Parents and students seldom dispute the disciplinary actions of school authorities up until the late 1960s. Schools are a place considered to provide instruction, instill good value, and inspire the morals of our nation (Arum 60). The courts decided that it was important to give teachers and school administrators’ authority over student behavior. The authority initiated from the English common law concept of in loco parentis which means in place of the parent. This law allowed parents to give school personnel a given amount of control over their children when they place their children in school (Yell 8). This gave administrators and teachers the ability to guide, correct, and discipline in an orderly and effective learning environment while maintaining practical control of students as they do their job teaching. Loco parentis implies that teachers and administrators have a responsibility to see that school order is maintained by requiring students to obey reasonable rules and commands, ensure others rights are respected, and conduct themselves in a safe and orderly manner while at school (Yell 8). Students are supposed to know what behaviors are acceptable or forbidden. They need to be accountable if they refuse to comply with reasonable school rules by behaving in prohibited ways. Holding the students accountable, means the violators will be subject to disciplinary measures or consequences.
As students civil rights revolution evolved, and the increase of these rights emerged, parents and students, began to question, undermine, and challenge school disciplinary practices in court with the help of lawyers in the public’s interest. The timeframe for drastic school discipline changes began around 1969. The Supreme Court ruled how...
... middle of paper ...
..., Barry A. "School Discipline: “Is There a Crisis in Our Schools?" Australian Journal of Social Issues 35.1 (2000): 73-86. EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Jackson, Toby. "Getting Serious About School Discipline." Public Interest 133 (1998): 68+.
Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Jost, Kenneth. "Student Rights." CQ Researcher 19.21 (2009): 501-524. CQ Researcher. Web.
21 Nov. 2010.
Wintour, Patrick, and Nicholas Watt. "Gove promises to end 'no touch' rules for teachers:
Government's 'new deal' in the classroom on eve of Tory conference.” The Guardian. 2 Oct. 2010. ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Yell, Mitchell L., and Michael E. Rozalski. "The Impact of Legislation and Litigation on Discipline and Student Behavior in the Classroom." Preventing School Failure 52.3 (2008): 7-16. EBSCO MegaFILE. EBSCO. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
The impact left in this case, Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005), has been an issue that?s gone on for decades. It is a more recent encounter that shows it still exists in modern day. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) and Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) these cases both enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 such as Jackson vs. Board of Education (2005). Rights to equal protection began in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). This case left a huge impact on equal rights against sexual discrimination, discussing the importance of the 14th
Discipline, the way to obey rules and codes of behavioral attitudes, using punishment to correct disobedience, an essential ingredient for “good” can be found within our childhood schools. At the start of Wes Moore’s school years, Wes Moore had problems with motivation to go to school and he would skip school with some of his classmates who skipped the same day. This lead to a lack
In 1954, The Brown vs. The Board of Education decision made segregation in schools illegal. New York City’s attempt to integrate the schools was unsuccessful, leaving them more segregated than before.(Podair 30) By 1966, New York City’s black communities were unhappy with the Board of Education’s control of their school districts because of its repeated unsuccessful attempts at integration. Many white groups, like the Parents and Taxpayers Organization, were also frustrated with the current system and called for “The Neighborhood School.” It was their discontent that motivated the community control of the Ocean Hill Brownsville school district. Because of the city’s civil rights movement and their support from many influential people and groups, the district was granted control .(Podair 82)
The decision to integrate Boston schools in the 1970’s created negative race relations and later fueled a political debate that would change schools across the country. Most desegregation efforts in the United States began with the case of Oliver Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. The case ruled that segregation on the basis of race was prohibited because it violated citizen’s rights under the Constitution. On June 21, 1974 in the case of Morgan vs. Hennigan, Judge Garret made a ruling that accused the Boston School Committee of engaging in racial segregation. “This ruling later would serve to fuel one of the prominent controversies embedded in our nation’s ongoing struggle for racial desegregation.” The busing policy created extreme acts of violence, invaded personal freedoms, hindered students’ education and
20 May 2014. This article shows a majority of the cases that are relevant to the topic and research questions; it clearly shows the articles that are involved with public schools and how and what they did. It helps answer that research question because it shows that some of the schools are capable of bypassing the system, but sometimes get overturned. Paulson, Ken. A.
Another major reason why juveniles are ending up in the juvenile justice system is because many schools have incorporate the zero tolerance policy and other extreme school disciplinary rules. In response to violent incidents in schools, such as the Columbine High School massacre, school disciplinary policies have become increasingly grave. These policies have been enacted at the school, district and state levels with the hopes of ensuring the safety of students and educators. These policies all rely on the zero tolerance policy. While it is understandable that protecting children and teachers is a priority, it is not clear that these strict policies are succeeding in improving the safety in schools.
