Read all classmates’ Discussion Posts and critique two (2) other student’s “Memorandum to the Superintendent.” Candidates’ response posts to their classmates’ memorandum should include (a) their reactions to each memorandum, (b) how/why their actions to the scenario might be similar or different, (c) additional case law and statutes that could have been included, and (d) at least two questions that are thought provoking and probing.
MEMORANDUM
To: The School Board President
From: The School Administrator
Subject: To settle the dispute with Lucy’s parents
As directed by the school attorney Garcia, I am writing you this memo to assert both parties on immediate settlement. The concrete responsibility imposed by this viewpoint, according to well-known tort law concepts, is that instructors and officials must act toward students as reasonable, responsible persons or parents in comparable situations. This criterion does not make teachers responsible for children’s safety. If a kid is wounded despite school employees acting like the reasonable, sensible parent in the circumstances, the teacher or administration cannot be held liable(Murphy, 2015). Clear accidents are not the responsibility of the instructor or administrator. It is evident that determining negligence based on whether instructors and authorities acted toward students as a normal, sensible parent would under the exceedingly complicated circumstances present in various school scenarios is not easy. It is significantly more difficult than applying the same standard to the actions of the coach. Because the vast majority of fact situations asserting teacher negligence will possess a matter that will not justify a law verdict in favor of either the petitioner or the defendant, a court will most commonly be instructed to consider whether a teacher or administrator did such acts or overlooked to take such a precaution that undesired consequences would result (McCarthy, Shelton, & Murphy, 2016). Given the possible hazard, conservative guidance indicates that such focus should not be explicit for an extended period of time. Similarly, courts, on the other side, have clarified that the teacher is not required to keep the exact details where each phase of action is being conducted under constant and relentless supervision. There is also no requirement that general supervision is ongoing and direct. This philosophy is merely a straightforward acknowledgment of the realities of the circumstance.
Keeping in point the legal methods for the coach and parents, the situation can never seem to get settled as the dispute in the court usually takes time and money, and it would be the same cost for both of the parties. However, settling the issue with Lucy’s parents will be best for both parties, and it will also save additional complexities. Conversely, the image of the school is relatively important to us, and our priority should be to deal with such matters calmly. No doubt, Lucy was injured badly and suffered severe issues; she is deliberately in need of serious medical attention and additional care expense. As mentioned before, Lucy’s parent has a strong grip on the case because their kid was injured, however, on the other hand, the coach has also strong claim that he trained and advised students on the basis of safety precautions and school standards, and he was sure of Lucy’s post-medical condition. Therefore, the situation might end on the same verdict to settle the dispute on the legal rules and courtship. I believe that you will take these considerations into account and do what is appropriate.
McCarthy, M., Shelton, S., & Murphy, J. (2016). Policy penetration of the ISLLC standards. . Leadership and Policy in Schools, 221-230.
