Katy Elliott ED 502 Legal Brief 1 Citation: Doug C. V.

State of Hawaii Department Board of Fact(s): Plaintiff Doug appealed on behalf of himself and his song (Spencer who was diagnosed with Autism at age two) the district courts judgment finding that the Hawaii Department of education did not deny Spencer a free appropriate public education and did not violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when they held the annual individualized education program meeting without the participation of a parent. The meeting was held without the parent even though the parent did not refuse to attend, but rather tried to reschedule in order to be able to attend. It was discussed in September that the meeting would be held in late October, when called to confirm Doug was unavailable so a new date was picked for early November, to which Doug believed was tentative, and then let the school know he was unavailable so a new date a few days later was settled on. The day of the meeting Doug was sick and emailed to reschedule, but because the annual review was due the in the next five days and the team was only available the following day, they asked to do the meeting as a phone conference, but Doug refused. So not to miss the deadline the team had the meeting. The meeting was to determine a change in placement for Spencer from a private special education facility (where he began attending in fifth grade at the expense of the Department of Education) to a readiness program at his local public high school. A new copy of the individualized education program (IEP) was sent to Doug for his review. The team followed up a month later with Doug and a staff member from Spencers private school present. No changes were made to the IEP during this time. The outcome of this meeting resulted in parent paying the private facility at his own expense. Issue(s): Was Hawaii at fault for not including the parent in individual education program meeting, even with multiple attempts made to have the parent present? Ruling: Reversing the district courts judgment. It was found that the Hawaii Department of Education violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by holding students annual individualized education program meetings without the participation of a parent. The panel held that the Department of Education denied the student a free appropriate public education by holding the meeting without the parent. Rationale: The Departments actions simply did not accord with the standard set forth in Shapiro. Although, setting up the meeting was extremely frustrating, is did not excuse the Departments failure to include him in his sons IEP meeting that he expressed an interest and desire to attend and participate. Brief Analysis and Conclusion: As a future administrator this case is important because there will be times when a deadline is nearing and an IEP meeting has been put off many times. When all possibilities have been exhausted the decision as to hold the meeting without the parent can be a difficult one. The best education of the students can be at stake during these meetings if all those with personal involvement are not present.

Katy Elliott ED 502 Legal Brief 2 Citation: Davis V. Monroe County Board of Education Fact(s): Davis filed suit was filed against Monroe County school board for damages for sexual harassment of his daughter, LaShonda by a classmate at the elementary school. Davis claimed that the school board was indifferent to the persistent sexual advances toward his daughter. It was claimed that an environment toward LaShonda was created that was intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive and violated Title IX in which another student tried to touch her breast and genital area as well as making vulgar statements. It was reported that LaShonda had reported the incidents to her mother and her classroom teacher, the classroom teacher in turn informed the principal but not disciplinary action was taken against the student who committed the sexual advances. The conduct allegedly continued for many months when the person in question dropped his pants and proceeded to act in a sexually suggestive manner towards LaShonda. This was reported to the physical education teacher, but the sexual advancements continued in which the boy in question rubbed his body against LaShonda in the school hallway in what she considered to be a sexually suggestive manner, once again reporting it to the proper adults. The student was finally charged with sexual battery and pled guilty. During the trial it was brought forth that LaShonda suffered during the months of harassment, with failing grades and had written a suicide note. It was also brought forth that LaShonda was not the only victim that fell prey to the boys conduct, which was brought to the attention of a teacher, but the students were denied the request to speak with the principal. Issue(s): Did the school ignore the complaints of the student(s), causing it to occur more frequently? Ruling: It was found by Justice OConnor was the victim of sexual harassment by another student in her class but harassment was no ground for a private cause of action under Title IX. The case was dismissed. Rationale: It was concluded that the actions will only fall under Title IX when the harassment is so severe that it prevents the victim from access to an educational opportunity or benefit. Brief Analysis and Conclusion: As students interact with one another through the hallways and classrooms there can be many times when they are not in the view of an adult and unwanted sexual advances can occur. It is important to listen to all these types complaints and check into the truthfulness behind them and deal with them appropriately. If students see that these types of interactions are unacceptable and will not be dealt with lightly they can be turned off from them. It is also important to education the student population the importance of proper interactions between one another.