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” I have often heard. We know people kill people. The real issue now is whether or not people can change people. Some are of the opinion that we are capable of doing so; by implementing new reforms and tightening school security, people are, in effect, saying they have the solutions to the problems. The violence of recent school shootings has wrought anxiety and fear in parents, teachers, and administrators across the nation. The massacre of Columbine turned a public school library into a cemetery. The shooting in Oklahoma ripped us from the comfort of a stereotypical and easily recognized threat; now popular straight-A students pull guns without black trench coats. The violence has become unpredictable and, in all cases, extremely frightening. In response to the threat, schools have engaged in extensive prevention programs, often banning book-bags, implementing dress codes, setting up metal detectors, or requiring students to attend anger management classes. Such attempts at reform sound efficient on paper and may to some extent alleviate the anxieties of parents, but they are like storming castle walls with slingshots. The object of reform in this case is not tangible or always plausible. The object of reform is the human heart, the internal person. We need to understand that the problem is bigger than a trench coat or a gun; therefore, dress codes or metal detectors cannot solve it. These reforms are often vain attempts at prevention. They hinder education and provoke students. Policy makers and schools need to be aware that no simple public mandate can suffice as a solution.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown vs. The Board of Education that schools needed to integrate and provide equal education for all people and it was unconstitutional for the state to deny certain citizens this opportunity. Although this decision was a landmark case and meant the schools could no longer deny admission to a child based solely on the color of their skin. By 1957, most schools had began to slowly integrate their students, but those in the deep south were still trying to fight the decision. One of the most widely known instances of this happening was at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. It took the school district three years to work out an integration plan. The board members and faculty didn't like the fact that they were going to have to teach a group of students that were looked down upon and seen as "inferior" to white students. However, after much opposition, a plan was finally proposed. The plan called for the integration to happen in three phases. First, during the 1957-1958 school year, the senior high school would be integrated, then after completion at the senior high level, the junior high would be integrated, and the elementary levels would follow in due time. Seventeen students were chosen from hundreds of applicants to be the first black teenagers to begin the integration process. The town went into an uproar. Many acts of violence were committed toward the African-Americans in the city. Racism and segregation seemed to be on the rise. Most black students decid...
What are the steps to due process? What significance are the court cases Goss v. Lopez and Dixon v. Alabama in maintaining a well-ordered school?
Brown v. Board of the Education in 1954 was a landmark decision in the education arena. The decision maintained that schools that separated students by the color of their skin could no longer be maintained. The court saw this as necessary, since in their mind schools for black students would always be inferior. This inferiority would not be caused by lack of resources, although that usually was a contributing factor to the poor quality of the school, physically and performance-wise. As the Supreme Court saw it, s...
Schools inevitably must deal with disciplinary action when it comes to misconduct in students. However, at what point should the courts and law enforcement intervene? “Zero tolerance” policies started as a trend in the school setting during the 1990s in “response to the widespread perception that juvenile violence was increasing and school officials needed to take desperate measures to address the problem” (Aull 2012:182-183). However, national statistics indicated a decrease in juvenile’s share of crime during the influx of zero tolerance policies in schools (National Crime Justice Reference Service 2005).
Glasser, William. "Noncoercive Discipline." In Building Classroom Discipline, edited by C.M. Charles. New York: Longman Press. 1999.
The Supreme Court is perhaps most well known for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. By declaring that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Kevern Verney says a ‘direct reversal of the Plessy … ruling’1 58 years earlier was affected. It was Plessy which gave southern states the authority to continue persecuting African-Americans for the next sixty years. The first positive aspect of Brown was was the actual integration of white and black students in schools. Unfortunately, this was not carried out to a suitable degree, with many local authorities feeling no obligation to change the status quo. The Supreme Court did issue a second ruling, the so called Brown 2, in 1955. This forwarded the idea that integration should proceed 'with all deliberate speed', but James T. Patterson tells us even by 1964 ‘only an estimated 1.2% of black children ... attended public schools with white children’2. This demonstrates that, although the Supreme Court was working for Civil Rights, it was still unable to force change. Rathbone agrees, saying the Supreme Court ‘did not do enough to ensure compliance’3. However, Patterson goes on to say that ‘the case did have some impact’4. He explains how the ruling, although often ignored, acted ‘relatively quickly in most of the boarder s...
According to C.M. Charles, the author of "Building Classroom Discipline," the definition of discipline is, "what teachers do to help students behave acceptably in school (1999,p3)." Discipline is associated to misbehavior, wherever misbehavior is found, and discipline is needed. The main goals of discipline are to prevent, suppress and redirect misbehavior. Students can also be cruel and disruptive, which can deny the purpose of learning in the classroom. Another goal of discipline is to help students control their own behavior in and outside the classroom (Charles, 1999). My own definition of discipline is using any means necessary to keep a classroom organized, productive and accessible for learning. Discipline is necessary in a classroom, to give students an opportunity to learn to there fullest. Without discipline, the classroom would be a place where teachers could not perform their job but a place for them to baby-sit misbehaved children.
The question posed in the survey dealt with the employee’s perception on whose responsibility it is for discipline issues, and collaboration on discipline responsibilities. The analysis of the results in response to the question revealed a strong belief among staff members( 80 % or 4/5 members) that each of them are sure of their responsibilities they have and what the responsibilities of other staff members are when dealing with discipline issues. Staff member feel that they are able to have discussions with other staff members and the administration regarding discipline concerns and that their input is valued. The Staff faculty view determining discipline responsibilities as both individual and as a team and feel that the environment is conducive for interaction among staff and administration in discussing individual and group discipline responsibilities. Staff members felt supported by other staff members and the administration in application of discipline in both their classrooms as well as in the school commons. 1/5 (20%) of the staff still feel somewhat confused in the responsibilities of staff in school wide discipline issues. The main comment that the respondent shared dealt with legal issues of who to call; the police or resource officer when they had to handle a smoking on campus issue with an eighteen old senior. Overall, the staff feels they are able to develop and handle discipline policies and responsibilities with little assistance from the administrator. On a positive note, the administration has enabled the staff to come up with individual and group discipline responsibilities and supports their beliefs. In Kathleen Cotton’s article, “Schoolwide and Classroom Discipline” the author discusses that effective school leaders delegate the discipline authority to teachers so they feel empowered