Savannah Miller

Case Analysis: Impatient Parents

Grand Canyon University EAD-519

1/15/20
 A parent of a sophomore student feels that her child is being harassed by a classmate and

neighbor both in class and outside of school hours through anonymous calls and texts. She is

frustrated with the situation, she frustrated with the teacher, whom she emailed the evening

before and had not received a response from, and with the school in general for allowing this to

happen “under our noses.” She additionally is in a hurry, making it difficult to fully discuss the

situation in one sitting. It is my responsibility as the assistant principal to investigate the potential

bullying/ harassment situation as soon as possible. Additionally, other issues that need to be

resolved are the parent anger and distrust towards the teacher and school as well as gaining

insight into the teacher’s perspective of the situation. Involved stakeholders include myself

(assistant principal and acting administrator on campus), the principal, Mrs. Lemming, the

parent, the teacher, Mrs. Lemming’s daughter (unnamed sophomore student), unnamed neighbor

boy/ classmate, and the parents of neighbor/classmate.

An existing court case that relates to this scenario is ​T.K. and S.K. v. New York City

Department of Education​ in which a disabled student faced harassment at school with no school

intervention. This case applies because it demonstrates that it is the schools legal responsibility

to protect students and their learning environment from the severe disruptions brought on by

harassment and bullying. ​(​T.K. and S.K. v. New York City Department of Education, 2011)

Other existing cases that apply are ​J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District & Layshock v.

Hermitage School District ​(3rd Cir. 2011) two cases involving students using social media to

target schools and their principal. Both students faced suspensions and brought charges against

the schools. The court decided the school did not have the right to impose school policies outside
of schools stating, “the First Amendment prohibits the school from reaching beyond the

schoolyard to impose what might otherwise be appropriate discipline.” This case applies because

it shows that schools have limited powers in enforcing student activities outside the school unless

they are directly impacting student learning. (J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School

District, Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 2011)

According to Liberty Elementary School District #25 Governing Board Policy JICK

referencing Student Bullying / Harassment /Intimidation, “Harassment is intentional behavior by

a student or group of students that is disturbing or threatening to another student or group of

students. Intentional behaviors that characterize harassment include, but are not limited

to...name-calling, unwanted physical contact and unwelcome verbal or written comments,

photographs and graphics... Harassing behaviors can be direct or indirect and by use of social

media.” (Policy Manual and Administrative Regulations, 2019)

Harassment or bullying is prohibited by school board policy and requires immediate

reporting to a school employee or principal either verbally, or in writing. A report must be made

in writing no later than one day after the event is reported. It is the responsibility if the principal

to investigate all reports of bullying/harassment and inform parents as necessary and within their

rights (FERPA specific). Regardless of the outcome of the investigation the principal needs to

meet and discuss the events with all persons involved. (Policy Manual and Administrative

Regulations, 2019)

Possible solutions to the issues are to treat the situation as a conflict resolution and

investigate as necessary, delegate to the teacher to handle it in their classroom, document as

necessary but plan a follow-up meeting with the parent as soon as possible to get more

information. I would choose to handle this like a conflict resolution situation.

To begin, I would consult my principal as soon as possible and inform them of the event.

After documenting my own and the secretary’s experience with the parent I would pull the

student and ask some questions. Specifically, I would ask what was happening in class, who was

involved, what specifically was being said and done, where the incidents were taking place etc.

After speaking with the victim and taking a written statement and my own anecdotal notes, I

would move forward with speaking to the teacher to gain some professional perspective. I would

begin by just asking their opinion of the situation without my input, and having them produce a

written statement as well. I would ask if they received the email from Mrs. Lemming and what

their plan for response would be, letting them know she had contacted me and was frustrated, so

if the teacher needed support to let me know.

I would then call Mrs. Lemming and let her know I was looking into the matter and

would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible for us, and since she is busy I want to get

that scheduled sooner rather than later. I would additionally inform her of our office protocol and

let her know that in the future meetings with administration need to be scheduled ahead of time,

but concerns can always be raised through email and phone if they are significant. Despite Mrs.

Lemming’s intense actions and busy schedule, I would treat her like what she is a concerned

parent who wants the best for her child. I will keep this in mind throughout my investigation and

be intentional to walk the line between empathetic and fair to all students.
 From there, I would pull specific students involved and try to understand specifically

what was happening on campus and in the classroom from other perspectives. Once I know

about the entire issue, I can begin to address the allegations of harassment if applicable. If there

is any proof of bullying or harassment I will consult with my principal and follow the board

guidelines to handle them appropriately.

Potential moral and legal consequences of each solution include backlash from Mrs.

Lemming if no such harassment is present. This could lead to Mrs. Lemming feeling her child is

being targeted or victimized. Additionally, the accused students and their parents could feel

targeted if no such harassment is taking place and they are being accused. In either situation it is

critically important to remain consistent to board policy and follow up on the event as necessary.

On the other side, if the harassment is occurring and is carrying on outside of school through

texts, calls, and social media, it may require Student Resource Officer, district, or local law

enforcement intervention. This could be another potential legal consequence. The key factor in

either scenario will be informing students and parents of their rights and maintaining those

rights.

This solution reflects professional ethics, integrity, and fairness because it adheres to all

state laws and board policy while also considering the rights of all students. Additionally, the

entire event is documented for review at any time making the process completely transparent.

Finally, this solution seeks feedback and information from all involved stakeholders and allows

time for due process showcasing fairness.

 This solution promotes social justice and ensures that individual student needs inform all

aspects of schooling by limiting non-school related interruptions and issues and keeping the

primary focus on student learning by limiting distractions caused by harassment. Additionally, it

allows for this parent to be heard and the problem to be remedied while still maintaining correct

boundaries and protocol for similar situations in the future.

Finally, this solution promotes collaboration, trust, learning, and high expectations by

demonstrating follow through and accountability to school and district wide expectations.

Regardless of the outcome, the correct steps have been followed, all stakeholders have been

informed, and all rights have been preserved.

 References

J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District​, 650 F.3d 915 (3rd Cir. 2011)

Layshock v. Hermitage School District, ​650 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2011).

Policy Manual and Administrative Regulations.​ Liberty Elementary School District #25,

Buckeye, AZ 2019

T.K. and S.K. v. New York City Department of Education, ​779 F. Supp. 2d 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).