LIBRARY Michigan State ‘ University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES retum on or baton duo due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU I. An Afl'irmatlve Action/Equal Opportunity institution cMmS-M .Jiililiif .-O..-.' V‘-~ A STUDY OF THE PRACTICE OF DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SETTING BY Thomas S. McClellan A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1992 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE PRACTICE OF DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SETTING BY Thomas S. McClellan Issues of discipline consume much time and energy for the middle school administrator. Two methods of administration of discipline have been contrasted as subjective and objective. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of a subjective approach with an objective approach to discipline, and to inquire whether there was any difference between the two approaches as reflected by the end results of student suspensions. The hypothesis of this study was there were no differences in suspensions between point system and non-point system schools. The variables were the total number of student suspensions, the length of time students spent on suspension, the reasons for student suspensions, the ethnicity and gender of students suspended, and the number of repeat suspensions for students. These variables were statistically analyzed. ii Students were interviewed to ascertain some of their thoughts about the methods of administration of discipline. Also, the administrators who used these systems were interviewed. The population was comprised of all Lansing School District, regular, middle school students enrolled during the three school years from September, 1986, through June of 1989. With ‘the exception. of gender, all variables were statistically significantly different between the point and non-point systems. Students interviewed expected differences between schools, but saw no differences in discipline codes. In general students experienced the same level of suspensions between schools. Administrators saw minor differences between the two systems. All agreed the system used made no difference. Though the findings showed that generally there were differences between the two systems, differences also were shown to exist within the three point-system schools and between years for each school. Which system used did not appear consistently to matter any more than other variables. Schools choosing to use point systems as a basis for their codes of discipline are not likely thereby to solve the issues of fairness and objectivity. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The help and encouragement of the following persons is gratefully acknowledged: Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, my Guidance Committee Chairman, whose encouragement and support was unwavering throughout the writing of this dissertation. The members of my Guidance Committee, Dr. Robert Chamberlain, Dr. Thomas Luster and Dr. Peggy Riethmiller, whose assistance was greatfully appreciated. Ms. Marian Phillips and the staff of the Evaluation Department, Lansing School District, who provided technical assistance whenever needed. Ms. Dianne Palacios who interpreted my attempts at writing, somehow always knowing what I meant to write, and for word processing assistance. Finally, my family and friends who throughout my doctorial program kept saying, "Keep pushing!" iv LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES FIGURES APPENDICES INTRODUCTION Background Need for this Study Purpose of this Study Setting for This Study General Discussion of the Problem Definition of Terms Summary and Overview REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction Definitions and Extent of the Discipline Problem in the Middle School Legal Issues Influencing Various Disciplinary Actions Review of the Uniform Code of Student Conduct Summary METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction Selection of the Population Methodology Data Collection Statistical Method Used Data Reporting and Analysis Research Hypotheses Hypotheses Summary Page vii xi 10 11 12 17 17 19 19 20 28 36 41 IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction Presentation of Results Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 5 Student Interviews Summary V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Findings Discussion and Conclusions Recommendations APPENDICES vi 102 102 108 125 128 132 Table 2.1 LIST OF TABLES Ways in which Lansing voters said school quality was declining Frequency of problems Court cases involving student rights Population by School By Gender By Year (Audited) Total Subjects Population by School By Ethnic By Year (Unaudited) Suspension by Incident by School by Reason Suspension by Student by School by Year by Number of Repeat Suspensions Suspension by School by Year by Number of Days Suspended Chi-square - Incident Each School - All Years Chi-square 1987 Chi-square 1988 Chi-square 1989 Chi-square Chi-square Chi-square. Chi-square Student Point Versus Non-Point Student Point Versus Non-Point Student Point Versus Non-Point Student All Schools All Years Student Each School Each Year Incident Each School Each Year Incident Gardner Versus Non-Point School 1987 vii Page 23 25 34 45 46 48 49 50 76 77 77 77 78 79 79 80 g, # Table Page § 4.9 Chi-square - Incident Otto Versus Non-Point é School 1987 80 r; 4.10 Chi-square - Incident Rich Versus Non-Point 5 School 1987 81 g 4.11 Chi-square - Incident Non-Point School Each -3 Year 81 ‘g 4.12 Chi-square - Student Non-Point School Each .3 Year 82 4.13 Chi-square - Incident Each Point School Each Year 83 4.14 Chi-square - Incident Otto Each Year 83 4.15 Chi-square - Incident Rich Each Year 83 4.16 Chi-square - Incident Each Point School 1987 84 4.17 Chi-square - Incident Each Point School 1988 84 4.18 Chi-square - Student Gardner Each Year 85 4.19 Chi-square - Student Otto Each Year 85 4.20 Chi-square - Student Rich Each Year 85 4.21 Chi-square - Repeat Suspensions Point Versus Non-Point 1986 All Years 86 4.22 Chi-square - Student Repeat Suspension Each School 1987 87 4.23 Chi-square - Student Repeat Suspension Each School 1988 88 4.24 Chi-square - Student Repeat Suspension Each School 1989 88 4.25 Student Frequency of Repeat Suspensions 89 4.26 Student Percent of Repeat Suspensions, Each School All Years 90 4.27 Chi-square - Incident Reason All School All Years 91 viii Table 4.28 4.36 4.38 Chi-square - Incident Collapsed Reason Each School Each Type All Years Chi-square - Incident Each School by Ethnic by All Years Chi-square - Incident All Schools by Gender All Years Chi-square - Student All Schools by Ethnic All Years Chi-square - Student Point Versus Non-Point School by Ethnic All Years Chi-square - Student Point Versus Non-Point Schools by Ethnic All Years Chi-square - Student All Schools by Gender All Years Student Percent of Suspension Point versus Non-Point by Gender All Years Chi—square - Incident All Schools by Length 1987 Chi-square - Incident All Schools by Length 1988 Chi-square - Incident All Schools by Length 1989 Student Percent of Repeat Suspension Each School All Years Incident by School Per Year Collapsed Reason Incident by School by Ethnic by Year Incident by School by Gender by Year Student by School by Ethnic by Year Student by School by Gender by Year Incident by School by Year by Length of Time Suspended ix Page 92 93 94 94 95 95 96 97 98 98 98 112 114 116 117 118 120 122 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Non-Point System Flow 1.2 Point System Flow 3.1 Suspension, Reason by Collapsed Categories 1986-87 through 1988-89 3.2 Suspension, Reasons by Collapsed Categories 1986-87 through 1988-89 Three Point Schools 3.3 Time Spent on Suspension, 1986-87 through 1988-89 3.4 Repeat Suspensions, 1986-87 through 1988-89 Each School 3.5 Repeat Suspensions, 1986-87 through 1988-89 3.6 Suspension by Ethnic, 1986-87 through 1988-89 Page 55 56 57 58 59 60 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendices A. DESCRIPTION OF THE LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT AND POPULATION B. QUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE C. STUDENT INTERVIEW LETTER D. ADMINISTRATORS' LETTER E. SUSPENSION CODING FORM F. RICH STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE G. OTTO STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE H. GARDNER STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE I. PATTENGILL STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE J. STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE - DISTRICT WIDE K. REFERENCES xi Page 133 138 142 145 148 151 162 180 194 202 218 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background To achieve the goals of education, there is general consensus that there must be discipline at the middle school level. What discipline is or how it should be maintained, enforced, or administered receives less agreement. One goal of discipline is to change behaviors and attitudes. It is a goal of discipline also to identify where the need exists to make these changes. It seems inappropriate to administer student discipline unfairly and then to ask that student to ascribe to an attitude of fairness and respect for a Student Discipline Code or the rights of others. Different teachers or administrators may view many behaviors with various levels of importance or meaning. What may be considered wrong in one school or classroom may not be considered wrong in another. The same behavior often calls for different actions at different times with different persons and in different places. One of the current issues centers on whether an objective method of administering discipline is better than a subjective method. This issue of the method of administration of the type of system may or may not have a significant meaning for behavior