Search

It seems uncontentious that policy development should be informed by evidence, and that researchers should be engaged to assess available evidence. In this paper, we tell the story of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) about school exclusion, a task intended to inform a 'root and branch' policy review. Drawing on Carol Bacchi's 'What's the problem?' approach, we use the project brief and the changing texts that we wrote to show that, while we began reviewing literature with a generous definition of exclusion, our focus progressively narrowed to encompass only the literatures that fitted with the pre-existing policy definition. Our story shows that a need to focus on big E Exclusion policy eliminated insights about little e exclusion, in particular how wider social relations and the school itself were implicated. The case raises critical questions about how policy evidence about exclusion is produced – and limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines college or university's obligations with regard to the right to counsel in school disciplinary proceedings in the U.S. Topics discussed include students' occasional legal right to have counsel present, at their own expense, at school disciplinary proceedings; and ways in which colleges and universities generally are not legally obligated to provide students with counsel for sexual assault disciplinary proceedings.

Every day, students from marginalized communities disproportionately face adversity and trauma. It is well documented that exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can impact children's ability to focus, learn, and even regulate their emotions. Many schools, rather than providing multi-tiered systems of support to address the root causes of behavior, place these students at greater risk of experiencing health disparities through the use of exclusionary school discipline (ESD) practices. ESDs not only deny students important educational opportunities, but also can compound existing social, economic, and health inequities. Thus, ESD practices must be understood as more than simply impacting what happens in the classroom. Instead, they should be conceptualized as public health policies with far-reaching impacts on a child's lifelong health and well-being. Even though school discipline has largely been overlooked by the public health community, current reform efforts are one aspect of a holistic health justice framework. This article seeks to begin to bridge current gaps in the literature and public discourse by identifying key linkages between ESD practices and health. It then presents evidence-based design principles to ensure education policy is aligned with a health justice framework. And finally, it explores a specific school-based intervention, restorative justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: School discipline reformers have presumed that such work is largely a technical task, emphasizing discrete changes to discipline policies and protocols. Yet prior theory and research suggest that emphasizing technical changes may overlook additional and important aspects of reform, namely, the normative and political dimensions within which technical aspects are embedded. Although this earlier work appears relevant to contemporary school discipline reform, the extent to which this theory extends to school discipline remains unestablished. The purpose of this article is to show how this earlier line of theory extends to the topic of school discipline. Method: We draw on data collected as part of a qualitative study in which we conducted semistructured interviews and focus groups with 198 educators from 33 public schools on the topic of school discipline. We applied an equity-minded reform theory to examine technical, normative, and political dimensions of school discipline. Findings and Implications: We found the technical dimension of school discipline was characterized by educators’ strategic use of school resources and capacity building; normative conditions that supported conflict prevention and increased responsibility; and political dynamics in which administrators shifted power to encourage more inclusive discipline strategies. Furthermore, using this model illuminated interrelationships between dimensions, suggesting that unidimensional models—and their related reforms—may overlook nuances of this important reform issue. This theoretical extension provides a more holistic conceptualization than currently used in reform efforts, contributes to earlier lines of scholarship, and opens up new avenues of future inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. Topics discussed include issues relating to the racial disparities; information on the school discipline policy; and the equitable enforcement of the student discipline policies, practices and procedures.

This review examines each state’s educational legislation and policies on restraint and seclusion in relationship to their alignment with the U.S. Department of Education’s (U.S. DOE) Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document. Although the Resource Document is not a federal mandate, it provides the U.S. DOE’s recommendations for policy and legislation to reduce the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and create safe learning environments for all students. State educational legislation and policies on restraint and seclusion were coded and compared with the U.S. DOE Resource Document’s 15 guiding principles. Results were variable and found that some states’ policies adhered more to the guiding principles than their legislation. In addition, some states recognize the document in their legislation and policy. A summary of the descriptive data and current state statuses are reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The best-interest-of-the-child concept should guide the legislative framework with regard to the approach followed as well as the disciplinary processes used in schools. Currently schools revert mostly to a retributive and adversarial approach to discipline that is not compatible with the best-interests-of-the-child standard. In this article, the provisions of section 8 of the Schools Act are scrutinised and it is concluded that these provisions are supporting an adversarial and punitive approach to school discipline. This is evident from the lack of prescriptions ensuring that sanctions serve the best interest of children, the insufficient provision for support measures and structures for counselling, the undue focus on the best interests of the transgressor and the lack of guidance concerning the appointment of an intermediary. The introduction of restorative discipline as an alternative approach to discipline is recommended. The latter approach is recommended, because it is submitted that amendments to the existing legislative provisions would not address the key objection to the legislative framework namely its retributive and adversarial character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

School corporal punishment continues to be a legal means of disciplining children in a third of the world's countries. Although much is known about parents' use of corporal punishment, there is less research about school corporal punishment. This article summarizes what is known about the legality and prevalence of school corporal punishment, about the outcomes linked to it, and about interventions to reduce and eliminate school corporal punishment around the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines federal and state mandates to reduce punishments which remove students from schools, along with the use of social and emotional learning (SEL) by some districts in their efforts to do so. Topics covered include the reasons behind the limited outcomes of discipline reforms which embrace SEL practices, the racial and gender disparities in school discipline and the provision of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

