Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Discipline, PPT
out of 24
Post on 29-Jun-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONDr. William Allan Kritsonis - Student Discipline, PPT.
<ul><li> 1. William Allan Kritsonis, PhD</li></ul> <p> 2. Generally, courts defer to educators on theinterpretation and application rules. In 1982 theU.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education ofRogers., Arkansas v. McCluskey dealt with a casein which a local school board had expelled astudent for drinking. The Court noted that alcohol can be classified as adrug and concluded that the District Court andthe Court of Appeals plainly erred in replacing theBoards construction of [the rule] with their ownnotions under the facts of the case. The messagewas clear-local school boards can interpret theirown rules and courts must defer to thoseinterpretations, within reason. 3. People are more likely to follow rulesare rationally related to securing asafe and orderly environment. Most discipline experts agree that thefewer the rules, the better theunderstanding of what behavior isappropriate and what is not. 4. Keep rules short yet comprehensive, byincluding several diverse examples to illustratemeaning. Transpose the wording of complex terminologyinto terms understandable to students. Have students help in rewording orconstructing rules. The rules are explained carefully at the start ofeach school term and periodically thereafter, asfor example when a rash of misbehavior breaksout. 5. Rules that pertain to constitutionally or statutorilyprotected behavior, particularly free speech and press,must be drawn with special care so as not to chill theexercise of these rights. The New Caney I.S.D. was unsuccessful in applying itsanti-gang rule to bar students from wearing rosary beadson campus (Chalifoux v. New Caney I.S.D.). The Third Circuit struck down a school districts anti-harassment policy in Saxe v. State College Area SchoolDistrict (2001). The policy was designed to protect studentsand staff from harassment based on race, religion, color,national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, orother personal characteristics. Educators must walk a fine line in adopting rules thatinfringe in any way on expressive activities. 6. In Ryan G v. Navasota I.S.D., student was found tobe a minor in possession of alcohol away fromschool during spring break. In accordance with thehandbook, the school suspended the student fromthe baseball team. The parents appealed thisdecision to the commissioner, but thecommissioner found the rule to be proper. If a student uses his own computer at home on hisown time and creates a Web site or posts messagesthat school officials find offensive, this alone doesnot give the school authority to impose discipline. 7. Unless rules are enforced, they lose their influence as behavior guides. This does not mean a zero tolerance policy is the only way to go.Students should be treated fairly and equitably. Discipline should be based on careful assessment of the circumstances of each case.Factors to consider shall include:a) The seriousness of the offense;b) The students age;c) The frequency of misconduct;d) The students attitude;e) The potential effect of the misconduct on the school environment;f) Requirements of Chapter 37 of the Education Code; andg) The Student Code of Conduct adopted by the Board. 8. Required where government decisionmay cause the deprivation of an interestprotected by the FourteenthAmendmentProtected interests related to student disciplineProperty interest continuing to attend a public institutionLiberty interest reputation 9. Full blown adversarial hearing NOTrequired Minimum requirements Oral or written notice of charges Explanation of evidence supporting charges Opportunity to present their side of charges Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) 10. Courts expanded requirements Written statement of charges Hearing before individuals withauthorization to determine sanction Opportunity for advance inspection ofevidence University intends to submit Right to bring counsel to hearing to advise not to question witnesses Opportunity to present own version of factsthrough witnesses or documents 11. Right to hear evidence against them and question(personally, not through legal counsel) adversewitnesses Determination of facts of the case by hearing officerbased solely on evidence presented at hearing Written statement of hearing officers findings of fact Right, at own expense, to make recording of hearingEsteban v. Central Missouri State College, 277 F. Supp 649 (W.D. Mo. 1967) 12. Student discipline in Texas is covered in Chapter37 of the Texas Education Code, which wasenacted in 1995 as part of Senate Bill I. Most of thekey players in the adoption of Senate Bill I, fromGovernor Bush. The legislature has not made it easier for schoolsto expel students. Instead, students who commitoffenses will be placed in a disciplinaryalternative education program. Great emphasis is on DAEPs-disciplinaryalternative education programs. The interplay between schools and the juvenilejustice system. 13. TEC 37.00 I (a) requires each district toadopt a student code of conduct that willspecify standards for student conductoutline the types of behavior that might geta student in trouble at school. Most schools discharge the responsibilityby distributing a student handbookcontaining all the rules and regulations ofthe school, including those pertaining todiscipline. 