and attitude change. However, different methods may consume significantly different amounts of energy and time, which could overshadow the issues of effectiveness. The method used to administer discipline may be deemed as a reason for success or excuse for failure to achieve the real goals of the discipline. If education at the middle school level must be conducted in an atmosphere which contains at least a semblance of peace and order, then discipline has to be an important component of that middle school education. The learning environment must be administered to control what learning experiences the student will receive. What discipline is needed may better be viewed from a point of view of the student's needs and level of that student's development rather than the teacher's preferences. Typically, the age at which children enter middle school is an important developmental period. It encompasses the transition from the dependent child in elementary school to the independent teenager at high school. Middle school is a time for exploration. Basic values, though formulated prior to formal school enrollment, are defined and refined during this time. The middle school student's friends take on a greater importance than parents or school officials in shaping the actions of the student. In this atmosphere teachers and administrators must work together because in this school context, discipline often takes on the definition of controlling behavior and/or attitudes. The pupils are trained to make laws and obey them, and are thus educated for citizenship. The ideal school is an embryo republic, in which the prime object of government is to educate the pupil up to self-government. The school life thus becomes a training for good citizenship. (Baldwin, 1907, p. 112) Consequently, the goal of discipline is the changing of behaviors to fit approximately some defined (and often undefined) norm or standard. Most people acknowledge the need for discipline. To give up discipline is to give up on the education process. Discipline was chosen by the public as the most significant problem in education in ten out of the last eleven Gallup Pools. In a survey by the National Education Association of Teachers' Attitudes, 54 percent said that student behavior interferes with their teaching. (Rich, 1985, p. v) Many parents view the school as the primary place where their children will learn to become law-abiding members of the community, and to live by the rules that society imposes on its citizens. (Segal, 1978, p. 209) No valued learning can take place without discipline--that is, no meaningful or useful learning. Discipline gives direction to student behavior and sets up norms or standards for that student to meet. These norms or standards are sometimes referred to or contained within Student Discipline Codes. Discipline may concern itself with issues from general behavior to the very specific. In our society, it is generally agreed that killing the teacher is not an acceptable behavior for a student. However, such things as talking, mode of dress, and general misbehavior are not so universally agreed upon. The amount of discussion one teacher may accept and even encourage from a student may not differ greatly from the behavior which another teacher calls insubordination. Chewing gum is an acceptable behavior in one classroom, but may be felt as an insult in another classroom. The process of defining what the standards are is an endless debate. Even before the debate of what the norms are comes the debate of who should be involved and what degree the participants should play in deciding the norms. Do students at the middle school level have the skill and development to define or even help define their own norms of behavior? If discipline is based on norms of behavior, then who has input to decide what the norms are and, thereby, what discipline is? Does the community at large have the obligation, the right or even the knowledge to define these norms? Does the community have this right because they pay for education and the product of this education comes back to the community? Are teachers and or/administrators best prepared to deal with setting what the norms will be? Because they work in the schools, does that make teachers and administrators the best prepared to accomplish this task? What part do parents play in the process of setting the norms? What. part does the court contribute? Often the system seems to ask for input from everyone, with the building administrator having the final say. Defined generally, standards or norms can be as open as not allowing behaviors that interfere with the rights of others--the teacher's right to teach, the student's right to learn, the tax payer's right to maintain the value of property and money, and everyone's right to safety. Norms could be specifically defined such as "a dress may not extend higher than one inch above the center of the knee when the person is kneeling." Discipline would then be required for any violation of these rules. Once norms are developed, then the administrators trying to enforce these norms or Student Discipline Codes could use either of two working methods: subjective and objective. (See Figures 1.1 and 1.2) The subjective method gives authority to a person(s) to administer discipline. That person. would review' each infraction of a Student Discipline Code or deviation from a norm or standard. First a judgment would be made as to whether or not the code was violated. If, in the judgment of the reviewer, a violation has taken place, then a decision has to be made of what action is to be taken in response to the violation. This response can range from no action to whatever is seen as the most extreme action available. The action may or may not have to be justified, or fit any 4.4545 M- I Sch-d > .__, [ sum r Behavior J TautIdSUJl Judgment hob!“- °K @ I Send To Administrator. I I Off!“ I Talk To Student [Maui-u- [l—mm Behavior and Rand: Behavior g/Iudlgum‘j lmqwm I Allan-“v0 Ed. Other School Lu. Tau Special hop:- W Figure 1.1 Non-Point System Flow 0 —-> Mal School 1 Student Ichavtot Toad-15h" ‘b 4b Wk We. «m 52:: —-—J cm Patina ’ Wu: 1:. M. Talk To Student [Rm Potata Han To Student I l Pail Pom Old Road Pot-a Add Putin Val-o _‘ €0th PU. Cad 104M [ecu-imam. ls... Student Sudan LNotka To Pannta ] ,_1_, Conference Superio- _T__, L I Valet 0‘ his. Filed“ To Pascal-J __L__ Other Optical l Aim-attire Ed. Othct School Lon; Tau Special Propa- We Figure 1.2 Point System Flow Conical-co l 3:72 Return To Claaa ,________ pattern. A ruling made and carried out may or may not be appealable. Objective discipline claims to pre-define all types of infractions and conditions. It gives a formula for what actions are to be taken, given the conditions. The person who enforces the action has no input into what action to enforce. The infraction is plugged into a formula which dictates what action must be applied. The pattern is inflexible. Reality, however, does not allow such clear lines between objective and subjective methods. While "objective" and "subjective" may be terms used to differentiate between these two methods, perhaps a better explanation would be that (a) for an "objective" system, any or all infractions may be assigned varying quantifiable values; whereas (b) a "subjective' system characteristically would operate on a non-quantifiable basis. In the objective approach there is a pre-defined quantity or value of infraction given to each offense. The subjective approach lacks this pre-defined feature. Need for This Study Consistency, fairness , due process , and nondiscrimination are necessary for administration of any discipline system, both because the human good says they are right and, perhaps more importantly, because all levels of the law indicate that discipline has to be administered by this method. Elliott (1974) pointed out that everyone should have the right to participate in the affairs that effect their lives. Those who govern should reflect the composition of those governed. Today education is considered a right that cannot be denied without proper reason and unless proper procedures are followed, courts now require that students be accorded minimum standards of fairness and due process of law in disciplinary procedures that may terminate in expulsion. Minimum standards in cases of severe discipline of students are generally thought to include (1) an adequate notice of the charges against the student and the nature of the evidence to support those charges, (2) a hearing, and (3) an action that is supported by the evidence. (Ephay, 1971, p. 19) Dividing discipline administration into (a) subjective, non-quantifiable methods and (b) objective, quantifiable methods also tends to divide the persons whose job it is to administer discipline into two corresponding camps. Each. groupi often 'views its method. as the better approach. This assent to a philosophy or tradition is quickly turned into the question of which method is better or produces the desired results. Energy, time, and resources are committed to find this answer. If one method is shown to be better, or if there is no difference, then energy, time and resources could be diverted appropriately to other problems. The present study is needed to start to reduce flows of energy away from the question of whether subjective is different from objective in. methods of discipline» as reflected by the results the discipline method produces. 