Student Code of Conduct - Report Example

of Conduct What a of Conduct is. A of conduct is a set of conventional principles and expectations that are considered binding on any person who is a member of a particular group. In a school, there is generally maintained a written code of conduct, outlining the boundaries within which students are expected to conduct themselves within the school premises or in general, failing which they are subject to disciplinary action also outlined in the same code. This helps maintain discipline within the school premises as well as curb delinquency among the high school students. When the School Board is notified that a student is suspected with a breach of the code, the Board meets and decides how to interpret the reported breach within the code and take punitive measures against the respondent accordingly. The New Jersey Administrative Code says that, “Each district board of education shall develop, adopt and implement a code of student conduct which establishes standards, policies and procedures for positive student development and student behavioral expectations on school grounds, including on school buses or at school-sponsored functions, and, as appropriate, for conduct away from school grounds, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2 through 7.5, 7.8 and 7.9.” (6A:16-7.1) The sections mentioned subsequently go on to deal with “Expulsion”, “Attendance” and “Intimidation, harassment and bullying”. Further, according to the same subchapter, this code should be based on “parent, student and community involvement which represents, where possible, the composition of the schools and community” and “locally determined and accepted core ethical values adopted by the district board of education”. The subchapter goes on to state that the “code of student conduct shall be established to achieve the following purposes: foster the health, safety and social and emotional well-being of students; support the establishment and maintenance of civil, safe, secure, supportive and disciplined school environments conducive to learning; promote achievement of high academic standards; prevent the occurrence of problem behaviors; establish parameters for the intervention and remediation of student problem behaviors at all stages of identification; and establish parameters for school responses to violations of the code of student conduct that take into account, at a minimum, the severity of the offenses, the developmental ages of the student offenders and students’ histories of inappropriate behaviors in accordance with 7.2 through 7.5, and 7.6 as appropriate.” Administrations worked with and how I went about researching the topic. Within the student hand book, the policy that presents much criticism among staff, students, and parents is the code of conduct for athletes or members attending any type of sports or club at the high schools. When I met the vice-principal, he expressed a concern with the students’ code of conduct. He revealed that the high schools had multiple occasions dealing with athletes and or club members violating the code of conduct. However, the major problem the administration was up against was that their code of conduct was too general. The code of conduct pooled general school misconducts, consumption of tobacco products, alcohol, steroids, and substance abuse all into one category with three consequences depending on the number of offenses. The use of illegal drugs was in a separate category with two consequences depending on the number of offenses. The objections presented to the administration by the students and their guardians were as follows. While smoking within the school premises was prohibited in the code of conduct, smoking itself was legal for a high school student. On the other hand, consumption of alcohol or substance abuse was outright unlawful for a high school student, whether within the school premises or outside. As such, the two breaches differ in gravity, and hence it is only natural that they should carry different punishments, rather than being pooled together in one group of offenses, as they were in the code. Therefore, I took a look into breaking down each of these categories into their own categories with different sets of consequences under each category. I went about the research by attending a school liaison meeting and presenting the case at hand. The liaison committee seated the principal, vice principal, athletic director, attendance advisor, guidance advisor, school police officer, and seven teachers (two special education teachers, three core class teachers, and two elective teachers). The first liaison meeting took place on February 15, 2010. I proposed a change in the student’s code of conduct. I presented to the group of teachers my suggestion of breaking the pool of offenses down into separate categories with its own set of consequences for the specific breach of conduct. At the 1st meeting I presented the idea of splitting the offences into separate categories with their own sets of consequences - three consequences for each, on the first, second, and third offences. Then I placed before the team the different groups I had come up with - school misconduct, substance abuse, alcohol (possession or consumption), controlled dangerous substances, and crimes occurring off school property. After I presented the five different categories we started to discuss the consequences for the first offence, the second offence and the third offence. I took notes as the team discussed and I announced that I will type out the notes and report on what we have at the next meeting. The second meeting was held on March 15, 2010. I presented the team with the five different categories and the different consequences for each category. The team read through each and every line and discussed what I had put together. As the team was discussing I made notes, changing, adding and deleting items. The third meeting took place on April 12, 2010, where I presented the amended copy of the consequences. The team read through - making changes and playing around with the wording of different clauses. By the end of this meeting we had come to a general consensus regarding what we wanted to add to the code of conduct. The principal was happy with the committee’s team work dealing with this issue and expressed his desire to present the proposal