisions of the applicable and stature law are totally observed. In particular, it is vitally important to construe the term “educational placement” in full accordance with the law. Secondly, it is equally important to find out whether the criterion for involuntarily transfer to another educational placement was met, since failure to meet the requirements inevitably leads to the abrogation of the discussed legal decision. Lastly, the court ruling provides a detailed answer to the question whether the person expulsed is entitled to any monetary or non-monetary relief on the basis of the fact that his rights may be considered as violated.
The Analysis of the Provided Interview
The data included into the attached interview outlines the most relevant information that is to be taken into consideration by the educational board with the intent to draw the respective conclusions. In particular, I clearly depicts the stakeholders of the situation, with the accent made on the respective academic authorities implicated in the decision process. In particular, it is stated that Ms. Massie is mandated to have a conversation with the mother of the targeted student, Daniel Smithers by phone and to make the respective conclusions thereof. He colleagues, Ms. Chianetta was instructed to have an oral conversation with Ms. Smithers, and the practicing school psychologist Ms. Jones were instructed to conduct a proper psychological examination of the answers provided by the mother of the targeted student. Most importantly, the psychologist was expected to apply a theory of cognitive behavioral development with the intent to ascertain on whether the mother of the targeted student is really a fully capacitated person and can be fully answerable before the court of law in the context of the effect of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act). In particular, it was respectively and coherently evaluated by the targeted professional whether the mother of the alleged violator of the students ethics rule is fully aware of the situation that is happening to her son and what legal repercussions can ensure from the complex problem that has evolved.
The teachers who contacted the mother of the student that can be subjected to expulsion or forcible transfer to another educational establishment on the basis of the discussed legal act, have notified the school board that the student was hardly capable of reading, having experienced significant problems in mastering this art. His intellectual development significantly lagged behind the development of his peers. Moreover, it was communicated to the mother that her child was numerously reprimanded for lessons foiling. Since no disciplinary measures really helped to remedy the situation it was ultimately resolved to address the parents of the child, in order to prevent further disruptions of the educational process. Ms. Duchaney in her turn laid special attention to the fact that the lesson could not be proceeded normally if Danies Smithers was attending the classes.
As far as the reaction of the mother is concerned, she routinely expressed disappointment, clearly demonstrating that she forgo the details connecting to the educational performance of her child, which had been communicated to her in the course of the previous conversations conducted between her and academic authorities which contacted her informing her about the academic activity of her child.
Having made a close analysis of the circumstances of the present case, the academic authorities have reached a unanimous decision that the best alternative for the targeted student is nothing but his transfer to his home and home-based education.
The academic authorities of the discussed educational establishment are seeking the opportunity to transfer the student to another educational placement, purporting that under this term the drafters of the IDEA federal law meant another educational establishment. The parents of the targeted student in their turn consider that “educational placement” lexical structure is to be considered as nothing but the same school, but different classroom. Therefore, it becomes evident that the geographical criterion becomes the decisive one on the resolution process.
The Link Between the Substantive Matters of AW1
The legal significance of the discussed landmark case can hardly be overestimated. The matters of the case were almost identical to the substantive matters of the present case. AW was diagnosed to suffer from a disability that was fully consistent with the disability criterions outlined by the IDEA act. The student was deprived of the disabibility to attend the chosen junior school classes due to the fact that his repetitive abnormal behavior at secondary school clearly demonstrated that he was highly probable to endanger the normal educational activity of his peers by threatening one of them by means of messaging him by his friends. In particular, the court construed the phrase “Death Awaits You” as the threat to his physical and mental well-being and which is under any doubt sufficient under the effect of the bylaw in question to start the expulsion procedure immediately.
Another important aspect of the court decision is the definition whether the act in question provide the involuntary transfer of the targeted person to the adjacent educational institution.
Having analyzed the substantive matters of our case and compared them to the ones that happened in Fairfax it becomes evident that the substantive matters of two cases are almost identical, with the exception that in our case the threat to the well-being of the students was demonstrated by means of demonstration the gun to the targeted audience, while in the court case the threat was communicated by the message transmitted by the friend of the targeted victimized student.
Ultimately, the court ruled that in the context of the IDEA act the term “educational placement” shall be interpreted as another educational establishment to which a targeted student can be transferred. Moreover, the court found that the grounds for a forcible involuntarily transfer did exist in that case.
Summary and Conclusions
Having reviewed the substantive and the procedural matters of the targeted case law and procedural provisions, several important inferential conclusions are to be made. First and foremost, the way the term “educational placement” is construed, is integrally essential for the resolution on whether the rights of the suing individual have been fully safeguarded or violated. Presently, the construction delivered by the court clearly suggests that even if the targeted student is transferred to the adjacent educational establishment, no rights of the person thereof can be classified as violated. Having analyzed the substantive matters of our case and compared them to the ones that happened in our situation it becomes evident that the substantive matters of two cases are almost identical, with the exception that in our case the threat to the well-being of the students was demonstrated by means of demonstration the gun to the targeted audience, while in the court case the threat was communicated by the message transmitted by the friend of the targeted victimized student.
In the present case the repetitive behavior of the targeted student clearly suggest that he can be fully and reasonably subjected to the transfer. Overall, the student can be transferred and no grounds for a legal claim will arise in the context of the adopted court ruling.