http://cfbstaff.cfbisd.edu/bush/policies/policies.html#Conduct.
They're students not criminals. Twelve year old children should not be treated as criminals for a loud outburst or profanity. Barbra Bush Middle School criminalizes student misconduct by applying provisions in the State Education Code to protect schools from intentional disruptive behavior. (see the law below.)
Unfortunately, the administration at Barbra Bush Middle school applied this provision of the law to cite students for class B and C misdemeanors for misconduct including "...yelling or screaming in anger at another person, the use of profanity, behavior that repeatedly disrupts classroom instruction, or a physical altercation. This behavior may be between student & adult or student & student." However, if one actually reads the law, a person can only be cited for "entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane language, disrupting class activities."
The law is not directed at students but, at "a person;" any person, including teachers and administrators, yelling or screaming in anger at another person, the use of profanity must be cited. If your student's teacher yells and screams in anger call the Irving police and ask to have them cited. Any law directed at “a person” must be enforced in the same matter, regardless if that person is a student, a teacher or administrator
Citations cannot be reversed once they are issued, and require appearance by the student and parent in court.
If not dismissed by the court, a Class C citation issued at school can
have long-lasting implications:
• Included on adult criminal record
• Not automatically expunged from a criminal record
• Must be disclosed on job and college applications as a “criminal conviction”
• May be considered in sentencing in future criminal cases
Unfortunately, the Board of Trustees has not established policies outlining the specific conditions and disruptive behavior that would require intervention by the police and the issuance of a citation.
A reasonable policy would include a cooling off period before citations are issued. Parents should have a 24-hour window in which they can appear before any criminal citation can be administered. The only exception would involve firearms and a continuing threat to the safety of school personnel and students. Concerning any infraction that may result potential law enforcement action, parents must be contacted immediately and given to opportunity to be present prior to any questioning by law enforcement.
If these policies remain unchanged at Barbra Bush Middle School, parents of students need to direct their child to remain silent in the event he/she is questioned by a teacher, principal, social worker, psychologist or police officer about any non-academic matter related to information about said student or another student. Because any statement they make can and will be used in a court of law.
Sec. 37.123. DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person, alone or in concert with others, intentionally engages in disruptive
activity on the campus or property of any private or public school.
(b) For purposes of this section, disruptive activity is:
(1) obstructing or restraining the passage of persons in an exit, entrance, or
hallway of a building without the authorization of the administration of the school;
(2) seizing control of a building or portion of a building to interfere with an
administrative, educational, research, or other authorized activity;
(3) preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence or the threat of
force or violence a lawful assembly authorized by the school administration so
that a person attempting to participate in the assembly is unable to participate
due to the use of force or violence or due to a reasonable fear that force or
violence is likely to occur;
(4) disrupting by force or violence or the threat of force or violence a lawful
assembly in progress; or
(5) obstructing or restraining the passage of a person at an exit or entrance to
the campus or property or preventing or attempting to prevent by force or violence
or by threats of force or violence the ingress or egress of a person to or from
the property or campus without the authorization of the administration of the
school.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
(d) Any person who is convicted the third time of violating this section is
ineligible to attend any institution of higher education receiving funds from this
state before the second anniversary of the third conviction.
(e) This section may not be construed to infringe on any right of free speech or
expression guaranteed by the constitution of the United States or of this state.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.
Sec. 37.124. DISRUPTION OF CLASSES. (a) A person commits an offense if the
person, on school property or on public property within 500 feet of school
property, alone or in concert with others, intentionally disrupts the conduct of
classes or other school activities.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Disrupting the conduct of classes or other school activities" includes:
(A) emitting noise of an intensity that prevents or hinders classroom
instruction;
(B) enticing or attempting to entice a student away from a class or other school
activity that the student is required to attend;
(C) preventing or attempting to prevent a student from attending a class or other
school activity that the student is required to attend; and
(D) entering a classroom without the consent of either the principal or the
teacher and, through either acts of misconduct or the use of loud or profane
language, disrupting class activities.
(2) "Public property" includes a street, highway, alley, public park, or
sidewalk.
(3) "School property" includes a public school campus or school grounds on which
a public school is located and any grounds or buildings used by a school for an
assembly or other school-sponsored activity.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, Sec. 1, eff. May 30, 1995.
Showing posts with label Student Disciplinary Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Student Disciplinary Policy. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2009
What student code of conduct should be...