14. Discretionary teacher removal is authorized for a student:1. Who has been documented by the teacher to repeatedly interfere with the teachers ability to communicate effectively with the students in the class or with the ability of the students classmates to learn; or2. Whose behavior the teacher determines is so unruly, disruptive, or abusive that it seriously interferes with the teachers ability to communicate effectively with the student in the class or with the ability of the students classmates to learn. 15. The Education Code contains just one shortsection dealing with suspension. It states that astudent may be suspended from school if thestudent engages in conduct identified in thestudent code of conduct for which a student maybe suspended. Suspension is designed as short-term disciplinaryaction. Under TEC 37.00 (b), suspension is limitedto three days per offense. 16. At School: Section 37.006 lists offenses for which a student must be assigned a DAEP. They are:1. Any conduct punishable as a felony2. An assault resulting in bodily injury3. A terroristic threat or false alarm or report4. Certain drug offenses5. Certain alcohol offenses6. Inhalant offenses7. Public lewdness8. Indecent exposure 17. Off Campus Conduct:1. The first involves the commission of a felony offense under Title 5 of the Texas Penal Code.2. The second type of off-campus conduct that requires DAEP removal is engaging in conduct that contains the elements of the offense of retaliation against any school employee, under Penal Code 36.06.3. In addition to mandatory DAEP offenses, there are offenses for which a student may be placed in DAEP.4. State law does not tell us how long a DAEP placement is to last, but it does require the code of conduct to establish guidelines for the length of placement. 18. Expulsion is the hardest penalty the school can impose, and thus is reserved only for the most serious offenses and is available only with students who are at least ten years old.Grounds:1. Possession of a weapon2. Assaultive offenses3. Arson4. Murder5. Indecency with a child6. Aggravated kidnapping7. Drug or alcohol offenses if punishable as a felony8. Retaliatory commission of an expellable offense against a school employee 19. The effect of this provisions is to eliminateexpulsion in the large counties. Students who areexpelled due to commission of a mandatoryexpulsion offense likely will be required to attendthe JJAEP. The Education Code does not tell us how muchprocess is due prior to an expulsion. Instead, itmerely invokes federal constitutional standards. State law specifies that the appeal of a studentexpulsion is to be heard by the district court by trial de novo, meaning, essentially, a new trial. 20. School officials encounter emergencies daily. Texaslaw recognizes that there are occasions when astudent must be removed form the school due to anemergency. Emergency removal to a DAEP is also availablewhenever the principal or designee reasonablybelieves the students behavior is so unruly,disruptive, or abusive that it seriously interferes witha teachers ability to communicate effectively with thestudents in a class, with the ability of the studentsclassmates to learn, or with the operation of the schoolor a school-sponsored activity. Neither emergency placement nor emergencyexpulsion under 37.019 has a definite time limit. 21. School districts must notify the juvenile board whenstudents commits an offense that requires placementin DAEP or expulsion. A Juvenile Justice AEP (JJAEP) is required in anycountry with a population in excess of 125,000. Smallercounties may develop a JJAEP but are not required todo so. The law now prohibits a judge from placing anexpelled student back in any school program,including a school-operated DAEP, unless the juvenileboard and the school board have entered into amemorandum of understanding concerning thejuvenile probation departments role in supervisingand providing other support services for students inAEPs (TEX 37.010(c)). 22. State law does not address those strategies to beused for routine student discipline. This is a matterlargely left to the local school district, itsadministrators, and its teachers. Traditionally teachers and administrators haveexercised authority over students on the basis ofthe common law doctrine of in loco parentis, inplace of a parent. While no hearing is required legally when usingroutine disciplinary techniques, it seems wise toinform the student of the infraction and give thestudent a chance to explain. 23. There have been efforts to eliminate corporalpunishment by judicial decree, but they have notbeen successful. The Fifth Circuit followed up on its Cunninghamv. Beavers ruling by issuing a similar decisionsinvolving the paddling of a sixth grade specialeducation student by the schools principal. While Texas leaves all decisions about corporalpunishment to local officials, it does imposestatewide restrictions on other practices of aphysical nature. Section 37.002I of the TECabsolutely prohibits the use of seclusion bypublic schools. 24. Early cases indicated that at least some sort ofminimal due process was required. In Ector CountyI.S.D. v. Hopkins (1974) a Texas court of appealsruled that a student was entitled to notice and ahearing before permanent expulsion form theNational Honor Society and the Permian Pepettes. Student involvement with extracurricular activity isfurther affected by the students status in school.TEC 37.006(g) requires that students who areremoved to a DAEP also must be removed fromparticipation in or attendance at extracurricularactivities.</p>
View more >