PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3

ONLINE EDU 210

JESSICA M. GONZALEZ
 Ray Knight is a middle school student who was suspended from school for

three days because he had unexcused absences. The reason for his absences are not

stated. However, he is the typical middle school student. He was given a notice of

suspension in writing, and he just threw it away. Mr. Knight obviously did not want

his parents to know what was going on. The school relied on him to deliver the notice

to his parents and he did the opposite. Ray Knight purposely destroyed the notice for

several reasons. First of all, he did not want his parents to know that he was missing

school. Second, he did not want his parents to question what he was doing, where he

was going, and who he was with, on those days that he was absent. Third, he did not

want his parents to know that he was suspended because he thought he would use

that extra time he was now off from school to do whatever it was that he wanted to do.

Ray Knight's parents probably disapproved of the relationship he had with this "friend"

he was spending time with when he accidentally got shot so he decided not say anything

to them.

Goss vs. Lopez is a case where nine students from Central High School in

Columbus, Ohio, were suspended for disorderly conduct and for destroying school

property. The misconduct occurred in front of the school principal. He suspended all

students involved for a period of ten days. Student Dwight Lopez claimed he was

innocent, that he was only a witness to what happened that day in the lunchroom. All

nine students took their case to court because they felt that their rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment were being violated for several reasons. They were suspended

from school without a hearing prior to their suspension; the school did not notify the

student's parents within twenty-four hours from the suspension that their children were
 Page 2
being suspended; and parents were not given a reason for the students' suspension. All

this information would allow parents to take the issue up with the school board before

each student was to be expelled. At one point, student Lopez testified that the principal

suspended seventy-five students that day for their bad behavior. The court ruled that the

school had violated the students' due process rights because they were not given a

hearing before or within a certain amount of time after being suspended.

In Collette vs. Tolleson, Westview High School student Zachary Thomason is

accused of crashing his car into driver Scofield's car while on his lunch break. Four other

students were in Thomason's car when the crash occurred. Westview has a somewhat

strict closed-campus policy. Students cannot leave campus without a "lunch pass." The

requirements for obtaining this lunch pass are the following: students must first get

permission to leave campus from their parents; second, you must be a sophomore,

junior, or senior with at least a 3.0 gpa in order to leave campus during lunch. An I.D. or

lunch pass was required in order to come in and out of the campus. The school used this

policy as a reward for those students who were getting good grades. Freshmen were not

part of this policy. The case does not state if Zachary Thomason is a freshman, but it does

state that two other students out of the four with him in the car, also did not have a "lunch

pass." These five students decided to leave campus during lunch without permission.

Thomason's excuse when confronted by a security guard was that he needed to get some

books out of his car. The other students left campus through a gate that was not guarded.

They all went to the mall about five miles away. Their lunch was only fifty minutes long.
Student Thomason lost control of his vehicle while speeding, and crashed into driver

Page 3
Scofield. In court, students testified that the school district was aware that students leave

campus during lunch to go to the nearby mall. They also testified that there is not enough

time given during lunch and this is why students rush back to school once lunch is over.

The court decided that in this case no breach of duty was committed. They reached this

decision because they claimed that it did not matter that student Thomason left campus

without permission. He could of been in an accident whether it was lunch time or not.

The time limit he had to get back to campus also did not play a part in the court's

decision.

In Wooten vs. Pleasant Hope VI School District, high school senior Jana Wooten

is expelled from the softball team when she did not show up to a scheduled game.

Principal and softball coach Micki Stout announced to the other members of the team that

Wooten was expelled from the program. Jana Wooten would find out from someone else

that she was expelled before being told by her coach. Later, coach Stout met with student

Wooten and her parents to make them aware how she came to her decision. She told them

that another player let her know that Wooten missed the game because she was attending

another school's homecoming. Jana Wooten denied the allegations, but instead said that

she was running an errand for her mother. She also admitted that she did not ask for

permission to not attend the game. The school district agreed with coach Stout's decision

to expel Jana Wooten from the softball team. Therefore, she did not play softball at

Pleasant Hope again. She tried appealing the court decision, but her lawsuit was

dismissed.
 In Wofford vs. Evans, M.D., a ten year old student at Colonial Elementary School

Page 4
was taken into Assistant Principal Erika Rosa's office after other students accussed her of

bringing a gun to school. Student M.D. allowed Rosa to search her bag and desk. She did

not find the weapon so she let the student go. The following Monday, Rosa and Principal

Rita Evans continued to investigate the incident because a student was saying that M.D.

had disposed of the gun in the nearby woods. They brought student M.D. back into the

office for more questioning. They called the police and they also asked her questions.

The student requested to have her mother present. However, M.D.'s mother was not

called until after the police officers left. A gun was never found. Wooford, M.D.'s mother

sued Rosa, Evans, the county school board, and the police officers. She claimed that her

daughter's right to due process was violated. Wooford also claimed that her daughter was

unlawfully searched. The court dismissed Wofford's claims. She appealed their decision.

However, the court stood by their decision and claimed that the school had the right to

question and seize the student if they felt that the student had violated the law or a school

rule.

I believe that Ray Knight's parents do have a case and should sue the school.

However, I only believe that they have a right to sue for not receiving notification of their

son being suspended from school. The school made a mistake when they only gave

Knight notification of the suspension. Someone from the school should have called his

parents from the very beginning to see what was going on and why their son was missing

school. Then once he had more than one unexcused absence, the school should have
called the parents, and notified them in writing. I do believe the court would rule in their

favor when it comes to this issue. But, I do not believe that the court would rule in the

Page 5
parent's favor when it comes to the son getting accidentally shot while visiting a friend.

Ray Knight was away from school property and was not performing any type of school

activity that required prior arranged adult supervision. Once a student is away from

school, even if they had to be in school, they are on their own. School employees do not

supervise students away from school unless it is an arranged activity that requires prior

permission from parents and/or from the school district. Besides, who knows what

student Knight was doing before he was "accidentally" shot at his friend's house. Was

he inside the house, was he outside? What were he and his friend involved in? Was it

a drive by? Was he into gangs? Was he in trouble? There has to be a reason for the

unexcused absences, even if the parents do not want to admit it, most parents do not.

There are too many questions to ask. The court would definitely rule against Ray

Knight's parents when it comes to the "accidental" shooting. The school district and the

school would not be at fault. Unfortunately, most parents believe that there children can

do no wrong. They also believe that the school is a babysitter and someone should be

keeping an eye on their child or children at all times.

REFERENCES:

1.) Underwood, Julie and Webb, L. Dean (2006), School Law for Teachers: Concepts and
Applications, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

2.) Goss vs. Lopez (1971)

3.) Collette vs. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214 (2002), retrieved from http://
www.caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html

4.) Wooten vs. Pleasant Hope VI School District (2001), retrieved from http://
www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1402434.html

5.) Wofford vs. Evans (2004), retrieved from http://www.csl.sog.unc.edu/node/201