10 Purpose of This Study After consideration of subjective versus objective administration of waddle school discipline, questions arise as to which method is better or if there is a difference in the results between these methods. This study attempts to answer these questions. It is also hoped that this study will enable administrators to better evaluate their current discipline methodology in light of other available options. There has not been previous investigation of this question within the Lansing School District. The purpose of this study is to compare the results of a subjective approach with an objective approach to discipline enforcement and to inquire whether there is any discernible or real difference between them as reflected by the end results of discipline or behavior and attitude change. It is hoped that by showing whether there are differences, effort can be made to identify the basic elements that go into the actions which comprise discipline. Once identified, these elements can be explained and changed, if necessary, to better accomplish the goals of discipline. In each system 'there are elements of the other. There are some subjective inputs in any human system. These come in defining at the front of this system and, at the end, when. a person must carry' out whatever action is taken. Society requires actions to be taken for some behaviors and it also defines what some of those actions may or may not be. 11 In the present systems it is assumed that the judgments are not based on anything definable. The fact that experience, education, intelligence, knowledge of community, and an attitude of fairness and respect for laws are valued by the persons administering discipline is what has made them work as well as they have to date. Setting for This Study The Lansing School District located in Lansing, Michigan, is considered an urban district. It has an average per-year total enrollment for the study period of 22,419 students. Of this average number per year, 4,570 are middle school (grades 6-8) students. For more details, see Appendix A. All the data available on suspensions, over a complete three year period, with respect to all the four middle schools operating in the Lansing School District, were used. No data were gathered to portray whether or not, or to what degree, the four schools may or may not have been comparable to each other. For the purposes of this study, the schools from which the student populations come were taken as given. The researcher has served the Lansing School District as an administrator for fifteen years and his subjective impressions of the four schools are as follows: "The four schools do not appear to differ from one another in any special way." The desegregation order (see Appendix A) succeeded in balancing the school populations. Whether or 12 not significant differences from school to school do in fact exist is not documented in this study and could be a subject for further research. General Discussion of the Problem Within the Lansing School District, there are four middle schools, one of which claims to use a subjective or non-quantifiable method of discipline. The other three have defined their discipline systems as objective. All of the latter systems refer to themselves as "point" system schools. Each of the four systems of administration of discipline is different from the other. Using the subjective disciplinary approach, a classroom teacher or an aide in the hall or lunchroom may impose a punishment upon a student for an offending behavior. These punishments or penalties can take the form of after-school time, writing papers or sentences, removal from class, or other' activities. However, these teachers and staff have no real power for enforcement; that is deferred to building administrators. Teachers may make their own classroom rules and set penalties for violation of these rules. The administration, e.g., principal and assistant principals, may also impose penalties; and they have the authority to set aside penalties imposed by others. Each penalty is reviewed. by' the administrator involved and. a decision made. Different administrators in the same building 13 may impose different penalties for the same type of infraction. The point system used by the remaining three middle schools is pre-defined. Written documentation is provided concerning infractions and consequences for each. A negative numeric value is assigned for each infraction. The greater the offense, the higher the negative numeric value. When pre-defined accumulated numeric values are attained, corresponding defined actions are taken. Two separate point systems are in simultaneous operation at each building. One system is applied to behaviors or infractions considered less serious; the other for more serious behavior. Middle school "A," which uses a point system, follows prescribed procedures exactly. Middle school "B," which uses a point system, claims to follow it to the letter of the law, although there was indication that considerable judgment is used by the administrators charged with its enforcement to determine what actions should be taken for specific offending behaviors. Middle school "C," while claiming to operate on a point system, was found to use the point system only as an indicator of behavioral severity and, consequently, as advice for what actions are to be taken and when. All four of these systems face the same general questions and, therefore, the same problems. Are any of these systems fair? Do these systems discriminate between 14 students? Do any of these systems accomplish their goal of changing student behaviors and/or attitudes? Those persons using the objective point system argue that their system is fair and nondiscriminating. However, some parents and students have, on occasion, strongly disagreed. One problem with the system is in definitions of offenses. An example of this is defining that failure to be prepared for class by not having a needed pencil constitutes an infraction. This violation could be seen as violating the teacher's right to teach. For this infraction a teacher may issue from one to three points. Another teacher could call this insubordination, reasoning that the student was told to bring supplies and did not do as directed. That teacher could assign, thus, three to five points. Teachers may change the category of infraction by using their interpretation of the definition or intent of the definition of the infraction. At this stage, objectivity has been lost. One teacher may give no points, ignoring the infraction or giving the student a pencil. Another teacher may make a judgment based on his or her attitude about that student. Is it likely that the "always problem" student will be given points at the highest value while the "always good" student may be given a pencil. The teacher's assessment of an "always problem" student may be based on other presented factors having nothing to do with this particular behavior. Such things as gender, ethnic background, social and economic 15 status, or grades earned may have more to do with the teacher definition of the "always problem" student than behavior in a specific situation. These points, perhaps subjectively given, then go into the objective point system. When points are accumulated to pre-defined levels, various specified disciplinary actions are taken. When the student or parent does not feel that a specified infraction should have been an infraction, then the action resulting taken may be viewed as a major problem or injustice for the student. For example, a student has been given two points on each of three separate occasions for not having supplies at class (no pencil). This could have taken place over a period of several weeks, and the parents and student did not feel this should be a disciplinary issue. Then the student takes (steals) another student's pencil and is assigned three points for doing so (stealing can get from three to five points). Sci by giving three points, the teacher is saying it was not very serious. The parent and student may agree that stealing is an improper behavior and a legitimate discipline item. If the Student Discipline Code calls for suspension from school at nine points, the student will be excluded from school. Is this a suspension for stealing? Is this a suspension for accumulating points? Is this a suspension for not having a pencil? If there were no other points, would the student have been suspended for stealing? Is not having a pencil at class an offense of 16 greater importance than stealing? Since more points were given for not having supplies than for stealing, what is the behavior that the action of suspension is trying to change? If no one of these behaviors constitutes reason for an action to be taken, in this case suspension from school by pre-defined direction of the point system, why would or should an accumulation of behaviors or points need an action? In another class or school, the points for the missing supplies may not have been issued; therefore, the suspension for stealing not done. The parent and student in this example also could maintain that the action taken has no influence on the behavior that it is intended to change since the action taken was in response to many behaviors. In the subjective system this same example may have resulted generally in the same end action, that is, suspension from school at the theft. Here the parent or student has a clear argument to raise. If this had been another student, a different action could or would have been taken. It is now the judgment of one person what action should be taken and when. But again, the parent and student have little or no input into what the standard may be and may not agree with that standard or norm. 17 Definitions of Terms The following terms are defined here as they will be used in the contexts of this study. STUDENT DISCIPLINE CODE--A collection of rules, written and defined, designed to govern the activities and behavior of students. DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATION-~The enforcement and interpretation of the Student Discipline Code or undefined rules designated to control student behavior. INFRACTIONS--Activities defined by ‘the Student Discipline Code or the Discipline Administrator to be in violation of the Code or rules. MIDDLE