to the board for approval. Findings. Examples of Relevant Cases in support of the Code of Conduct. In the well-known Wood v. Strickland case, respondents Peggy Strickland and Virginia Crain were students of Mena Public High School, Arkansas, “who had been expelled from school for violating a school regulation prohibiting the use or possession of intoxicating beverages at school or school activities”. They were charged with the violation of this regulation after they allegedly ‘spiked’ a punch served at an official meeting of an extra-curricular school organization attended by both parents and students. They drove across the state-border to the neighbouring Oklahoma, and got two bottles of “Right Time”, a malt liquor, which they later used to spike the drink. They later confessed on being questioned by Mrs. Curtis Powell, the teacher in charge of that extra-curricular organization. Mrs. Powell had promised to keep the punishment in her own hand, but the news soon spread to the principal, Mr. P. T. Waller, and from there to the Board. Though both Mrs. Powell and Mr. Waller recommended leniency after making the reports in the first Board meeting, they later withdrew these recommendations, and the girls were expelled from the school for a period of three months. At a second Board meeting, the girls admitted to spiking the drink, but asked the Board to forego the rule awarding them such substantial suspension. Neither Mrs. Powell nor Mr. Waller was present in this hearing. The Board voted to stick to its policy and expel the girls for the remainder of the semester, as before. Respondents “brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against petitioner school officials, claiming that such expulsions infringed respondents rights to due process and seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.” The District Court told the jury that a decision in favour of the respondents should be based upon a finding that the petitioners “acted with malice in expelling them.” The ruling was for the petitioners after the District Court found no evidence of malice against the respondents and declared the petitioners immune to the damage suit under absence of such evidence. The Court of Appeals however found that the facts “showed a violation of respondents rights to "substantive due process," since the decisions to expel respondents were made on the basis of no evidence that the regulation had been violated”. They held that specific intent to harm wrongfully on part of the petitioner was not a requirement for the recovery of damages, and it was enough to establish that they did not act in good faith. They “reversed and remanded for appropriate injunctive relief and a new trial on the question of damages.” The petitioners asserted a complete immunity from damages and sought to reinstate the judgement of the District Court. In the final ruling, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings, on the grounds that the respondents had argued that there had been a procedural due process violation, which had neither been discussed in the District Court, nor decided by the Court of Appeals. While this case does not directly deal with the code of conduct, it nevertheless shows the importance of having an unambiguous code. In the Board of education of Rogers, Arkansas v. McCluskey case, this importance is much more clearly illustrated. Respondent was a 10th-grade student of Rogers, was suspended from school after allegedly leaving school in the middle of a working day with some friends, consuming alcohol to get intoxicated, and returning to school later that day for a band trip. The stand of the Code of Conduct on this issue is as follows. “Under 9 and 10 of petitioner School Boards rules, the Board has discretion to suspend a high school student for "good cause," which is defined as including "sale, use or possession of alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs." Section 11 of the rules provides for mandatory suspension for the remainder of the semester if a student has on school premises used, sold, or been under the influence or in possession of "narcotics or other hallucinogenics, drugs, or controlled substances" classified as such by an Arkansas statute. That statute specifically exempts alcohol from its coverage of "controlled substances."” Respondent sought injunctive relief in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). It was unclear as to which section of the code had been invoked in expelling him. The Board’s chairman testified that students had been expelled under similar circumstances under Section 11 in the preceding five years. The District Court concluded that “the Board had acted under 11, that 11 did not apply to alcohol, and that the Board thus had acted unreasonably and had violated respondents right to substantive due process, even though the Board had discretion to suspend him under 10. The Court of Appeals affirmed.” In the final ruling, it was held that the federal courts did not have the authority to override the Board’s interpretation of the code. The Board’s interpretation of Section 11 to include mandatory expansion on being under the influence of alcohol within the school premises was justified, since drugs could clearly be interpreted to include alcoholic beverages. Certiorari was granted and the decision was reversed. The code was amended soon to avoid such ambiguities in the future. Summary. We’ve thus seen that to avoid controversies regarding disciplinary action among the students, it is of vital importance to have an unambiguous code of conduct. Also, the consequences faced by the students should differ according to the category in which his offence falls. Hence I proposed to break down the offences into five categories: school misconduct, substance abuse, alcohol (possession or consumption), controlled dangerous substances, and crimes occurring off school property, each with its own set of consequences. This amendment to the code of conduct is recommended, since it makes the disciplinary system more effective and just. References Board of Education of Rogers, Arkansas et al. v. McCluskey, 458 U.S. 966, No. 81-1577, decided Jul. 2, 1982. New Jersey Administrative Code, Chapter 16, Programs to Support Student Development. Wood et al. v. Strickland et al., 420 U.S. 308 (1975), No. 73-1285, argued Oct. 16, 1974, decided Feb. 25, 1975. Read More