Читать книгу Ethics and Law for School Psychologists онлайн

149 страница из 160

As noted, many of the negligence suits filed against school districts by parents are precipitated by a physical injury to a student (Evans, 1997). In the 1970s and 1980s, however, a number of so-called instructional malpractice suits were decided. These suits were filed by students or their parents when a student graduated from high school but was unable to read or write well enough to secure employment, or when the student did not achieve academically what their parents expected. The plaintiffs in these cases claimed that poor instruction (instructional malpractice) was the cause of the injury (student failure to learn). Such claims generally failed for several reasons. First, the courts prefer not to intervene in the administration of the public schools except in unusual circumstances involving clear violations of constitutional rights or federal law. Second, the courts have held that the award of monetary damages for instructional malpractice suits would be overly burdensome to the public education system in terms of both time and money (Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, 1976). In addition, as noted in Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District (1979), it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove a causal link between a school’s instructional practices and student academic failure.