How do state policies shape the rules that school’s use to discipline students? How are state legislatures related to zero tolerance policies in schools? How have state laws changed to better discipline students?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

While school districts are ultimately responsible for student codes of conduct, state
and federal laws do impact some of the policies. Often state lawmakers and state law
perpetuate the zero tolerance policies in schools and encourage inflexible discipline
regulations that have led to harsh and disparate student outcomes. These same
lawmakers are also the solution to strict enforcement policies. Numerous states have
taken steps to ameliorate or discontinue zero tolerance policies through enacting new
laws. One change that several states have mandated is the collection and
dissemination of data across all school districts, including charter and alternative
education schools. Data are collected on student offenses, suspensions, and expulsion
frequency, bullying, and the extent of disproportionate impact on at-risk student groups.
Some state legislatures have also amended existing laws to move away from strict
discipline policies. Depending on the state, there are five areas of focus on these laws.
The first is to define clearly school disciplinary terms used in policies and codes of
conduct so that they are not overly broad. The second is to encourage the replacement
of rigid disciplinary strategies with graduated response systems. The third is to require
school resource officers to have sufficient training to work with the adolescent
population. The fourth is to require sufficient training for teachers and school
administrators concerning behavior management and culturally sensitive pedagogy.
Finally, the fifth is to shift funding from security management toward effective school
programming to minimize out-of-school discipline outcomes. Since 2012, numerous
states have changed laws related to school discipline. California allows discretionary
use of alternatives to suspensions and expulsions, prohibited public schools from
refusing to readmit a student involved with the juvenile justice system, and provided the
flexibility to schools to not automatically refer truants to the juvenile justice system.
Colorado has minimized the referral of students with minor misbehaviors to the juvenile
courts if the behavior is consistent with the students’ developmental stage, utilized
prevention strategies, and collected data on school-based arrests and referrals based
on the student’s age, gender, school, ethnicity, and offense. Washington has developed
standard definitions for discretionary actions and data collection methods for school
discipline across school districts, limited expulsions to the most serious cases and
allowed short-term suspension to only 10 days in an academic year, and required any
removed student to have a reengagement plan coordinated with the family, having the
student return to their home school as soon as possible.