Discussion Post directions, candidates’ response posts to their classmates should include (a) their reactions to classmates’ postings, (b) how/why their actions would be similar or different, and (c) additional case law and statutes that could have been included, and (d) at least two questions that are thought provoking and probing. Discussion responses should be between 2-4 paragraphs in length (i.e., 75-100 words) and should contain grammatically correct sentences that have been thought out and encourage further discussion. (Include Reference)
To begin, a school institution ought to be a safe place for students and staff members to freely attend and secure a quality education. Together with this, students and staff members continuously strive to seek a balance between the systemsworld and the lifeworld (Stader, 2013). As time goes by, challenges with maintaining order both on campus and off campus increasingly becomes an issue that school administration must deal with. Moreover, Scenario 3, in this week’s discussion post, illustrates a growing trend of intense online hate speech that is prevalent today. As I recall, while personally attending public school nearly 40 years ago, the unfortunate likelihood that a student would write a note on a piece of paper with hate speech directed toward a single person was somewhat a common occurrence. However, this shameful and disrespectful act has moved to a digital platform with the immediate potential to reach the attention of multitudes of people instantaneously (Stader, 2013).
Considering the increased violence today, school administration ought to uphold the regulatory mandate with direct threats to school staff and students under a reasonable person standard, whereby swiftly and duly enforcing disciplinary action to maintain school safety. Operating within a normative environment school administration must provide a quality education to stakeholders while adhering to First Amendment Rights. The seventh-grade student, mentioned above in Scenario 3, appears to have taken an opportunity to express himself while off campus during non-instructional time. Herein, in comparison to the final ruling of LaVine v. Blaine School District (2001), the factual content in the blog was discerning indeed, however the focus of the violent speech was not directed to a specific single individual with direct intent to deliver a foreseen threat (Stader,2013). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court case Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District (2002) ruled in favor for the respondent, whereby supporting the enforcement of disciplinary action of a perceived threat with a reasonable person standard (Stader, 2013).
Furthermore, Scenario 3 illustrates the need to assess the balance between the lifeworld and the systemsworld. I believe that Frank Jones is protected, in this instance, as he has freely exercised his First Amendment Rights while communicating his thoughts and perceptions about his lifeworld on a private blog post. However, as a principal I would certainly conduct a threat assessment with proper consequences and student supports as needed to ensure continuation of a quality education for all stakeholders. Legal considerations for a school institution include providing qualified immunity for school staff members acting upon reasonable substantiated ground as it pertains to safe school operations, as well as justifiably applying the Tinker substantial disruption test to contentious school acts. Finally, ethical dilemmas can be avoided by administrators conducting thorough and proper threat assessments ensuring students’ First Amendment Rights and access to a proper school education (Stader, 2013).
Reference
Stader, D. L. (2013). Law and ethics in educational leadership (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
