Tardiness and unexcused absences have reasons that fall outside of the intent-to-harm spectrum as well, requiring schools to work with students and parents to resolve the underlying issues that cause the behavior in the first place. A fourth-grader in Florida was threatened with sexual harassment charges in because he wrote a love letter to one of his classmates. Common sense must be part of a zero tolerance policy, but unfortunately, these rules tend to create an over-reaction by the adults in that situation.
It focuses more on classroom disruption than the needs of the child involved. In a case that spanned more than four years, judges in Maryland upheld the suspension of a 7-year-old boy who was suspended for chewing his breakfast into the shape of a gun and pretending to shoot classmates with it. As with most cases that involve playacting and young children, the child created classroom disruptions because he was troubled too. He was new to the school, joined the class late, and would often display self-harm behaviors while in class — including banking his head on the walls.
Schools should not be the catch-all solution for every family, but they can be a resource to help kids find the help they need instead of brandishing them as a troublemaker. Zero tolerance policies can make it challenging to access the help that people need.
Some zero tolerance policy rules may be discriminatory. If you have a child who has been disciplined because of a zero tolerance policy, then you might want to speak with an education lawyer for advice on how to prepare for the proceedings. It will be up to you to protect the rights of your child. Attorneys experienced in civil rights and educational law can explain whatever legal options may be available to use, including suing the school district. Educators must be educated about how to enforce these policies accurately.
An year-old boy in Virginia received a 1-year suspension because educators thought that he was carrying a marijuana leaf to school. An assistant principal found the leaf in his backpack and initiated disciplinary action. The leaf was tested three times for marijuana and it was negative each incident. Kids have been suspended for bringing bags of oregano to school for the same reason. There is no consistency applied to zero tolerance rules.
Proponents of zero tolerance rules say that the consistency of this reaction is the reason why it is such an effective approach to school discipline.
The only problem with that perspective is that it requires human beings to be perfect — and we all know how fallible our species can be. A Delaware third grader is an excellent example of this disadvantage.
Her school district suspended her for a year because she brought a weapon to school. Grandma included a knife to help cut it. Then the teacher used that knife to cut and serve the cake to the rest of the class… before turning the student in for bringing the weapon to school. In this situation, the expulsion was eventually overturned.
Different people have unique interpretations of what a rule requires. Anthony Ruelas was 15 years old and attending school in Killeen Texas.
One of his classmates ended up having an asthma attack in class, and her condition worried him. The teacher was waiting to receive an email from the nurse to determine what should be done. The school district gave him a two-day suspension because he had refused to follow the directions from his teacher. Situations like this occur all of the time. Honor student Diane Tran was making straight As and working two jobs to support her siblings, but it also led to unexcused absences.
She was arrested for truancy and held for 24 hours for missing school despite her grades. Those charges were eventually dropped. Zero tolerance policies were created to prevent school shootings because they gave school districts some leverage in sending home students caught with a deadly weapon on campus.
The purpose of zero tolerance is to create a school climate free of violence and disturbing elements which is conducive to learning and teaching. It shares the related goals which are basic to disciplinary policy and philosophy. Although zero tolerance policies were originally designed to help protect the students from potential pressures, most schools are currently reevaluating the implication of the standards.
Schools often now individually analyze each and every student infraction. Supporters of zero tolerance policies state that due to zero tolerance, crime has reduced by 30 percent in public schools since data collected by United States Justice Policy Institute. Statistically colleges and schools are the safest places for children and teens.
Zero Tolerance policies are typically enacted by a school against a exact action, or possession of something on school property. The policies extend to activities or items which are not clear threats to school safety for example, nail clippers. This leads to removal of students viewed as good students from school due to which appear to be minor infractions. The school expulsion and suspension which results from application of zero tolerance policies removes a large amount of students from the chance to learn.
Zero Tolerance Policies mandate the permanent expulsion of any student bringing a dangerous weapon to school. If a student is permanently expelled from school, what happens to the student? The guide tells school communities: 1 what to look for--the early warning signs that relate to violence and other troubling student behavior; and 2 what to do--the action steps that school communities can take to prevent violence and other troubling behaviors, to intervene and get help for troubled children, and to respond to school violence when it occurs.
Produced for the Departments of Education and Justice, and vetted by the White House and 26 National Associations, this Action Guide provides practical steps schools can take to design and implement school safety plans to reduce violence in our schools and help children get access to services they need.
This guide stresses the importance of a three-stage, comprehensive model that includes prevention, early intervention and intensive services to address school safety issues. This report reviews the importance of effective professional development of school personnel to break the school-to-prison pipeline and promote positive youth development.
This article describes three approaches to improving school discipline practices and student behavior: ecological approaches to classroom management; school-wide positive behavioral supports; and social emotional learning.
The article examines the supporting research and suggests ways to combine approaches. The School, Family, and Training sections of the site link to tools, videos, and training sources that can be used for various levels and phases of implementation. This brief reviews literature on the implementation and effects of zero tolerance policies in schools and presents evaluated, alternative policies that have improved student outcomes and school safety.
This guide provides an overview of school violence prevention and explains alternatives to zero tolerance that are effective and provides guidance on how to implement alternative policies.
This webpage lists suggestions for administrators and teachers who are interested in implementing alternatives to zero tolerance policies. This report profiles three school districts--Denver, Chicago and Palm Beach County--where zero tolerance policies and practices are in place but where community members are beginning to realize and address its adverse impact.
This report focuses on two forms of exclusion from school that many Pennsylvania public school districts rely upon heavily: out-of-school suspensions OSS and removal from school by police, a category that includes arrests and summary offenses. In this first-time analysis of statewide school discipline data for Pennsylvania, we found that Black and Latino students and students with disabilities have been disproportionately removed from school.
School Shop. Your Cart. No items found. Product is not available in this quantity.
0コメント