In 2015, a white, male school police officer in Columbia, South Carolina, entered a classroom to confront a sixteen-year-old Black female student. The young woman was allegedly unwilling to turn over a cell phone to her teacher or leave the room after being ordered to do so. After a few seconds, the officer placed his forearm around her neck, flipped her over, and dragged her across the classroom. A female classmate began recording the incident when the officer walked in the room; the resulting video attracted national headlines. Both young women initially were charged with the crime of "disturbing schools". The incident catalyzed a national conversation about the involvement of police officers in the administration of school discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the author refers to as Missouri's exclusionary approach to school discipline as of 2016, and it mentions the U.S. Federal Government's involvement in education, the history of state and local control of education in places such as Missouri, and the legal rights of the gatekeepers of school discipline, suspension, and expulsion. Missouri's state discipline statutes are addressed, along with the Constitutions of Missouri and the U.S.

An essay is presented on student privacy and the legal aspects of smart devices such as cell phones in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the cases Riley v. California and New Jersey v. T.L.O. which deal with searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to America's Constitution. Search-incident-to-arrest and search-incident-to-school-discipline legal exceptions are examined, along with U.S. education laws and cell phone search-related legal cases.

The article offers information on the history, factors responsible, and effects of the race and gender bias upon the educational status of African American girls. It informs that the zero-tolerance policies and school discipline disparities are main factors for promotion of practices of school-to-prison pipeline, which results into increased criminalization of black youth. It analyzes significance of the joint guidance on school discipline issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and Education.

An essay is presented on the definition, effects and factors responsible for increasing school-to-prison pipeline practices for African American and Latino students, which includes zero-tolerance, harsh school discipline policies of schools and attitudes of school administrators. It informs that increased incarceration of students of color expelled or suspended by public school administrators is result of capitalistic principles of profit maximization by government and private prison industry.

In this essay, the author determines various factors responsible for the lack of educational opportunities for African American youth in foster care and juvenile delinquency in the U.S. He focuses on the issue of disproportionate involvement of black children in child welfare programs, school disciplinary proceedings, and the juvenile justice system. It informs that the educational interruption of black children leads to increased criminalization.

The article discusses the constitutional limits of zero tolerance policies in American schools, focusing on issues related to a crisis involving school discipline and the legal aspects of the punishment of school children. School-related suspensions and expulsions are addressed, along with culpability, intent, and minors' diminished capacity in America. The 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case Goss v. Lopez, which deals with procedural due process, is examined, along with monetary damages.

This article argues that school choice/competition ought to play a central role in determining school discipline policy. Unfortunately, the status quo emphasizes disciplinary rules established by central authorities and school choice is often limited. The author provides an overview of these issues and presents a model of rules- versus discretion-based discipline policies and school choice. Policies that suppress school choice lead to inflexible and unsatisfactory discipline policies, and centralized discipline policies reduce the positive aspects of school choice. Stronger incentives for schools are expected to help remedy this and vigorous school choice/competition is likely to be an avenue for doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1971, following a protracted and tumultuous debate, the Toronto Board of Education formally abolished the use of corporal punishment in its schools – the first Ontario board to do so. Corporal punishment continued to be employed elsewhere in Ontario and throughout Canada well into the 1980s, and the use of physical discipline was prohibited in all Canadian schools only in 2004, following a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Why did educators and legislators defend corporal punishment for so long, and why did the tide turn in the last part of the twentieth century? Concentrating on legal and political dynamics, this article explores the ways in which the Toronto Board of Education grappled with the issue of corporal punishment in the three decades before its abolition. It seeks to situate the story of Toronto's approach to school discipline on the broader social landscape on which the battle over corporal punishment was conducted. It concludes that the particular configuration of the Toronto Board of Education following trustee elections in 1969 strongly affected the shape and outcome of the corporal punishment debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of engaging a constitutional campaign to align school discipline with developmental knowledge in the U.S. It highlights the Roper and Simmons court case which the Supreme Court illuminated a potential developmental dimension to the due process inquiry as it assessed the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on adolescent. It also attempts to fashion a theoretical engine for the constitutional appraisal of school disciplinary policies and practices.

The article examines the uneven spread of school criminalization in the U.S. It explains why school misconduct in the country, especially in inner cities is increasingly treated as crime. It briefly traces the multiple social and historical underpinnings of the criminalization of school discipline. While the article intends to sound a cautionary note for policy makers in Great Britain, it should also underscore for scholars that school surveillance practices are social and cultural products and as such, it is quite possible the metal detectors in British schools serve a radical different agenda than they do in some parts of the U.S.

The article discusses the 2014 legal guidance by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice that deals with discrimination practices in the administration of student discipline and violations of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Topics include the impact of the discipline policy on students of a particular race, the necessity of the policy to meet an education goal, and alternative policies that would meet the school's goal with less impact on the affected racial group.