SCHOOL--Academic grades 6, 7, 8. A general age group of 11 to 16. QUANTIFIABLE DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATION--Pre-defined and pre-stated sets of penalties for infractions are used for enforcement of Student Discipline Code. NON-QUANTIFIABLE DISCIPLINE ADMINISTRATION--Enforcement of Student Discipline Code or rules where the administrator determines the penalty subjectively. There is not a pre-defined and pre-stated set of penalties for infractions. POINTS--A weight given each infraction of a Student Discipline Code. Generally a numeric value. POINT SYSTEM-~A. system. of ‘weights or numbers given each infraction of a Student Discipline Code. An accumulation of numbers or a certain value carries a particular penalty. SUSPENSION--Temporary exclusion from the school or classroom. Suspension generally ranges in time from 1 to 10 days. Summary and Overview In Chapter I the problem, background, rationale for the problem, purposes of the study, and hypotheses were presented. Also included was a description of the population. In Chapter II literature concerning factors 18 identified as important to administration of discipline will be reviewed. Chapter III will contain a discussion of the design and. methodology of the study. The data will be reported, analyzed and discussed in Chapter IV. In Chapter V there will be further discussion of the data summary and conclusions of the study, as well as recommendations for applications of this study to practical use in education. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction To achieve the goals of education, everyone quickly agrees that there must be discipline at the middle school level. In reviewing the literature on this topic, little specific information was found on Quantifiable or Non-Quantifiable Administration of Discipline. However, numerous articles, books, opinion surveys, and studies have been concerned with the general issue of student discipline. These materials cover a field of ideas and approaches from the sensationalism of violence of students in the nation's schools, from "Terror in the Schools" (1976) on the concepts of students being mistreated by the institution of education, to "An Interview" (1974) on. trying 'to find. solutions to perceived problems. When the learning experience is satisfactory, order results; unsatisfactory learning brings disruptions. Disruptions, of course, bring discipline. .... schools *which are lbad end up pgnishing their students. (Hollingsworth, 1984, p. This chapter is intended to provide a general review, for background purposes, of some of the issues of student discipline. The chapter' is organized into the following sections: (a) definitions and extent of the discipline 19 20 problem in the middle school, (b) legal issues influencing various discipline actions, and (c) review of the uniform Code of Student Conduct. No data are reported here from other studies of the effects of differing methods of using suspension to control conduct. No reports of such studies were to be found in the literature. Definitions and Extent of the Discipline Problem in the Middle School When the issue of student discipline is raised, the definitions of what constitutes the problem and how great the problem is seem to have no agreement. One's perspective seems to influence greatly what one defines as a problem. The general public may view lack of discipline as an undefined but definite growing problem. When violent incidents of student behaviors are reported in the media, the perception of growing problems are underscored. Teachers and building school administrators have different perspectives on discipline problems. In the classroom, the teacher must face the immediate need to maintain order such that teaching and student learning can take place. Building administrators are faced with concerns of maintaining the overall building environment. Parents and.‘ even students view' school discipline from a perspective of how it impacts them. Consequently, a single definition of the problem or a single solution to the discipline problem can not be found. In this 21 section various views of the extent of the problem of school discipline are presented. "Learning is impossible where behavior is disruptive" ("Learning Is Impossible, 1982). This quote from an editorial in the New York Times does not attempt to define either learning or disruptive behavior. It does assume that the reading public knows what is meant. Purvis (1986) attempts to give some definition to these terms. The primary purpose of a school is to insure youngsters develop to their full potential academically, socially and physically. This development can best take place in an environment which protects student rights. Student responsibility is required to provide the orderly framework within which individual goals can be realized. Accordingly, the school is charged with the task of educating all school age members of the community. Thus it follows that students are not free to wander about the school's facilities at will, disrupt the educational process or interfere with the rights of others. (p. 35) The general public's attitude concerning school discipline has been reflected in the results of annual Gallup Polls. Persons responding to the Fifteenth Annual Poll (Gallup, 1983) ranked discipline at the top of a list of 25 possible problems facing local schools. Respondents did not place the major blame for discipline problems on the public schools. They did identify a general lack of discipline and respect in the home and society as major contributors to the current state of affairs. This, of course, may conflict with parents perception of the discipline problems. The following 22 excerpts from responses to the poll provide some insight into the general public's perception of the problem. Many people say that discipline is one of the major problems of the public schools today. Would you please look over this list and tell me which reasons you think are most important to explain why there is a discipline problem? 1. Lack of discipline in the home (72%). 2. Lack of respect for law and authority throughout society (54%). 3. Students who are constant troublemakers often can't be removed from school (42%). 4. Some teachers are not properly trained to deal with discipline problems (42%). 5. The courts have made school administrators so cautious that they don't deal severely with student misbehavior (41%). 6. Viewing television programs that emphasize crime and violence (39%). 7. Punishment is too lenient (39%). 8. Decline in the teaching of good manners (37%). 9. Teachers themselves do not command respect (36%). 10. Failure on the part of teachers to make classroom work more interesting (31%). ll. One-parent families (26%). (Gallup, 1983, p. 5) The Michigan Department of Education also has conducted opinion polls among Michigan residents. The Michigan response was generally the same as nationally. Registered voters in the Lansing School District were generally more positive than statewide respondents in their overall perceptions of the quality of education (Michigan 23 Department of Education, 1983). Lansing respondents (15%) who felt school quality was getting worse were asked, "In what ways?" As shown in Table 2.1, discipline problems were again ranked at the top of the list. Table 2.1.--Ways in which Lansing voters said school quality was declining. 15% of 15% of 16% of Non- All Public School Public School Respondents Households Households Discipline problems 33% 31% 33% Don't teach basic skills 32 31 33 Teacher quality declining 30 31 29 Lack of finances, cuts 12 12 14 Poor management, administration 7 -- 9 Students lack individual attention 5 12 2 Too many "frills" 5 6 5 Students not prepared 3 -- 5 Miscellaneous reasons 12 6 14 Source: Michigan Department of Education, "Opinions and Attitudes of Voters in the Lansing Public School District" (Michigan State Board of Education, 1983, P-7) Baker (1943) wrote that for many reasons, unadjusted pupils demand a much greater proportion of time than the number of cases seem to warrant. Gorton makes a similar point that only a minority of students misbehave but their behavior is one of the major problems that confront administrators and their professional 24 staffs. Furtwengler (1982) presents a view that while persons may agree that behavior should be appropriate, they may not agree on who should control that behavior (p. 41). Spady (1974) states that "much of the existing evidence suggests that schools themselves may generate some of the crimes that they experience" (p. 51). Docking (1987) stated, "However important the home and other outside school factors may be in predisposing children to behave in certain ways, the potentiality of the school to maintain, ameliorate, or even generate behavior patterns should not be ignored" (p. 30). Klausmeier (1983) notes, "However, given the same students, some teachers develop and maintain a far better learning environment than others. Similarly, administrators, teachers, and. parents work: far' more effectively in some schools than in others to establish a good school climate" (p. 161). A perception survey of voters in the state of Washington also confirmed that while the voters had a positive perception of the management of schools, there was still concern about school discipline (Anderson, 1981). Students and teachers were asked to rate the frequencies they saw certain types of activities occurring. The results are presented in Table 2.2. 