The legal errors in the part of the school district are classified into four categories. They include the identification, evaluation, response, and participation towards the case of Darnell. The error of identification is critical, as there should have been the registered need of Darnell’s case over the period, before its address according to the individuals with disability act (Yell, 2013, 54). In the part of evaluation, ideal code of conduct in dealing with Darnell’s case was not followed according to exclusion and meeting of the needs by the school. Response was a legal error, as the principal ought to have agreed to the IDEA procedure while the school district should have been answerable at every level. The participation was a legal error due to the non-committal execution of the body on the case.
From the information given, the process of due process hearing was under stages after the first mention of Darnell’s incidences. First, identification on the part of the principle of the elementary school with necessary qualification levels was augmented. In the second, questioning of the relevance within Darnell’s case according to the situation of the student as he had disability. In the third, accountings of the previous instances according to requirements of the disability act were facilitated through the principal’s response. According to Yell (2013, 306) the forth was due process notification of previous measures and evaluated concerns from the IDEA act.
The strategy used by Mr. Rhoads when questioning Ms. Gleason was calculated and imperative towards the disability act. It was calculative as the question-answer basis targeted the response on Ms. Gleason according to violation of the expected ethics and code of conduct as regards handling the disability student. In addition, it was imperative in order to highlight the errors undertaken in jurisprudence of the case. Mr. Rhoads had to ask the questions and present the errors in legal means in order to rid Darnell of any wrongdoing in the incident. It was also meant to provide caution of possible action and suit of the same, since Darnell was not responsible for the outcomes.
It is not appropriate for the police to be involved in this case especially at the formative stages of the student’s behavior. Darnell has a disability problem that causes his behavioral changes within the school premises. According to Wakelin (2008, 14) the first reaction would have been to contain his depicted behaviors within the school setting against any authoritative handling. In addition, there was no need for the enclosure and having to clean the toilets and mop floors as undertaken. The police should be only involved when incidences of forceful and unruly behavior cannot be contained by the school administrators. In addition, they are meant to responds where lives are threatened and illegal occurrences take place.
In order to avoid the due process
hearings, the school’s principal and the parent should have been consulted
together at the very first incident reporting. A conclusive meeting addressing
the measures and means of containing Darnell’s behavior within the classroom
and school behavior would have been sought. In addition, positive reaction
towards the behavior would have been deployed other than detentions and forceful
punishment decisions. This is because the disability and hyperactive disorder
in Darnell were responsible for the outcome of his mannerisms in class and when
addressing the authority heads. Further, external prognosis of help on disability
would have been used if persistence were noted.
Wakelin, M. (2008). Challenging Disparities in Special Education. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy 3, 1-27.
Yell, M. L. (2013). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, N J: Merrill.