Protection from Violence

such students must be retained in their current placement pending the completion of lengthy official hearings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 specified additional rights that make it difficult to suspend or expel students with disabilities, including those who may be severely disruptive or prone to violence. As a result, educators are seeking new ways to guarantee the rights of students while dealing with disruptive pupils who are classified as disabled. Congress has passed legislation aimed at making it less cumbersome for administrators to suspend disabled students who violate school discipline rules, but educators report that practical issues are still murky. In addition, research indicates that low-income, disabled black students are suspended more frequently than low-income disabled white students, thus raising the possibility of legal challenges involving civil rights guarantees.39

restraining and secluding disabled students About three-quarters of students

physically restrained in school and about 60 percent of those placed in seclusion or some other form of involuntary confinement are students with disabilities. Many of these students are emotionally disturbed children and youth who sometimes pose serious dangers to themselves and others. Although restraining or secluding disabled students frequently is wholly or partly intended to keep schools safe in the face of difficulties described previously regarding suspension, sometimes the main motive is punishment that can cause serious injury. In any case, schools that rely heavily on restraint and seclusion may be violating IDEA guarantees of “free appropriate education,” and if their disabled students are mostly minority students, they may be violating civil rights laws. Thus, it is not surprising that many schools seek to implement alternative approaches to student control.40

9-3e protection from violence

Educators have a duty to protect students against violent actions that occur at school or at school-sponsored events, which frequently extends to off-campus events such as graduations, proms, and parties. Depending on the circumstances, the courts or other government agencies may find school districts or their employees legally liable for failing in this duty. For example, a Louisiana court held a school district partly responsible for the gunshot wound suffered by a student after a school security guard warned the student of trouble but refused to escort him to his car. Virginia Tech University was fined $55,000 by the US Department of Education for its slow response in moving to protect students under gunfire from a mentally ill attacker. By contrast, an Illinois appellate court held Chicago high school officials not liable for the shooting of a student because they did not know that the weapon had been brought into school. In general, if the chance of harm to students is highly foreseeable, the educator’s “duty to care” becomes a “duty to protect.” Of course, regardless of questions involving legal culpability, educators should do everything possible to protect their students from violence.41

39Mitchell L. Yell, “Honig v. Doe,” Exceptional Children (September 1989), pp. 60–69; Richard S. Vacca, “Student Procedural Due Process 2006,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (February 2006), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications/newsletters; and Judith Saltzman, “Disciplinary Protections for Children with Disabilities,” 2014 posting by Milestones Autism Resources, available at www.milestones.org. 40Michelle Diament, “Harsh Discipline More Common For Students With Disabilities,” March 21, 2014, posting by Disability Scoop, available at www.disabilityscoop.com; and Angela Pascopella, “District Changes Restraint and Seclusion Policy,” District Administration (September 2014), available at www.districtadministration.com. 41Perry A. Zirkel, “Safe Promises?” Phi Delta Kappan (April 2000), pp. 635–636; Richard S. Vacca, “The Duty to Protect Students from Harm,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (November 2002), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications/newsletter; and Kelly Schwartz, “Avoiding Sorrow in Morrow,” Boston College Law Review, Supp. 127 (2014), available at www .bclawreview.org.

Zero tolerance and its positive and negative effects on schools Although school

laws and policies dealing with school safety are primarily the responsibility of state and local governments (including public-school districts), growing national concern with violence in and around schools helped stimulate passage of the federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994. This legislation prohibits districts from receiving federal grants to improve performance among disadvantaged students unless their respective state governments have legislated “zero tolerance” of guns and other potentially dangerous weapons. By 1995, all fifty states had introduced such legislation, which in general provides for automatic suspension of students who possess objects that school officials decide are dangerous. Most districts have policies specifying how the legislation will be implemented and any additional grounds, such as possession of illegal substances, for automatic suspension.42

Zero-tolerance laws and policies may have made schools safer than before, but they have also had negative effects. Evidence indicates that they have contributed to repeat offenses and thereafter student dropouts. A study by the Harvard University Civil Rights Project found that zero-tolerance practices frequently had spun out of control in dishing out harsh punishments for minor infractions. For example, certain items leading to student suspensions or involvement of the police have generated a great deal of public ridicule of school districts, including a broken BB gun a 10 year-old found outside his school, a kitchen knife in a lunch box, a belt buckle with a sharp edge, the finger of a kindergarten student who used it as a play gun during recess, and a strong rubber band that could make a powerful slingshot. Some researchers believe that many disadvantaged students have been derailed from schooling into incarceration by minor infractions of zero-tolerance policies. Consequently, numerous organizations such as the American Bar Association are arguing for rejection of zero tolerance. To avoid negative outcomes and improve school climate through actions involving safety in schools, analysts urge educators to do the following:43 ● Make sure students have opportunities to talk with and connect with caring adults. ● Provide flexibility and consider alternatives to expulsion. ● Clearly define what constitutes a weapon, a misbehavior, or a drug. ● Comply with due-process laws. ● Tailor policies to local needs, and review them annually. ● Implement a positive discipline policy.

strict discipline issues in Urban schools Zero tolerance and related strict-

discipline policies appear to be raising important issues involving the functioning of many urban schools. This is particularly the case with certain charter schools that appear to have had impressive results attracting low-income minority students and then improving their motivation and academic performance. Some of these schools have introduced exceedingly rigorous requirements regarding classroom and school behavior. In many cases, parents and students have sought out these schools because they believe that very strict discipline and highly structured expectations will help protect against negative forces outside the school and will teach students to overcome difficult obstacles.

However, even when strict discipline may have helped accomplish important educational goals, some negative consequences have been apparent. Some students have been disgruntled and decided to withdraw or drop out; others have become disruptive influences within the schools. A few have challenged teachers or administrators,

42”Violence Prevention,” 2014 posting by the Institute of Education Sciences, available at www .nces.ed.gov. 43Judith A. Browne, Derailed: The Schoolhouse to the Jail Track (Washington, DC: Advancement Project, 2003); Stephanie F. Ward, “Schools Start to Rethink Zero Tolerance Policies,” ABA Journal (August 1, 2014), available at www.abajournal.com; Matt Zalaznick, “Closing the School-to-Prison Pipeline,” District Administration (October 2014), available at www .districtadministration.com; and Mary E. Flannery, “The School-to-Prison Pipeline,” NEA Today (January 5, 2015), available at www.neatoday.org.