CFBISD STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR 2009-2010 VIOLATES STATE LAW!

http://www.cfbisd.edu/pages/studentsDocuments.cfm?codeconduct2009%2D10%2Epdf&object=81&folderID=6&fileID=18&action=view


http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB00171F.htm

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm



With the passage Texas State Legislature and signing in to law by Governor Perry of HB 171, the Board of Trustees of School District had to make significant changes to the Student Code of Conduct. The board of trustees failed to make these changes.

The Texas State Legislature passed HB 171 unanimously in the House and with only one dissenting vote the Senate. Clearly, it was the intent of legislature to send a message to administrators and school boards that they need to make major changes in disciplinary policies.

In analysis of HB 171 the State Legislature concluded :

Many students are unreasonably disciplined because of a school district's choice not to consider mitigating factors when evaluating a student’s action in a decision regarding suspension, removal, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program. Current law authorizes, but does not require, school districts to consider mitigating factors such as self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in certain conduct, a student's disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. Such factors are clearly relevant and consideration of such factors is clearly necessary in making a fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined.

Although the CFISD school district policy always permitted building administrators to consider self-defense and a student’s disability as mitigating factors in determining appropriate disciplinary action, administrators often ignored this policy. The CFBISD Board of Trustees never established procedures to enforce this policy. Nor has the Board of Trustees ever conducted review to determine if building level administrators are incompliance with this policy. In fact the Board of Trustees has abrogated its responsibility for student discipline. In most cases student discipline is administered by building level without any review or opportunity for appeal.

HR 171 changes the State Education code to require that: “...that consideration will be given, as a factor in each decision concerning suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, expulsion, or placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program, regardless of whether the decision concerns a mandatory or discretionary action, to:
(A) self-defense;
(B) intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct;
(C) a student's disciplinary history; or
(D) a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct;”



In each decision, an administrator must consider did an individual student acted in self-defense, an individual student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct, an individual student’s disciplinary history, or disability that substantially impairs the individual student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct.

The code change clearly states, "consideration will be given, as a factor in EACH decision..." Another words..ZERO TOLERANCE..policies are illegal.
For example, it is no longer acceptable or legal for a school to have a policy to automatically suspends a student simply because a student engages in physical altercation. In each case, an Administrator must consider if student acted in self-defense. The administrator must establish that a student to mutually engaged in the altercation with the intent to subdue, to control, or cause harm to another individual. The administrator must establish that the student voluntarily participated in the altercation. The administrator ascertain whether a student a have disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct. The administrator must consider each incident and each student individually. Further, Administrator was required under the state education code to determined if a student was a victim of an assault. An administrator must take reasonable steps to find the truth in EACH case.

Please note, that the code change does not require that a student assert he or she acted in self defense prior to school administrator giving consideration self defense as a migrating factor. The new code changes, do NOT require that a student with a disability be enrolled in special education nor does the change the state code required that the student reveal his disability to school officials prior to engaging in the conduct under review. The clearly requires administrators to give consideration to any student with a disability “that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student's conduct.”

State legislature did not provide a definition for self-defense in the changes to the education code, however, the State legislature did define self-defense in section 9.31 of the State Penal code: …a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force… in determining whether an actor …reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. This is the definition that must be applied by school districts. An administrator is not allowed to apply or substitute his or her own definition of self-defense. Because HR 171 requires that changes in education code be included in the district student code of conduct, the legal definition of self-defense must be included to assure compliance with the code change.

According to the 2009-2010 code of conduct, suspensions are building-level decisions and shall not be appealed. The building level administrator has the final decision in building-level interventions. This policy must change. Although, HR 171 does not specifically require that school districts establish an appeal process for suspensions, obviously districts must establish procedures resolved disputes when violations of State Education Code are alleged. Additionally, a student with a disability that substantially impairs the individual student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the student’s conduct , must be opportunity present statements from medical and mental health professionals. Clearly, the State Legislature intent in HR 171 was to assure fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined, an appeal process is absolutely necessary to assure compliance with HR 171. It is unreasonable to allow building administrators to suspend a student without any review or appeal and expect compliance with the provisions of HR 171.

Additionally, The student code of conduct provides a laundry list 31 offenses under the heading of General Misconduct. This list includes minor offenses such as violating safety rules, and vulgarity, as well as, fighting and scuffling. Separately, the Student of Code of conduct also lists 24 possible disciplinary interventions including “out of school suspension.” Neither lists ranks or classifies misconduct or disciplinary intervention by severity or appropriateness. There is no correlation made between an act of misconduct and a possible disciplinary intervention. It is impossible to identify any conduct for which a student may or may not be suspended. The Board of Trustees of the Carrolton- Farmers District did not identify , in the student code of conduct, any conduct for which a student may be suspended as required by the state education code:

Sec. 37.001. STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT

(3) outline conditions under which a student may be suspended as provided by Section 37.005 or expelled as provided by Section 37.007;

Sec. 37.005. SUSPENSION. (a) The principal or other appropriate administrator may suspend a student who engages in conduct identified in the student code of conduct adopted under Section 37.001 as conduct for which a student may be suspended.