Safe, orderly high achieving schools require the collaboration and support of
students, staff, parents, and the community. CFBISD needs develop a plan to
involve parents in the creation and maintenance of a safe and orderly school
environment which positively impacts the learning environment.
The Board of Trustees should provide for the annual review and updating of the
code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the
school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions
are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents, and students are critical to
keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with
the community and parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school.
Progressive discipline processes, shall be designed to create the expectation that
the degree of discipline will be in proportion to the severity of the behavior
leading to the discipline, that the previous discipline history of the student
being disciplined and other relevant factors will be taken into account, and that
all due process procedures required by federal and state law will be followed.
Codes of conduct specify behavior that is accepted or prohibited in the school as
well as in any setting that is related to the school. Codes of conduct generally
state the behavior expected to be demonstrated by the student. Discipline policies
outline consequences/punishments that will occur in response to specific
misbehavior.
Schools generally define and shape desirable behavior within the framework of a
code of conduct. Consequences and punishments for unacceptable behaviors are
specified in a discipline policy. Neither by itself is sufficient to completely
address the spectrum of student behavior. Merely stating desired behavior has no
provision for inevitable misconduct; having only a discipline code dwells on the
negative and does not provide a positive direction.
Elements of an Effective Code of Conduct
1. Establish expected behavior. Codes of conduct should enumerate those
behaviors that the student is expected to demonstrate. These behaviors may become
the system's/school's core values. Generally codes of conduct state that students
are expected to:
* Demonstrate respect for self and others.
* Demonstrate courtesy to others.
* Behave in a responsible manner.
* Attend class regularly.
* Be prepared for class.
* Take seriously the course of study.
* Dress appropriately.
* Cooperate with school officials.
* Respect other's property.
* Avoid violation of student code of conduct.
2. Encourage parent, community, staff, and student support. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values. Codes must also specify how communications with parents and the community will be maintained throughout the discipline process. Once completed, the code should be shared with all interested parties and any feedback should be given serious consideration.
3. Are written in easy-to-understand terms. Write codes in clear and concise language identifying unacceptable behavior and specify the consequence that will be administered for engaging in the behavior. Clear and concise codes are essential for understanding and support of an orderly school by the community and parents. Clear and concise codes also help teachers and other school personnel who are responsible for administering them to act swiftly and with authority. An example of a code statement is as follows:
* Behavior: Destruction of school property.
* Consequence: Parent conference; After-school detention; Assignment to In-School Suspension.
4. Include consequences for unacceptable behaviors, as defined by the district, from minor to severe. Schools must facilitate the development of self-discipline in students. Neglecting to address minor unacceptable behaviors such as rudeness and other disruptive actions may lead to more serious behaviors. Codes that focus on one or the other may undermine the development of self-discipline in students. For schools to maintain a safe and orderly environment, systems must handle the full range of unacceptable behaviors.
5. Match consequences with the severity of the misbehavior. Codes should list
separately minor and severe misbehavior with the resulting disciplinary action.
Codes constructed in this format allow students to immediately identify the range
of actions, from loss of privileges to expulsion, that may result from the behavior.
6. Require prompt removal of dangerous and chronically disruptive students from
the learning environment.
7. Provide for the annual review and updating of the code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents/council, and students are critical to keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with the community and
parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of the community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values.
8. Each incident of inappropriate behavior is unique in terms of situational variables. Similarly, disciplinary action will reflect consideration of a number of factors specific to the student involved in the misbehavior. Teachers and administrators shall consider intent or lack of intent of the misconduct at the
time the student engaged in the conduct, as well as, the student’s age and grade level, the frequency of misbehavior, the student’s attitude, the effect of the misconduct on the school environment, the student’s disability, and claims of self-defense. 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. Mitigating factors should be defined broadly. The definition of self defense should be based
on the definition of 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. Consideration of self defense as a mitigating factor 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. Consideration of disability a mitigating factor do NOT require that a student with a disability be enrolled in special education nor the student required reveal his disability to school officials prior to engaging in the conduct under review.
9. Although the use of physical force by students should not be encouraged or condoned, however, disciplinary action will reflect consideration when a student uses physical force to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself, or to the degree the student reasonably believes that
his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
10. Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial. The code of conduct will include an appeals process that insures the child receives basic due process rights. All students and parents will have the ability to appeal any punishment decision to the school board within one month of the incident.