25 Table 2.2--Frequency of Problems How often have you seen students doing these things in your school:* Students Teachers Talking during class 95.8 97.8 Fighting with other students 45.4 (7.0) 44.7 (9.5) Swearing at a teacher 35.2 (8.0) 43.7 (9.4) Cheating 79.2 75.4 Setting false alarms 3.7 25.7 Making out 55.2 55.0 Stealing 33.0 (6.0) 36.4 (7.3) Wandering in halls 88.1 93.0 Gambling 24.5 (6.0) 21.9 (.5) Assaulting a teacher 12.8 (3.0) 33.4 (0) Using liquor/drugs 46.5 (21.0) 45.0 (12.6) Skipping school (truancy) 76.2 (39.0) 86.4 (38.0) Vandalizing school property 41.4 (13.0) 61.7 (21.3) Talking back to teacher 80.3 77.7 Possessing weapons 19.2 (6.0) 8.8 (1.1) Carrying firecrackers 23.8 11.6 Committing a crime 22.1 (6.0) 14.8 (1.7) Swearing at other students 91.1 81.7 Kissing 70.0 40.7 Throwing things 77.1 74.8 Being unprepared for class 91.3 95.1 N = 1316 184 *Percent responding "frequently" or "sometimes" rather than "rarely" or "not at all" shown. For selected offenses, the percentages answering "frequently" are shown separately in parentheses. (Hollingsworth, 1984, p. 31) In many areas teacher and student seem to report the same observation, Teachers are generally more setting of fire alarms, Students reported weapons, more, these activities. but there are points firecrackers, crime, of nonagreement. likely to report assaults, and vandalism of school property. and kissing perhaps because students were more likeLy to know of 26 Most of the literature on discipline is confined to questions about exclusionary discipline and school crime. These are, because of the severity of both crime in school and exclusion from school, simply the most visible parts of the iceberg. (Hollingsworth, 1984, p. 7) The administration of a secondary school is publicly responsible for dealing with any action taken by student radicals. Each administration is dictated to by (at least) two major factions, each packed with its individual vested interests: the parent of the students; and the political hierarchy above them, namely the Board of Education and the provincial department of education. To be free from either direct of indirect pressure from these factions, each administration must keep its school operating smoothly and without major disruption. (Loken, 1973, p. 89) The President of the American Federation of Teachers, lbert Shanker, told the Senate Subcommittee on Judiciary of he United States Senate that: Many authorities on education have written books on the importance of producing an effective learning environment in the schools by introducing more effective methods of teaching. None of them, however, seem to understand the shocking fact that the learning' environment in 'thousands upon thousands of schools is filled with violence and danger. Violent crime has entered the schoolhouse, and the teachers and students are learning some bitter lessons. (The Nature, Extent and Cost of Violence and Vandalism in Our Nation's Schools, 1975, p. 56) Former Governor Milliken formed a state-wide Task Force on Violence and Vandalism in Michigan. In November of 1978, the Task Force was charged with the responsibility of studying the problem of school crime and submitting recommendations. 27 The suggestions and recommendations of the Task ?orce for curbing school crime focused on five major areas: 1. Student participation 2. District-wide codes of conduct 3. Disciplinary alternatives 1. Vocational/technical career programs 5. Alternative educational programs (Governor's Task Force, November, 1977, p.4) The education systems will reflect what is going on Ln society as a whole. Educational systems are a part of :he turmoil of social change. "A middle grade school that is safe and orderly, academically strong, and responsive to the developmental ieeds of young adolescents will be aneffective school" {Dorman, 1987, p.2). The problem of discipline in the public schools was even raised by President Reagan. In addressing the national forum on excellence in education on December 8, 1983 in Indianapolis, Indiana, he asserted that "American schools ion't need vast sums of money as much as they need a few fundamental reforms." He proposed six reforms. One proposal was "can and will turn our schools around" (Educational Research, 1984, p.8). This was the first of his proposals in the area of discipline. He advocated writing stricter discipline codes and support for teachers in enforcing those codes. 28 President Reagan's first. weekly’ radio address of 1984 dealt with the topic of classroom discipline. President Bush, succeeding President Reagan, presented "six ambitious national education goals" in his "America 2000, An Education Strategy." ". . . and sixth, liberate every American school from drugs and violence so that schools encourage learning" (Bush, 1991, p.4). "Goal 6: Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools" By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. Objectives: 1. Every school will implement a firm and fair policy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and alcohol. 2. Parents, businesses, and community organizations will work together to ensure that the schools are a safe haven for all children. 3. Every school district will develop a comprehensive K-12 drug and alcohol prevention education program . Drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of health education. In addition, community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support." (Bush, 1991, p.65) Legal Issues Influencing Various Disciplinary Actions In general, children, therefore students, had no agal rights before 1909. A White House Conference on the Lghts of children was held in 1909. This conference :tempted to improve the status of children. The General 29 ssembly of the United Nations in 1939 adopted special tfeguards for children. Brown v. Board of Education was the ijor Supreme Court decision to affect public education. his case declared segregation as unconstitutional in public ducation and set the stage for other court intervention in ublic education. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education, tudents' rights did not receive much attention from the ourts. The states controlled education. State courts ecognized and supported the concept of "in loco parentis" as .sed by school officials in their control and management of :tudents in their schoolhouse. Traditionally, school boards and school administrators have had board power in establishing policies to control student conduct and maintain school discipline. The doctrine of in loco parentis was accepted as proper justification for the disciplinary authority exercised by educators. According to this doctrine, in the school setting the teacher or administrator "stands in the place" of the parent or has the same disciplinary power as a parent. The courts, until the 1960's, generally the rule-making authority of educators and was reluctant to interfere in schools affairs unless gross misuse of power occurred. With some important exceptions, most parents and school children, accepting the values of previous generations, rarely questioned the disciplinary authority of school officials in the courts. (Code of Student Conduct, 1975, p.3) Judicial concern for children's due process rights has also been the focus of landmark decisions. In this regard, the first attack came in 1966 when the United States Supreme Court said that the "parens patriae" philosophy (meaning concern for the welfare of and in the best interest of the child), under which juvenile courts operated since their inception in the late nineteenth century for dealing with delinquent, dependent, and neglected 30 children, was not an invitation to procedural arbitrariness in delinquency cases. One year later, the Supreme Court, in the landmark decision of In Re Gault, a non-school related case, recognized and granted many constitutional due process guarantees to juveniles charged with delinquent acts. The essence of the Supreme Court opinion was that the Fourteenth Amendment is not for adults only. (Chamelin, 1979, p.75) The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the onstitution are most often cited as the basis for court ulings. Most cases challenge the validity of regulations rui -rules dealing with restrictions of expression of peech--freedoms which are guaranteed by the First Amendment. Cases involving the wearing of emblems or insignia, .istribution of literature, publications, demonstrations, .ymbolic expression, and dress, and appearance are examples" Chamelin, 1979, p. 76). The First Amendment was made ipplicable for state action via the Fourteenth Amendment. 'he due process and equal protection clauses of the ‘ourteenth Amendment were further elaborated by Goldstein (1975): The Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits any "State" from depriving any "person" of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." It has long been held that the term "State" in this provision includes public schools, and a few years ago the Supreme Court emphatically reaffirmed its position that a school child is a "person" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (p. 54) Julius Menacker concluded, that "since the United State Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education. decision. in 1954, its rulings in the realm of education have multiplied dramatically and have had an enormous influence on education policy and practice. (Menacker, 1981, p. 188) 31 Junious Williams (1978) agreed with the above by .tating: Since Brown v. Board of Education, the courts have, with increasing regularity, found it necessary to intervene in school-student disputes to adjudicate constitutional rights. The involvement has established an unmistakable pattern of constitutional protection of educational policies and practices. (p. 57) In the 1960's, the student unrest started the lovement for the advocacy of students' rights and the leginning of the intervention of the courts in classrooms .cross the country. Constitutional rights were applied to :tudents, as were legislative enactments. Title VI, Section 601, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d-1 et. seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 16 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in public school programs receiving