EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact # 3

Tiffany M. Connally
EDU 210
February 2015
 Today, school districts have a required procedure they must follow regarding student
attendance. It is required that the district provide a telephone notification and a written notice
mailed home to the parent regarding unexcused absences. A middle school student by the name
of Ray Knight received suspension for 3 days due to unexcused absences. Rather than sending a
written notice via mail, the school sent a notice home with Ray and in turn he threw it away
leaving his parents any notice of the suspension.

In the court case Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery page 108, decided (1991)
two counselors failed to notify a student’s parents of her communicated suicidal statements to
peers as well as themselves. After the counselors approached the student to question her of her
statements she denied them leaving the counselors to not take action. In the parent’s defense the
counselors neglected to take action for suicidal intents which could have saved the child’s life. It
is the duty of the counselor to protect the student from any self harm. A simple notification or
scheduled meeting with the girl’s parents could have resulted in a saved life.

The case Goss v. Lopez was a court case that required a public school to hold a hearing
before subjecting a student to suspension. 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Several high students were
suspending for destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment without
parent notification. The law required that the student’s parents be notified with the reason of the
suspension within 24 hours. The principal failed to do so, which “violated the students’ right to
due process of law.” 419 U.S. (1975). The court decided the suspension violated the fourteenth
Amendment.

In the court case Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District the Supreme Court
held that a school district may be liable for off-campus injuries to a truant if proximately caused
by negligent on-campus supervision. An elementary student left school grounds without
permission and four blocks away was hit by a motorcycle and seriously injured. The child
alleged that his injuries were caused by negligent supervision of the school district. The school
district has a duty to contain students intentionally trying to leave campus, however in this case
the student voluntarily left the school without permission leaving staff members no liability.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol68/iss4/12

In the court case Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1970) the court held that
school authorities have a duty to supervise students on campus. This includes Enforcing rules
and regulations necessary for a student’s protection. If a student is not present for authorities to
enforce rules how can the school be liable if an injury that may occur.

Based on the scenario, I feel Ray’s parents have no defensible grounds to pursue liability charges
against the school. Yes, I do feel the school did not follow the district policy by mailing a
suspension notification to them however, If Ray was missing school and the parents were already
unaware of this than the accidental shooting could of occurred at any time. Also, as a defense for
the school district were the telephone calls recorded and documented for proof of notification?
Are the parents actively involved in their child’s education or does the school district not have a
current telephone number for the parent contact? All of the information would be beneficial to
determine the result of the case but knowing the student was voluntary missing school exercises
the possibility of an accident occurring off of school grounds.
 References

Underwood,Julie.Webb,Dean.L.(2006)School Law For Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

New Jersey

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery, page 108, decided (1991)

Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Harutunian III, T. Albert. (1980) Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District Liability for
Injuries to Truants, 68 Cal.L.Rev. 881.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol68/iss4/12

Daily v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,2 Cal.3d 741 (1970)