Contemporary Educational Issue - Report Example

Contemporary Educational Issue Contemporary Educational Issue There is a great need for educational leaders to apply social, professional, and personal discretion in the educational issues that they face. This should encompass of recognizing a person’s substantive accountability in addition to the procedure of managing accountability (Henault, 2001). It is also important for educational leaders to recognize the moral dilemmas on a daily basis, evaluate their personal and spiritual values that can be applied to the situation, and identify their role in addressing the situation. Recently, as a result of the escalated school violence, regulatory policies and legislation have been on the increase. Their intention has been establishing the impacts for improper behavior that the students engage in. this agenda is popularly referred to as the zero tolerance. Eventually, educators might relinquish ethics in all their decision-making and problem solving situations in reaction to discipline problems. This paper aims at exploring a current education issue where the biblical principles are in conflict with the social and legal expectations. The situation will be summarized, after which the legal stance and the presumed social expectations will be discussed. The expected benefits and impacts of the value system used will be outlined, and there will also be an exploration of the conflict as well as the action or decision that would result in case a spiritual compass was not taken. The related aspects of the issue under discussion will be discussed as witnessed in the educational institution. As far as student safety and conduct are concerned, legislators and educators are currently imposing the zero tolerance philosophy and attitude in reaction to the violence threat in schools. In educational institutions, there is usually the use of parent conferences as well as detentions in a bid to manage the incidences (Gorman & Pauken, 2003). However, the zero tolerance policies are currently being used to manage the violence incidences via police involvement and suspensions. The shift has been as a result of the recent violent actions that have become prevalent in educational settings during the previous few years in addition to the zero tolerance warrant. A majority of the people would agree that using detentions and parent conferences is the ethical and spiritual approach. Basically, this is because the actual reasons that led to the violence can be assessed and used to make plans on how the violence can be addressed in a caring environment. This can go a long way in ensuring that the violence incidences are not repeated again. On the other hand, using police involvement and suspensions may prevent the violence from being solved amicably since the tense environment surrounding these measures might make the students to be viewed as criminals. The legal stance According to the zero tolerance strategy, there is use of policies which administer severe disciplinary action for any form of offense (Starratt, 2004). This is regardless of how minor the offense might be, which means that all offenders are treated equally. These policies commenced with state and federal drug enforcement agencies during the early 1980s. They became well known by 1988. All along, the policies have evoked immense controversy. The US Customs Agency did away with the stringent zero tolerance policies in 1990 following the seizure of 2 research vehicles. It is during this time that educational institutions started implementing the zero tolerance policies. By 1993, the policies were maintained by educational institutions in the entire country (Stader, 2004). The 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act engendered the go-ahead for these policies. The act requires a one year compulsory suspension if a student is caught with a weapon on the school grounds. Students who infringe this requirement should enter the juvenile or criminal justice system. The zero tolerance standards currently extend to encompass of the Gun-Free Schools Act, in addition to alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and actions which are likely to interrupt classes. In 2001, the American Bar Association recommended that the zero tolerance policies should be terminated for use for school discipline. This was with the argument that the policy had been assumed as a one-size fit solution for all the challenges being faced in educational institutions. However, this had unfortunate impacts for a majority of the students (Miller, 2000). The social stance Parents, teachers, and students have been raising disapproval for these policies with the assertions that they are irrational, unjust, and arbitrary approaches to administering punishment for improper student behaviors in the educational institutions. A majority of the concerns revolve around if the policies essentially fulfill the intention for which they were designed (Kajs, 2006). The supporters of the policies argues that these standards have been pivotal in promoting as well as maintaining an environment that is safe, and where parents, educators, and schools can support this endeavor. On the other hand, opposers think that suspending students because of different misconducts has resulted to problematic and critical results. Many students have missed education as a result, and they in turn have been learning other unfavorable lessons elsewhere (such as the internet) while absent from the educational institution (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). From a spiritual perspective, the policies can be said to the cause of a void between educators and students. Allegedly, the educators use the policies so as to protect the students but this has never been achieved. Even before such policies are applied, there should be a keen consideration of the motivations, circumstances, as well as the student’s history so that a fair and just decision is made at the end. However, in most of the cases, this is never applied. Evidently, this gives the impression that the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ concept is inexistent in educational institutions. The educators should first explore all the surrounding circumstances and make a rational and emphatic decision. In essence, the principles being applied under the policies are unspiritual. For instance, one student may carry a knife to the school so as to hurt another student, while a second student may carry a plastic knife so as to use it for spreading peanut butter on sandwiches. Unfortunately, following the zero tolerance policies, the discipline and treatment given to these two students will be the same. The policies have criminalized students greatly. Frequently, educational institutions have filed criminal charges against pupils for misbehaving even in cases where no danger was posed to the safety of other students. Even playground disputes and fistfights are subjected to police engagement. Following the discipline that students are subjected to because of evident innocent actions, their revere and trust for authority is jeopardized. At the end, students possess misgivings for the justice system that has little flexibility. Many students can even find ways of evading any trouble. The absence of procedural due processes makes the matter worse. Students who have weapons planted on them are punished equally. Spiritually and ethically, the policies lack commonsense. Presently, the mistakes that are making students be suspended were once associated with the tendencies and milestones in children and teenagers. As a result, children have had their behavior and explorations restricted a lot in the school environment. Children no longer have safety and cannot develop trust and confidence with students. The responses to the unjust treatment often range from support and understanding to outrage and astonishment. Every situation has no clear cut responses. The failure to apply a spiritual and ethical perspective to every situation has resulted to negative implications on the part of the student. In case the situations that students face occurred in a different environment other than the school, then each occurrence would be contemplated carefully and separately so as to determine all the aspects. Actually, such a process would encompass ethical decision-making and spiritual as well as personal values (Denig & Quinn, 2001). The best possible answer for creating and maintaining an ethical environment where the students can learn effectively would then be established. Many scholars would agree that the significance of educators considering the motivations and circumstances that surround each misconduct case cannot be underrated. The considerations should be done even before the disciplinary actions are taken. For there to be agreement among the community, students, parents, and educational leaders regarding these policies, there first should be an exploration of their fairness and effectiveness. References Denig, S. J., & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High School Journal, 84. Fries, K., & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness: Viewpoints from the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 36. Gorman, K., & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 24. Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30. Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29. Miller, A. (2000). Zero tolerance: Fair or not? Junior Scholastic, 13. Stader, D.L. (2004). Zero tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The Clearing House, 78. Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Read More