federal financial assistance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.S. Section 794, and the Education of All the Handicapped Children Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1401 et. seq., prohibits discrimination on account of handicap. (Discipline and Discrimination, 1979, p. 2) Brown v. Board of Education (LaMorte, 1990, p. 299) ias concerned with the integration of school systems, making :he requirement of nondiscrimination applicable to school >olicies and practices. In 1969 the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (LaMorte, 1990, p. 77) lecision. was made. A school system had adopted a rule prohibiting the wearing of armbands to protest the Viet Nam 32 var, and students were suspended from school for wearing them. The court held this to be an unconstitutional violation of the students' rights to symbolic expression of opinion, protected by the First Amendment, since school authorities could not show that this action caused, or could reasonable have been predicted to cause, substantial interference with or disruption of school work or discipline. If administrators could have proven that this silent demonstration disrupted school objectives, the outcome would have been different. (Menacker, 1981, p. 188) In the Tinker case of 1969, neither students nor :eachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. In Loco Parentis--the theory that schools and teachers could exercise :otal control over students because they acted as parent substitutes and out of concern for students' welfare--would iever be the same again. As far' back: as 1859, a ‘Vermont court found that :oncept weak. A parent's power, it held, "is little liable :o abuse, for it is continually restrained by natural affection, the tenderness which the parent feels for the affspring. The school master, the court added, has no such natural restraint. Hence he may not safely be trusted with all. a. parent's authority,. for he idoes not act from the instinct of parental affection. ("Courts Force School", 1972, p. 3). The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment also are applied to student discipline. 33 e U.S. Supreme Court in 1975 in Goss v. Lopez made this iplication. The case involved the suspension of students om school without a hearing for up to ten days for .sruptive misconduct. The Court decreed that such ispensions violated students' rights to procedural due :ocess. The Court also spelled out the procedure that :hool officials must follow in order to guarantee students 1e process: The student must be given an oral or written otice of the charges against him and an opportunity to resent his version to authorities-~preferab1y prior to emoval from school; and in the event that prior notice and a earing are not feasible and the student's present endangers ersons or property or threatens disruption of the academic trocess, immediate removal from school is reasonable, irovided a notice and a hearing follows as soon as possible (Hobbs, 1979, p. 202). Goss v. Lopez (LaMorte, 1990, p. 102) held that public school students are entitled to procedural due process Defore the administration of discipline. In Table 2.3, a brief outline of some court cases are presented. Court rulings have made it clear that rules can no longer be arbitrarily made by school officials. Bittle (1986) further elaborates the need for rules. Preannounced rules should be the first step in any procedural due process system. The rules must be sufficiently definite to provide prior notice to students or employees or others that certain standards of conduct or behavior or performance are expected and that failure to comply with those 34 Le 2.3-Court Cases Involving Students' Rights ZINAME LAWS DECISIONS ARE BASED UPON THE GENERAL CASE ISSUES ker v. s Moines aMorte, 1990, 77) wn V. Board Education aMorte, 1990, 299) obs v. School .mmissioners ‘ the City of idianapolis .aMorte, 1982, 94) is v. Lopez .aMorte, 1990, . 102) 3d v. Strickland LaMorte, 1990, . 383) bson v. Hansen Strahan, 1987, 111) llman v. Dade Yudof, 1982, . 559) .wkins v. Coleman Yudof, 1982, i. 559) lst Amendment Equal Protection Clause; 14th Amendment lst Amendment Due process clause of 14th Amendment Due process clause of 14th Amendment Due process, Equal Protection, 5th Amendment, 14th Amendment Due process Procedural due process, Substantive due and Equal Protection Clause Freedom of expression; wearing armband Segregated schools Freedom of expression; unofficial student publication Disciplinary hearings; procedural due process Sufficiency of evidence in hearing; sub- stantive due process Tracking ability grouping Disproportionate number of Black students sus- pended during a disturbance Disproportionate number of Blacks being suspended and receiving corporal punish- ment 35 standards may result in sanctions, discipline, or discharge. Courts in reviewing school disciplinary actions, have generally declined to review the substance of rules except as to determine whether they relate to legitimate school concerns. Rules must be written so that persons can clearly understand what conduct is prohibited so they can conform their conduct to the rules. (Bittle, 1986, p. 11-12) In the past, administrators had taken the "in loco 'entis" concept to mean they had the same authority as 'ents to impose discipline upon students: however, this is the case. Administrators must understand they can no iger impose rules and regulations without sound :tification. Rules and regulations should be formulated with iectives which are consistent with theproper functioning the school, reasonably related to educational goals, and it ensure an atmosphere conducive to learning. Reutter (1979) concluded that there are six minimum sentials of an enforceable rule governing student conduct. 1. Rules must be publicized to students. 2. The rule must have legitimate educational purposes. 3. The rule must be related to the achievement of the stated educational purposes. 4. The meaning must be clear. 5. The rule must be specific. 6. If the rule infringes upon the constitutional right of the student, specific interest of the 36 school for enforcing the rule must be showed. (Reutter, 1979, p.6) Enforceable rules along with due process are the nula governing schools. Failure to follow due process has duced instances that could have been avoided where persons e unfairly treated. "Juvenile court history has again onstrated, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a r substitute for principle and procedure" (Fischer, 1982, 311). Review of the Uniform Code of Student Conduct On July 3, 1975, Judge Robert DeMascio of the United ttes District Court issued an order for the Detroit Board Education to implement a desegregation plan. To implement a desegregation plan the directive was to be followed, and e following educational components were approved by the urt in the desegregation order for implementation: 1. Reading and communication skills 2. In-service training 3. Testing 4. Counseling and career guidance 5. Uniform Code of Student Conduct 6. School-community relations 7. Vocational education 8. Bilingual/bicultural education 9. Co-curricular activities 37 The value of the Uniform Code of Student Conduct omponent was stressed . By previous order this court has demonstrated the high priority that it places on student rights and responsibilities, which the court has referred to as a Uniform Code of Conduct. We have also said that children living, learning, and playing together convert a building into a human institution with a pulse and personality, and that when students, parents, and teachers come together to live, learn, and work the school develops an environment that the Detroit Board is constitutionally bound to protect in order to assure that every student can enjoy a right to a happy, healthy, and rewarding school experience. (Bradley V. Milliken, 1975) 'The backbone of an effective discipline program in a good student code of conduct." (National School Resource Network, 1980) The Uniform Code of Student Conduct in the Detroit Public Schools began on January 2, 1976. The implementation of the Uniform Code of Student Conduct was to ensure the following specifications of the Court Order. 1. The Board would not tolerate violence in any school in the system. 2. The Code be administered uniformly without regard to regional lines. 3. All regions follow prescribed forms and uniform procedures devised by the Central Board and approved by the Court. 4. The rights of all students are fully protected, and all students are afforded minimal rights of due process consistent with Goss v. Lopez, 491 U.S. 565. 5. Staff members be made aware of the rights of due process set forth in the Code, particularly that students be advised not only 38 of the conduct prescribed, but also of their right to due process when involved in disciplinary procedures. 6. 'The Code protects the rights of students against arbitrary and discriminatory exclusions, suspensions or expulsions and assure that disruptions in the school or classroom will be dealt with in every instance. (Bradley V. Milliken, 1975) In order to effect implementation of the Code, the ourt required the following: 1. The printing of the Code in an appropriate and attractive form. 2. The distribution of the Code to all students and parents in the Detroit School district. 3. The posting of the Code in a central location in every school. 4. The preparation of uniform reporting forms for every school. 5. The assurance of uniform reporting of all infractions. 