11. Concerning any infraction that may result in removal from school and potential law enforcement action, parents must be contacted immediately and given to opportunity to be present prior to any questioning by law enforcement. Parents will have a 24-hour window in which they can appear before any punishment or criminal citation can be administered. The only exception would involve firearms and a continuing threat to the safety of school personnel and students. Parents have the right to demand an attorney be present before police questioning (exception being a continuing threat) of their child.
12. Concealment of contraband items are a threat to the student and public safety. Students will have an opportunity to turn in any contraband item without immediate punishment. In the case of weapons, drugs, and alcohol, parents must be notified within 24 hours of the incident. If the administrators decide punishment is necessary, a student/parent conference shall be convened to discuss the incident and punishment will be determined at that time.
13. Student code of conduct should include a student's bill of rights. The bill rights will include all due process requirements of federal and state law. A student's excercise of his rights under the Constitution of United States will not be considered insubordination, admission of guilt or the basis for reasonable suspiscion or cause. A student has the right remain silent in the event he/she is questioned by a teacher, principal, social worker, psychologist or police officer about any non-academic matter related to information about said student or another student. A student has the right to not consent to his/her search of person, car, locker, purse, backpack or books. A student has the right not to sign any documentation without first obtaining permission from a parent or legal guardian.
students, staff, parents, and the community. CFBISD needs develop a plan to
involve parents in the creation and maintenance of a safe and orderly school
environment which positively impacts the learning environment.
The Board of Trustees should provide for the annual review and updating of the
code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the
school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions
are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents, and students are critical to
keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with
the community and parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school.
Progressive discipline processes, shall be designed to create the expectation that
the degree of discipline will be in proportion to the severity of the behavior
leading to the discipline, that the previous discipline history of the student
being disciplined and other relevant factors will be taken into account, and that
all due process procedures required by federal and state law will be followed.
Codes of conduct specify behavior that is accepted or prohibited in the school as
well as in any setting that is related to the school. Codes of conduct generally
state the behavior expected to be demonstrated by the student. Discipline policies
outline consequences/punishments that will occur in response to specific
misbehavior.
Schools generally define and shape desirable behavior within the framework of a
code of conduct. Consequences and punishments for unacceptable behaviors are
specified in a discipline policy. Neither by itself is sufficient to completely
address the spectrum of student behavior. Merely stating desired behavior has no
provision for inevitable misconduct; having only a discipline code dwells on the
negative and does not provide a positive direction.
Elements of an Effective Code of Conduct
1. Establish expected behavior. Codes of conduct should enumerate those
behaviors that the student is expected to demonstrate. These behaviors may become
the system's/school's core values. Generally codes of conduct state that students
are expected to:
* Demonstrate respect for self and others.
* Demonstrate courtesy to others.
* Behave in a responsible manner.
* Attend class regularly.
* Be prepared for class.
* Take seriously the course of study.
* Dress appropriately.
* Cooperate with school officials.
* Respect other's property.
* Avoid violation of student code of conduct.
2. Encourage parent, community, staff, and student support. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values. Codes must also specify how communications with parents and the community will be maintained throughout the discipline process. Once completed, the code should be shared with all interested parties and any feedback should be given serious consideration.
3. Are written in easy-to-understand terms. Write codes in clear and concise language identifying unacceptable behavior and specify the consequence that will be administered for engaging in the behavior. Clear and concise codes are essential for understanding and support of an orderly school by the community and parents. Clear and concise codes also help teachers and other school personnel who are responsible for administering them to act swiftly and with authority. An example of a code statement is as follows:
* Behavior: Destruction of school property.
* Consequence: Parent conference; After-school detention; Assignment to In-School Suspension.
4. Include consequences for unacceptable behaviors, as defined by the district, from minor to severe. Schools must facilitate the development of self-discipline in students. Neglecting to address minor unacceptable behaviors such as rudeness and other disruptive actions may lead to more serious behaviors. Codes that focus on one or the other may undermine the development of self-discipline in students. For schools to maintain a safe and orderly environment, systems must handle the full range of unacceptable behaviors.
5. Match consequences with the severity of the misbehavior. Codes should list
separately minor and severe misbehavior with the resulting disciplinary action.
Codes constructed in this format allow students to immediately identify the range
of actions, from loss of privileges to expulsion, that may result from the behavior.
6. Require prompt removal of dangerous and chronically disruptive students from
the learning environment.
