Search

Physical punishment of children remains quite common and yet has only negative effects on children's health, making it an important public health problem. This study was designed to assess positive attitudes about and perceived normative support for the use of physical punishment with children, as well as attitudes regarding prohibition of physical punishment in homes and schools. This was a cross-sectional national survey of a diverse sample of US adults (N = 3049). This survey, conducted in Fall 2020, assessed attitudes and perceived norms regarding physical punishment use using continuous measures as well as support and perceived support for policies prohibiting physical punishment in homes and schools in the United States. Respondents who had positive attitudes toward physical punishment (39%) and who perceived normative support for physical punishment (41%) were not in the majority. While 65% agreed that there should be a federal ban on physical punishment in public schools, only 18% perceived that most US adults would support such a ban. Persons who were older (aged ≥55 years), men, living in the southern United States, or who themselves were hit more frequently as children were significantly less likely than their counterparts to support a federal ban in schools. Based on a national sample, there is strong support for a federal ban on physical punishment in US schools; yet this normative belief is unrecognized. Social norms campaigns should capitalize on this pluralistic ignorance to increase mobilization toward policy reform and reduction of harm to children through bans of physical punishment in public schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 legal relationship between a university and its students continues to evolve. Prior to the 1960s, courts did not intrude into universities' monitoring and disciplining of student misconduct. However, after the 1960s, courts intervened more frequently to limit university discretion in monitoring and disciplining student misconduct, which allowed students to enjoy greater individual freedoms on campus. The increased judicial interference in the university-student relationship necessarily diminished the university's unilateral authority to monitor and discipline students. This trend introduced a particularly difficult question: when can a student hold a university responsible for failing to protect that student from harm caused by another student? The framework courts apply in answering this question differs depending on if the injurious student-on-student misconduct qualifies as discriminatory. When a student plaintiff is injured by non-discriminatory student-on-student misconduct, courts apply a traditional negligence framework to hold universities liable for failing to prevent the student plaintiff's injuries. However, when a student plaintiff's injury results from student-on-student discrimination, courts apply a deliberate indifference framework. The traditional negligence framework disincentivizes student misconduct prevention programs, inadequately accounts for students' individual rights, and disincentivizes efficient settlements, whereas the deliberate indifference framework does not. A novel approach, termed the Civil Rights Approach, can help address these issues. The Civil Rights Approach integrates the framework of discrimination cases into the traditional negligence analysis for cases arising out of student-on-student misconduct. The Civil Rights Approach allows courts to address the unique attributes of the university-student relationship in cases arising out of nondiscriminatory student-on-student misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across the four UK jurisdictions, there are distinct disparities in exclusion rates of school students. Northern Ireland, alongside Scotland and Wales, has demonstrated over time, lower rates of permanent exclusions and temporary exclusions compared with England. This paper examines these disparities from the perspectives of representatives from various system-level educational bodies and third sector organisations representing children and families who experienced the exclusion process. The paper will also present policy and legal frameworks associated with exclusion in Northern Ireland. We interviewed 9 stakeholders, associated with practices of school exclusion in Northern Ireland, from a range of system-level education bodies and advocacy groups. Findings include positive strategies perceived to keep exclusion levels low, types of obstacles or resistance to anti-exclusion policy, participants' perspectives on unofficial exclusion practice, and perspectives on official exclusion data. What emerges from interviews is a series of tensions between implementing a child-centred approach and diminishing support services and resources. We conclude that those working within the Northern Ireland education system, are committed to an inclusive approach. However, the development and implementation of effective supporting frameworks take time and consultation, and there is evidence of tension between the perceptions of those working at a system-level and those working in schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article emphasizes the problem in Colorado with school discipline laws that fail to protect children. The school-to-prison pipeline runs strong for students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQIA students in particular. A comparison with the other states in the Tenth Circuit is included. However, as long as the Trump Administration refuses to provide guidance regarding discipline and disparity, our children will continue to suffer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We derive sample-allocation formulas that maximize the power of several mediation tests in two-level–group-randomized studies under a linear cost structure and fixed budget. The results suggest that the optimal individual sample size is typically smaller than that associated with the detection of a main effect and is frequently less than 10 under parameter values commonly seen in the literature. However, the optimal sample allocation can be heavily influenced by the group-to-individual cost ratio, the ratio of the treatment-mediator to mediator-outcome path coefficients, and the outcome variance structure. We illustrate these findings with a hypothetical group-randomized trial examining a school-discipline reform policy. To encourage utilization of the sample allocation formulas we implement them in the R package PowerUpR and powerupr Shiny application. [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.