6. The development of an appropriate inservice training program for all school personnel. (Bradley V. Milliken, 1975) On April 24, 1984, the U.S. District Court ruled that :he Detroit Public School System. must develop and adopt policies and procedures on discipline and student rights by December 31, 1984, to replace the 1976 court ordered Uniform Code of Student Conduct. The State of Michigan Board of Education believes the issues of student rights and responsibilities to be pertinent to all schools throughout the state. However, this Board 39 aves the responsibility to developing specific Codes of nduct to local districts (Charity, 1988). In most Michigan school districts, expectations for .udent behavior and consequences for rule violations are set irth in written student codes of conduct. School districts we developed such regulations under specific provisions in me School Code, which was enacted by the Michigan egislature (Michigan State Board of Education, 1984). The :hool Code empowers local school boards to make regulations hat are reasonable for the "proper establishment, aintenance, management and carrying on of the public schools . . . including regulations relative to the conduct of iupils (Michigan General School Laws, Rule 380,1300, sec. .300, 1976). The School Code specifically identifies three najor disciplinary actions--suspension, expulsion, and :orporal punishment--as permissible under appropriate circumstances (Michigan General School Laws, Rule 380,1300, sec. 1311). The Lansing School District's Board of Education has presented its philosophy of discipline in a summary fashion. Discipline together with due process is an integral part of the overall educational process. That is, its purpose is to help students adjust to standards and structures that they might encounter in community life, as well as in school. Its application shall be positive in all cases, with emphasis given to the value of self-discipline as the chief characteristic of responsible citizenship in a free society. (Lansing School District, 1982, p- 1) 40 "The goal of any Code of Conduct is to prescribe, with as much specificity as possible, the perimeters of acceptable behavior and the consequences of disruptive behavior" (Lansing School District, 1982, p. 6). It is clear that the administrator is not totally free to make whatever rules and regulations he thinks are best for the school. All school rules and regulations must be based on school board policy, and be compatible with state and federal law. (Gorton, 1983, p. 333) Punishment has several meanings. First, it is meant :0 correct an infraction. The individual who is punished is xpected not to recommit the offense; he/she is supposed to earn a lesson from his/her punishment. Another use of unishment is to serve as an example to other people. pciety says, in effect, "See? You cannot get by with this .nd of behavior." A third function is to assuage the ~nscience of society, by taking its "vengeance" on the dividual for the harm did to society (Phillips, 1972, p. ). Students should not have to guess or infer what the isequences will be for violating a rule or regulation. The sequences should be made explicit at the time that the e or regulation goes into effect. Students need to know I: will happen if they violate a rule or regulation so they I. have the opportunity to take that information into sideration (Gorton, 1983, p. 343). Suspensions and expulsions ostensibly provide a means punishing students for severe misbehavior or refusal to H- {K 41 obey a reasonable school rule. Generally, suspensions are used to exclude students from school for periods of one to ten days, while expulsions are used for longer periods (Guthrie, 1986, p. 143). The rationale for establishing a student conduct code is apparent. Since the code is administered throughout the district, students and teachers know how infractions will be handled, and this knowledge eases transfers between schools. Students new to the district are also given clear, written expectations. (Moles, 1990, p. 255) Summary "Why is discipline so important? Why stress it so much? Simply because no group of people can share or work together without the presence of rules and regulations. This is true whether they are working as individuals or as members of a group . . . . without good discipline, the schoolroom is a waste of people's time" (Phillips, 1972, p.4). "Discipline in schools is everyone's business. Everyone is affected by disruptive, violent, and misbehaving students" (Grossnickle, 1985, p. 48). The courts have made it clear that administrators are no longer totally free to make whatever rules and regulations they may wish. It may be safe to return to familiar ways of doing things; however, issues of freedom of expression, equal protection under the law, and due process must always be considered. When rules and regulations ot Codes of Conduct are made, they must meet court requirements. Codes of Conduct 42 must be acceptable to State Boards of Education's policies. These codes should have input from all interested persons. Once made rules should be reviewed and understood by the students they will impact. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The factors which influence an administrator's decision to suspend a middle school student as a result of a particular behavior or series of behaviors are varied. This study attempted to compare those suspensions done within a system ‘which has pre-defined behavior consequences to a system without such pre-defined behavior consequences. A sample of students who had experiences in both systems was interviewed to obtain the students' impressions of how these two systems compared. Factors such as the number of suspensions, repeat suspensions of the same student, reasons for suspension, and the time out of school as the result of suspensions were compared to determine if any statistical differences appeared between these two systems. Also the statistical effect of the ethnic background and/or gender of students was compared. Administrators were interviewed after they reviewed the statistical findings of this study to determine if such a study influenced their pre-beliefs or impacted the decision of which system of discipline administration to use in the future. 43 44 Selection of the Population The jpopulation involved in this investigation. was taken from Lansing School District middle school students and administrators. This population included those students who had been suspended from middle schools during the three school year period from 1987 to 1989. Students interviewed were selected from students which changed middle schools for any reason during the school year 1988-89. Only administrators who were assigned to the middle schools during the last year of the study were interviewed. The Lansing School District located in Lansing, Michigan, is considered an urban district. It has an average per-year total enrollment for the study period of 22,419 students. Of this average number per year, 4,570 are middle school (grades 6-8) students. For more details, see Appendix A. For the study period there were 13,712 subjects (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2)). There were 7,348 middle school-reported suspensions involving 3,672 subjects (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5). In 1988-89, 288 students transferred between middle schools. The Lansing School District operated four middle schools, one located approximately in each of the four quadrants of the district. Enrollments ranged per school per school year between 991 students and 1,264 students. In addition to regular school programs, the district operated alternative programs for students who presented 45 a~.om am.me nan.mfl mmm.m mmm.e mom.v ~o~.~ H¢~.~ «mm.v mom.~ new.“ «no.4 pum.~ non.~ sauce v.- won aom Hooaom poo.m amm.a omm.H Ham «me mac mac.” cum mam neo.a aem can nanomiaoz c.5p am.mc e~.om doonom omm.oH Ho~.m mm~.m ~on.m opp.fl nes.~ smm.m non.d cps.” Hom.n mom.“ men.fl ocean H.s~ aom «om m~>.n who.” can.“ mam.” nae «Ho m-.H Hum eon ~m~.~ one one goes n.m~ ao.me ae.om ~o~.n mom.” «Ho.d moo.“ man can who.d man can moo.a mnm onm ouuo ~.p~ yam amv mnp.m ”on.“ fine.” HH~.H moo moo awn." hem ode vo~.H moo mam unconno a HGUOH. Odd: Odnfimh A much. OHM! CA GEO“ A 0309. 0A 62 Odds—Oh A GHOH. GHQ: Odds—0m HOOSUm qaeoe mmmHimmmH womanhood nmmfliommu unconnam sauce Leoudnsa. won» an nausea an Hooaom Rm coeunaaoomiin.n wanna 46 Table 3.2--P0pulation by School by Ethnic by Year (Uh-Audited) ETHNIC SCHOOL CODE * 86-87 8 87-88 \ 88-89 8 Total 8 GARDNER 1 17 1.0 18 1.0 12 1.0 47 1.0 2 275 22.0 275 22.0 278 23.0 828 22.0 3 18 1.0 17 1.0 18 1.0 53 1.0 4 89 7.0 111 9.0 116 10.0 316 9.0 5 863 68.0 836 67.0 788 65.0 2487 67.0 Total 1262 1257 1212 3731 OTTO l 32 3.0 36 3.0 32 3.0 100 3.0 2 297 27.0 295 27.0 287 27.0 879 27.0 3 41 4.0 53 5.0 52 5.0 146 5.0 4 161 15.0 153 14.0 166 16.0 480 15.0 5 553 51.0 538 50.0 525 49.0 1616 50.0 Total 1084 1075 1062 3221 RICE 1 12 1.0 11 1.0 13 1.0 36 1.0 2 460 37.0 499 41.0 526 42.0 1485 40.0 3 31 2.0 21 2.0 21 2.0 73 2.0 4 101 8.0 84 7.0 82 7.0 267 7.0 5 648 52.0 610 50.0 597 48.0 1855 50.0 Total 1252 1225 1239 3716 Table 3.2 (cont'd.) 47 POINT l 61 2.0 65 2.0 57 2.0 183 2.0 SCHOOLS 2 1032 29.0 1069 30.0 1091 31.0 3192 30.0 3 90 3.0 91 3.0 91 3.0 272 3.0 4 351 10.0 348 10.0 364 10.0 1063 10.0 5 2064 57.0 1984 56.0 1910 54.0 5958 56.0 Total 3598 3557 3513 10668 PATTENGILL 1 34 3.0 30 3.0 31 3.0 95 3.0 (Non-Point School) 2 242 23.0 225 22.0 214 22.0 681 22.0 3 35 3.0 31 3.0 29 3.0 95 3.0 4 153 15.0 148 15.0 172 17.0 473 16.0 5 580 56.0 576 57.0 544 55.0 1700 56.0 Total 1044 1010 990 3044 TOTALS 1 95 2.0 95 2.0 88 2.0 278 2.0 2 1274 27.0 1294 28.0 1305 29.0 3873 28.0 3 125 3.0 122 3.0 120 3.0 367 3.0 4 504 11.0 496 11.0 536 12.0 1536 11.0 5 2644 57.0 2560 56.0 2454 55.0 7658 56.0 Total 4642 4567 4503 13712 ' Ethnic Code-(1) American Indian or Native American, American, (4) Latino or Hispanic, Note: (3) Asian, t equals percentage of population. (5) White or Caucasian. Categoriea defined by the Lansing School District. (2) Black or African 48 can one on“ me an an“ sumac e.m~ omen map pend new one on .eoaazoOme m. on ma Am a as an man once e.ofi won 6 one mom can no" anemam aznoa m.n mom nee oeq on“ c «on mmuzuazee o.m now on“ on" em" mm mu eqsamma m.n Hmm can mod on «an an «6:954 nausea N. «H o «A e H a zouezoexm m. on me 54 mm a m oznmoxm o.on «own new "no” mom son who ozneaouu N. «H o «H n m e znmocue an: o.