7. Provide for the annual review and updating of the code of conduct. Based on the statistical data collected regarding discipline, the school should review the code to determine if corrections, additions or deletions are necessary. Data and feedback of staff, parents/council, and students are critical to keeping the code of conduct relevant to the student body. Sharing the data with the community and
parents ensures the perception of a safe and orderly school. Community and parent support of the district and its discipline code is critical. The district must ask parents, and may wish to include staff, students, and community representatives to serve on the team developing the code. This cross-section of the community will allow for broad representation of ideas and values.
8. Each incident of inappropriate behavior is unique in terms of situational variables. Similarly, disciplinary action will reflect consideration of a number of factors specific to the student involved in the misbehavior. Teachers and administrators shall consider intent or lack of intent of the misconduct at the
time the student engaged in the conduct, as well as, the student’s age and grade level, the frequency of misbehavior, the student’s attitude, the effect of the misconduct on the school environment, the student’s disability, and claims of self-defense. 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. Mitigating factors should be defined broadly. The definition of self defense should be based
on the definition of 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. Consideration of self defense as a mitigating factor 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. Consideration of disability a mitigating factor do NOT require that a student with a disability be enrolled in special education nor the student required reveal his disability to school officials prior to engaging in the conduct under review.
9. Although the use of physical force by students should not be encouraged or condoned, however, disciplinary action will reflect consideration when a student uses physical force to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself, or to the degree the student reasonably believes that
his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
10. Disciplinarians, although proceeding in utmost good faith, frequently act on the reports and advice of others; and the controlling facts and the nature of the conduct under challenge are often disputed. The risk of error is not at all trivial. The code of conduct will include an appeals process that insures the child receives basic due process rights. All students and parents will have the ability to appeal any punishment decision to the school board within one month of the incident.
11. Concerning any infraction that may result in removal from school and potential law enforcement action, parents must be contacted immediately and given to opportunity to be present prior to any questioning by law enforcement. Parents will have a 24-hour window in which they can appear before any punishment or criminal citation can be administered. The only exception would involve firearms and a continuing threat to the safety of school personnel and students. Parents have the right to demand an attorney be present before police questioning (exception being a continuing threat) of their child.
12. Concealment of contraband items are a threat to the student and public safety. Students will have an opportunity to turn in any contraband item without immediate punishment. In the case of weapons, drugs, and alcohol, parents must be notified within 24 hours of the incident. If the administrators decide punishment is necessary, a student/parent conference shall be convened to discuss the incident and punishment will be determined at that time.
13. Student code of conduct should include a student's bill of rights. The bill rights will include all due process requirements of federal and state law. A student's excercise of his rights under the Constitution of United States will not be considered insubordination, admission of guilt or the basis for reasonable suspiscion or cause. A student has the right remain silent in the event he/she is questioned by a teacher, principal, social worker, psychologist or police officer about any non-academic matter related to information about said student or another student. A student has the right to not consent to his/her search of person, car, locker, purse, backpack or books. A student has the right not to sign any documentation without first obtaining permission from a parent or legal guardian.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
ONE IN TEN STUDENTS SUBJECT TO OUT OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS
I am currently comparing discipline 2007-2008 statistics for CFBISD and LISD. Did you realize that 1 in 10 of CFBISD students was suspended out of school in 2007-2008? Did you realize that each one of students were suspended an average of 2 times. Unfortunately, the numbers I have were not broken down by grade level. Considering, these calculations are based on total enrollment and, since approximately 50% of the enrollment in CFBISD is in grades pre-k through 5th grade, the rate of suspensions among middle school and high school students is probably closer to 1 in 5. One has to question the effectiveness of out of school suspensions, when they are used so frequently and repetitively. In LISD, 1 of 50 students was suspended. Each student was suspended an average of once.
The Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District Student Code Conduct does not outline the conditions under which a student may be suspended, nor does the Student Code Conduct identify conduct for which a student could be suspended. Both are required by the State Education Code. The LISD Student Code Conduct does clearly identify conduct could be suspended. Additionally, LISD permits the appeal of suspensions. I believe that suspension should be used only in select circumstances, e.g. to defuse a tense situation.
In 2007-2008, 17576 disciplinary interventions , including expulsions, DAEP referrals, in school detentions and out of school suspensions. One third of these disciplinary interventions, 5835, were out of school suspensions. I cannot understand how anyone can justify this level of use out-of-school suspensions. How can everyone explain why a student at CFISD is five times more likely to be Suspended Out of School than a student at LISD?
