The post should include how/why the candidate’s actions would be similar or different and an analysis and discussion of additional case law and statutes that might have been included.
Regulatory mandates that pertain to this case scenario include a social justice view of educational leaders instilling an equal status for all stakeholders, thus ISLLC Standards 4, 5, and 6E regulate initiatives to promote social capital in the school environment. Taking a deeper dive into regulatory mandates, it is worthy of mentioning that the federally enforced Title VI and Title VI disallow any discrimination of individuals based upon “race, color, or national origin” (Stader, 2013, p. 150). Together with this, Title VI specifies the prohibition of hostile environments deriving from racial issues (Stader, 2013). Stader (2013) revealed that case law, regarding educational needs and linguistic support of ELL students, has been substantiated under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whereby established in Lau v. Nichols (1974) and Plyler v. Doe (1982).
Moreover, a superintendent must swiftly curtail the proponents of a hostile environment, hereby following federal mandates and preserving the livelihood of alleged recipients of a hostile environment. Accordingly, the superintendent has a responsibility to promptly mediate and give substantive directives to the school principal and school faculty as it pertains to promoting social justice in the learning environment. District Leadership Team meetings, with school principals in attendance, ought to provide a myriad of ways for educational leaders to negate discrimination acts by bolstering social justice within each school learning environment. Here, I would suggest that the superintendent state expectations of school leaders to transmit avenues of social capital by vetting school policies to include inclusive practices for each stakeholder with detailed actionable steps to elevate disparate impact and adverse impact claims (Stader, 2013).
In additions, ways in which Case Scenario 3 illustrates controversies over equal protection and English language learners are revealed by the repetitive nature of the accumulated hostile behavior in the school environment. School leaders must ensure that there is equitable protection for all stakeholders. This particular scenario is reflective of an adverse impact claim with unfair treatment of a student based on race and ethnicity. Thus, the first occurrence of a hostile environment, with derogatory statements written on school board property walls, ought to be the first and last hateful act that would require immediate administrative response curtailing the entire scenario from unfolding. Stader (2013) stated that once hostility is noticed within the learning environment, administrators have an ethical and legal obligation to bring a full stop to the hateful act. Controversy with this string of shameful events may reside with staff members ‘seemingly’ not being properly trained to recognize, report, and assist in bringing social justice back to the educational scene. Herein, administrators must proactively bring anti discriminatory school mandated policy to the attention of all faculty and staff in order to elevate possible confusion with how to deal with a hostile learning environment (Stader, 2013). Moreover, Stader (2013) shared that English Language Learners are entitled to the “best basket of goods and services” evident in a well-ordered school learning environment providing equality of opportunity to all stakeholders in public education (p. 159).
Legal ramifications are certainly applicable to any school institution choosing to avoid or turn a blind eye to acts of negligence in carrying out equality of opportunity and social justice. Stader (2013) stated that federal mandates are supported by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), herein discrimination complaints not properly resolved are subject to referral to the U.S. Department of Justice. Ethical dilemmas revolve around public justice in well-ordered schools, as such Stader (2013) shared that Rawls’ “justice as fairness” principles work toward equitable learning environments for all students (p. 147). Ethical guidelines to follow are (a) examination and necessary review of school mandated policy for relevant safeguards promoting anti-discrimination and equal protection, (b) adherence to ISLLC Standards 4, 5, and 6E promoting social justice, and (c) establish an inclusive school community with stakeholders perceive equity of opportunity commonplace (Stader, 2013).
Stader, D. L. (2013). Law and ethics in educational leadership (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more