The intersection between school discipline andfree speech has sparked debates over how far a school's authority extends beyond campus. The internet and the nationwide conversation about cyberbullying have only magnified the debate. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court recognized that students do retain their First Amendment rights while under the school's authority. The Court then went on to hold that a school can punish a student for his or her on-campus speech if the speech causes a substantial or material disruption to school activities or if the speech invades the rights of another student. Whether this test applies to speech made offcampus was left unanswered, and lower courts were left struggling to supply a solution. Attempting to answer this question, a few circuit courts have created their own tests. The Fourth Circuit follows a "nexus" test, the Eighth Circuit applies a "reasonably foreseeable" test, and the Ninth Circuit uses a mixed approach. While schools are limited in what off-campus speech they can punish, legislatures can regulate what school districts cannot reach. The North Carolina legislature passed an anti-bullying statute in 2009. The law was subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case State v. Bishop. This Comment will explore precedent surrounding a school's authority to punish off-campus speech, highlighting the tests used by the Fourth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits. It will advocate that Tinker does not permit a school to punish an off-campus student speaker when the effects of the speech make its way on campus. This Comment will then critique specific North Carolina anti-bullying statutes and propose factors for a law that would better withstandjudicial scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the author's call for the state of New York to adopt a constitutional amendment which provides a right to appointed counsel for students involved in school disciplinary proceedings, and it mentions the New York State Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1963 right to counsel matter Gideon v. Wainwright. A student's education interest is addressed, along with access to education and a student's fundamental rights under New York law.

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).

The article focuses on several inconclusive rulings at court level related to education. Topics discussed include public college student rulings upon challenging disciplinary sanctions, special education rulings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and student procedural due process issue rulings in suspension cases. It also mentions claim rulings in school bullying cases and school superintendent rulings upon challenging adverse employment actions.

Public schools suspend millions of students each year, but less than ten percent of suspensions are for serious misbehavior. School leaders argue that these suspensions ensure an orderly educational environment for those students who remain. Social science demonstrates the opposite. The practice of regularly suspending students negatively affects misbehaving students as well as innocent bystanders. All things being equal, schools that manage student behavior through means other than suspension produce the highest achieving students. In this respect, the quality of education a school provides is closely connected to its discipline policies. Reformers have largely overlooked the connection between discipline and educational quality. This oversight has limited theoretical and practical tools for change. On the theoretical side, reformers miss the opportunity to pit harsh discipline as the enemy of good schools. Instead, they fall victim to the narrative of bad students as the enemy of good ones. On the practical side, they miss the opportunity to demand legal reform. Instead, they relegate themselves to asking schools to voluntarily adopt less severe discipline policies. Thus far, voluntary efforts have produced some significant changes, but the changes are isolated and limited in scope. In short, reformers need new legal theories and tools to demand reform. Otherwise, harsh discipline will remain the dominant paradigm for the foreseeable future and efforts to improve educational quality and achievement--the most pressing item on the national agenda of the day-- will continue to fall short. While some scholars have proposed limits on the most egregious discipline policies, this Article is the first to offer a legal theory that would substantively reform school discipline on the whole and improve educational quality. The theory is grounded in the affirmative education rights and duties found in state constitutions. These rights and duties give rise to two distinct but interrelated arguments. First, because students have a constitutionally protected individual right to education, suspensions and expulsions should trigger heightened scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny would not bar suspensions, but it would force states to justify the efficacy of suspension. The practical result would be to prompt states to adopt pedagogically sound approaches to student misbehavior. Second, discipline practices that undermine educational quality violate states' constitutional obligation to provide equal and adequate educational opportunities to all students. In these instances, state constitutions should obligate states to intervene with reform. Unlike past strategies, these two steps can ensure discipline reform and educational quality improvements that normally prove elusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The article focuses on the intersection of explicit and implicit bias and the school-to-prison pipeline and propose the adoption of a Federal School Disciplinary Law to address the racial disparities in school disciplinary sanctions. It mentions that the federal and state responses to the school-to-prison pipeline and mandatory implicit bias training for all school personnel, and various other targeted interventions.

The article examines the nexus that connects constitutionally protected expression, violations of school speech codes, and school exclusion including zero tolerance and police presence on campus. It mentions that special legal doctrine that protects student speech rights that used to assess whether schools have violated students' First Amendment rights. It also mentions that arrest and delinquency adjudication and the legal arguments or the judicial opinions.

The article examines the consequences of the U.S. school-to-prison link or school-to-prison pipeline, a term used to describe the increasing patterns of contact students have with the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems as a result of the practices implemented by educational institutions such as use of police in schools. Topics discussed include discipline practices of public schools and impact of exclusionary school discipline on student behavior and academic progress.

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.

The article discusses the need to end disparate school discipline through restorative justice practices in the U.S. citing reference to the court case Mitchell v. Westerville City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. Topics discussed include zero-tolerance policies as the primary method of school discipline, prohibition of discrimination based on race in school discipline by federal civil rights laws, and the rise of restorative practices as a means of school discipline.