See the full report here:
http://www.cfbisd.net/discipline_report.html
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Download_District_Summaries.html
The Carrollton-Farmers Branch School District Student Code Conduct does not outline the conditions under which a student may be suspended, nor does the Student Code Conduct identify conduct for which a student could be suspended. Both are required by the State Education Code. The LISD Student Code Conduct does clearly identify conduct could be suspended. Additionally, LISD permits the appeal of suspensions. I believe that suspension should be used only in select circumstances, e.g. to defuse a tense situation.
In 2007-2008, 17576 disciplinary interventions , including expulsions, DAEP referrals, in school detentions and out of school suspensions. One third of these disciplinary interventions, 5835, were out of school suspensions. I cannot understand how anyone can justify this level of use out-of-school suspensions. How can everyone explain why a student at CFISD is five times more likely to be Suspended Out of School than a student at LISD?
See the full report here:
http://www.cfbisd.net/discipline_report.html
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/adhocrpt/Disciplinary_Data_Products/Download_District_Summaries.html
Monday, August 17, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, August 7, 2009
CFBISD Board of Trustees must make major changes to Student Disciplinary Policy.
CFBISD Board of Trustees must make major changes to Student Disciplinary Policy.
The Texas State Legislature passed HB 171 unanimously in the House and with only one nay 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.
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;”
Although the CFISD school district always required 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 code changes give this policy the force of law. Please note, that the code change does not require that student has to assert he or she acted in self defense prior to the building administrator considering self defense as a migrating factor. Neither the established school policy nor the new code changes, require that a student be enrolled in special education to be considered disabled. Neither does the existing school board policy or the change the state code required that the student reveal his disability prior to the building administrator considering the disability as a mitigating factor. Under new code change must consider a student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.
The code change clearly states, " specify that 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 suspend 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 mutually engaged in the altercation with 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 always 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.
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.
Even before the passage of HR171, Texas courts had clearly established that administrators must considered student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.
Tarkington ISD v. Ellis
The Ninth District Court of Texas ruled that the Texas Education Code permits Texas school districts to decline to expel students for mandatory disciplinary infractions except for firearms if intent is adopted as a factor in expulsion decisions in the school district’s student code of conduct. From the opinion:
“The central issue in this case is whether Texas law mandates the expulsion of a student for unknowingly possessing a weapon on a school district’s property. We hold that the Texas Education Code permits school districts to decline to expel students for unknowingly possessing prohibited weapons if the districts have adopted intent as a factor in expulsion decisions.”
http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/data/TarkingtonISD_1_.pdf
It is abundantly clear, by requiring administrators to consider a student's disciplinary history as a mitigating factor, a student should not be suspended for a single minor violation of the Student Code Conduct. Suspensions, as a disciplinary intervention should be used for significant or repeated violations of the student code conduct.
The Texas State Legislature passed HB 171 unanimously in the House and with only one nay 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.
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;”
Although the CFISD school district always required 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 code changes give this policy the force of law. Please note, that the code change does not require that student has to assert he or she acted in self defense prior to the building administrator considering self defense as a migrating factor. Neither the established school policy nor the new code changes, require that a student be enrolled in special education to be considered disabled. Neither does the existing school board policy or the change the state code required that the student reveal his disability prior to the building administrator considering the disability as a mitigating factor. Under new code change must consider a student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.
The code change clearly states, " specify that 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 suspend 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 mutually engaged in the altercation with 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 always 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.
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.
Even before the passage of HR171, Texas courts had clearly established that administrators must considered student’s intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct.
Tarkington ISD v. Ellis
The Ninth District Court of Texas ruled that the Texas Education Code permits Texas school districts to decline to expel students for mandatory disciplinary infractions except for firearms if intent is adopted as a factor in expulsion decisions in the school district’s student code of conduct. From the opinion:
“The central issue in this case is whether Texas law mandates the expulsion of a student for unknowingly possessing a weapon on a school district’s property. We hold that the Texas Education Code permits school districts to decline to expel students for unknowingly possessing prohibited weapons if the districts have adopted intent as a factor in expulsion decisions.”
http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/data/TarkingtonISD_1_.pdf
It is abundantly clear, by requiring administrators to consider a student's disciplinary history as a mitigating factor, a student should not be suspended for a single minor violation of the Student Code Conduct. Suspensions, as a disciplinary intervention should be used for significant or repeated violations of the student code conduct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)