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]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case of Goss v. Lopez, to evaluate whether academic misconduct by student for violating academic integrity falls under discipline or academic misconduct dichotomy. It presents a judicial review of both published and unpublished decisions regarding an institution's determination to the existence of academic misconduct and the outcome of that determination in context to plagiarism and cheating.

This Article is one in a series about bullying and cyberbullying in schools. I argue that the proper analysis for a First Amendment challenge to school discipline for off-campus misuse of the Internet to harm or harass a member of the school community based on the victim's identity depends on the nature of the offending behavior. For students who are punished for a single incident--what I will call cyberattacking--a student speech analysis that reflects the Court's consistent rationale in all its student speech cases, the "substantial disruption" standard, makes sense. But students who engage in a pattern of repeated incidents of cyberattacking--what I will call cyberbullying--create a hostile educational environment for their victims that parallels the behavior of harassers. Therefore, the relative merit of cyberbullies' First Amendment defenses to lawful punishment should depend more on the interaction between free speech rights and harassment than on the interaction between free speech and a single incident of aggression. And, while the Supreme Court has never explicitly considered a First Amendment challenge to a harassment or stalking statute, it has stated that threats fall outside the protections normally afforded to more valuable speech. In this context, just like the state has a compelling interest in protecting captive, victimized minorities from hostile environments and abuse in certain contexts, so too does the state have a compelling interest in protecting students who are bullied because of their sexual identity. For these egregious cases, a First Amendment defense to discipline should fail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a student's right to legal counsel at a disciplinary hearing following an allegation of criminal misbehavior, focusing on the impact of school violence and shootings on the methods used to discipline suspected perpetrators as of January 2012. The author argues that it is prudent for a school to allow a student to retain counsel in any case where the student's due process rights might be implicated.

The article discusses the possible implication of parental due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when a school official confiscates and retains a student's cell phone. A historical overview of cell phone use is presented as of January 2012, as well as several of the challenges which school officials face regarding student use of cell phones on school grounds. The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division case Price v. New York City Board of Education, which deals with the enforcement of a school-wide ban on cell phones, is also mentioned.

The article discusses gender stereotypes and school dress in the U.S. school system as of January 2012, focusing on the constitutionality of school dress codes, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court cases Tinker v. Des Moines School District and United States v. Virginia. A student's First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution are examined in regards to school dress, appearance, and hygiene. In Tinker, a group of students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school as a sign of protest against the Vietnam War. Content-based speech restrictions are considered unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

The article focuses on alternatives to long-term suspensions in U.S. public schools. Topics include a child's right to an education as a civil right, the use of suspension as a deterrent for students, and the denial of access to alternative schools. Information is provided on alternative education requirements.

The article focuses on the implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policies (ZTPs) for maintaining order in the school as discipline policy. It examines the administrative claims by schools in the U.S. in Goss v. Lopez, a case from the U.S. Supreme Court for the effectiveness of ZTPs to enforce discipline in school environment. It discusses the role of ZTPs in prevention of school violence by removing monopolize instructional resources to create safe and effective learning environment.

The article focuses on the impact of school discipline policies on students who are suspended, expelled or arrested, and the use of education clauses to contest the policies. It is noted that schools have gone into using police officers, canine dogs, and police special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams in the attempt to maintain discipline. It is also outlined that zero tolerance policies within schools have no impact on the rate of school violence and crime.

The article analyzes the constitutionality of student strip searches by school officials based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding. It mentions that the case failed to provide sufficient guidelines for cases involving student searching since the Court is not even certain on the proper Fourth Amendment standard. It advises that lawmakers should adopt rules that would regulate strip searches and allow educators to enforce necesssary disciplinary measures.

The article analyzes the diffusion of school discipline law from state statutes to the classroom in the U.S. It details the zero-tolerance law and policy, a subject that has received a great deal of attention both in Connecticut and the U.S. as a whole. It explores the issue of school suspension policy, as many have expressed concern that teachers and administrators have turned to out-of-school suspensions far too often as discipline measures. It provides a comparison between the relationship of law and norms in the school discipline context.

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]

Courses in a wide variety of disciplines emphasize that what we think important, and are therefore likely to remember, is not the result of the objective situation but rather the result of our individual biases and interpretations. This article presents a classroom exercise that aids students in grasping the interpretive nature of historical accounts. Students in a history of psychology class and an Introduction to Human Services class (the control group) completed a questionnaire measuring the degree to which they view history as an interpretive enterprise versus a static one. In the psychology class, students then participated in an exercise that compared collective memories of a classroom event to emphasize the interpretive nature of personal history. Students in both classes completed the questionnaire a second time. Those students that completed the exercise scored higher on the follow-up questionnaire than did those in the control class. We discuss this exercise as a technique to aid students in grasping the importance of understanding the impact of individual perceptions of events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The plaintiff brought action against the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown and its employees for unlawful discrimination based on his sex and transgender status after being prohibited from using sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms on the university campus. [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.