~ can mm «on «4 en mm aozcaze a gases anozmeeaa aoozom some case zuzozao zoumznamsm .ezHomizoz. ezHon eon zomenz comma: an doocom an occupant“ an noducomunmiin.n canes 49 outcomusm new» mom noaHa H H H GH nH H H H H H NH h H H o n n n n HH m N N m m H m m H H OH vH m m n N w m o m m NN m c N M NH oH H N m m H v N N 0 mm NH 5 N n MN mH m m 6H mH H v n H 5 mm NN m m 0 mm HN n m NN mH N m HH @ H c o HHH mv mH hH OH mm on OH mH Nm mH n OH m m e ¢N NH n m m NoN mm on hN hN QBH Hp me Do on He nH NH on QH 0H 0 Ne 0H vH NH 0 MNc MMH mm mm ov oaN mNH Mb Nm ONH om Hm on v0 mm vN HN cm on mH NM n hHm mHN mm or om mam MMN omH mmH hON Hm mm mm NmH Oh mm hm mON Nb mm v0 N NmmH non hmH HOH mmH mevH who one Onm mac 05H OQH MFH who omH QVH HhH nmv th OmH on H a H mm. on. no. 3 mm. am. mm. H mm. mm. mm. a mm. mm. ha. 8 on. am. no a dnHozwaaam BzHOm mon 0990 mflzamdo manommm no nonszz >9 uno»\Hoocom >n ucoooum Na :oncommsmii¢.n oHneB 50 Table 3.5-Suspenaion by School by Year by Number of Days CODE FOR SCHOOL DAYS 86-87 % 87-88 8 88-89 8 Total t GARDNER l 100 16.7 17 4.2 130 23.3 247 15.8 2 29 4.8 45 11.0 72 12.9 146 9.3 3 450 75.0 334 81.9 341 61.2 1125 71.9 4 18 3.0 8 2.0 9 1.6 35 2.2 5 3 .5 4 1.0 5 1.0 12 .8 Total 600 408 557 1565 OTTO 1 136 36.6 119 28.7 136 27.4 391 30.5 2 29 7.8 35 8.5 33 6.7 97 7.6 3 203 54.6 252 60.9 314 63.3 769 60.0 4 3 .8 5 1.2 9 1.8 17 1.3 5 1 .3 3 .7 4 .8 8 .6 Total 372 414 496 1282 RICH 1 6 1.1 17 3.8 568 47.8 591 27.2 2 10 1.8 11 2.5 257 21.6 278 12.8 3 506 93.5 411 93.0 347 29.2 1264 58.2 4 14 2.6 2 .5 16 1.3 32 1.5 5 5 1.0 1 .2 0 0.0 6 .3 Total 541 442 1188 2171 - . ————-.—.- ..-. Table 3.5 (cont'd.) 51 POINT 1 242 16.0 153 12.1 834 37.2 1229 24.5 SCHOOLS 2 68 4.5 91 7.2 362 16.2 521 10.4 3 1159 76.6 997 78.9 1002 44.7 3158 62.9 4 35 2.3 15 1.2 34 1.5 84 1.7 5 9 .6 8 .6 9 .4 26 .5 Total 1513 1264 2241 5018 PATTENGILL 1 99 14.6 212 28.3 292 32.4 603 25.9 (Non-Point School) 2 76 11.2 145 19.3 142 15.7 363 15.6 3 363 53.5 282 37.6 339 37.6 984 42.2 4 117 17.3 100 13.3 105 11.6 322 13.8 S 23 3.4 11 1.5 24 2.7 58 2.5 Total 678 750 902 2330 TOTALS 2191 2014 3143 7348 Code for Days I (1)-1; (2)-2; (3)-3 to 5 days; (4)-1 to 3 weeks; (5) over 3 weeks. (Categories defined by the Lansing School District) 52 behavioral problems that could not be managed in regular secondary schools. At the middle school level, this program was called Re-Entry. This Re-Entry program consisted of two teachers and two classrooms housed at an alternative high school building. There were 40 Re-Entry students enrolled per year. The purpose of this Re-Entry program was to help students modify their behavior so that they could eventually return to the regular school setting. The district operated an alternative high school program that enrolled up to 120 students per year. This program was geared primarily toward dropout prevention, students with behavior problems, and students with school attendance problems. Assignment to both the Re-Entry and alternative programs was based on a joint determination by the student's home school building administrator and a student services administrator. Generally placement was made following a suspension to the Student Services' Office. The district operated Adult Education Programs, Special Education Programs for handicapped students and a program for expectant and/or school-aged parents. These programs were not included in this study because of the 'totally-individual approach to discipline used by each teacher in these special programs. Each middle school was administratively staffed with a principal and two assistant principals. The Lansing School District established a district-wide Student Discipline Code (see Appendix J). However, each building was required to 53 establish a its' own Student Discipline Code (see Appendices F-I). Within these individual Student Discipline Codes, methods for administration of discipline for that building were established and approved. These Student Discipline Codes were reviewed by students, teachers, parents, and administrators; further, each must operate within the district-wide Student Discipline Code. Within the Lansing School District. middle) schools program, buildings adopted either a pre-defined system of administration of discipline or a non pre-defined system of administration of discipline. A student's school assignment was generally determined by the parent's legal residence. Because of the 1973 federal court order, desegregation plan boundaries were drawn to balance all schools on the basis of ethnic background (see Appendix A). The student ethnic population consisted of American Indian, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Caucasian students. All current school assignments and boundaries were established in accordance with that 1973 plan. This balancing of ethnic backgrounds was believed to have created a generally homogeneous mixture of students across each of the four middle schools. Administrators were not randomly assigned. However, observation of this small population shows an attempt to balance ethnic background and gender within and across the buildings. Administrative service usually span several 54 buildings. Administrators tend to move between buildings in different years of service. Methodology Discipline data from the Lansing School District's middle schools for the school years 1987-88, 1986-87, and 1985-86 were reviewed. The Lansing School District is a Middle-Cities State of Michigan district with about 24,000 students within 33 elementary, 4 middle schools, 3 high schools, and one alternative program. For each of the targeted years, approximately 4,000 students were enrolled at the middle school level. The suspension data from each of the middle schools were statistically analyzed and compared to find the effect that method of administration of discipline had upon those data. Each of the four middle schools had enrollments that ranged from about 800 to 1,000 students. The middle school buildings were categorized as three three-point schools and one non-point school. Each year there were approximately 1,100 suspensions at the middle school level. The twelve reasons for suspension were collapsed into four categories (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2.) Factors such as time spent on suspension by students (see Figure 3.3), repeat suspensions of the same student (see Figures 3.4 and 3.5), and race and gender of students suspended were examined (see Figure 3.6). 55 3.33 .1952... 8.2:: 378953 332—8 E .838. .noficmamsm Em Saar. AOOIOm ._.Z_On_-ZOZ wJOOIOw ._.Z_On_ «3v wzQzEO $5 m20_2_a0 o\oN git-til m02 mméwmw 1.030th nmémmw wm_m00m._.m m20ml mozmazmtm mZOm> o mm>0 mx>> T— m>< 59 mm-mmms gazotgs am-emms .mcosmcnamzm smnanm m.m wisest ._.Z_0n_.ZOZ ._.z_0n_ ._.=02m._L.F_._.F.._.<2 $3 0.253.: moémg IGDOEIH hmémmr 0_ZI._.m >m 20_wzmn_m3m 61 Many students move between Lansing School District middle school buildings. Approximately 45 middle school students who moved were interviewed. These students were asked to provide a critique of the system in which they were involved and asked to offer their opinions of the effectiveness of their system versus other systems of discipline administration which they may have experienced. Only students who had attended two or more middle schools within the Lansing School District within the last year, 1988-89, were selected for interview. There were 288 transferred students meeting these criteria. This group included both students who had experienced suspension and those who had not. These students' perceptions and opinions were reported along with the statistical data. This input from students was expected to support and add credibility to the findings. It was also expected to raise new areas of interest and ways of viewing discipline administration. The opinions of administrators whose job was to administer various types of discipline systems were also reviewed. These opinions were considered to be of greatest value if the administrator had reviewed the results of the statistical comparisons before being interviewed. These opinion data were collected using an open-ended interview format with each administrator. Each administrator was encouraged to give his or her opinion of the statistical findings along with any new or previous bias toward a 62 particular system. There were 14 middle school administrators, including principals and assistant principals, all of whom were interviewed. Because of mobility of assignments, most of these administrators had experiences in more than one building and in more than one system of discipline administration. The opinions and conclusion of the administrators were compared with the other reported data. These comparisons were identified to provide a more complete picture of the statistical data within. a more practical context. The responses of administrators were used to validate the research findings and to raise issues which might be of use in further elaborating factors which might relate to the best administration of discipline. Other groups, such as teachers and parents, are also believed to be affected by the type of administration of discipline. However, input from these other groups was not considered in this study. Data Collection Before collecting any data, this researcher obtained written approval from the Lansing School District to conduct his investigation within the district. Any research conducted in the Lansing School District must be approved by the Office of Evaluation and Research Services. An application detailing the scope of the investigation and the 63 extent to which student records and/or student and staff time would be involved was submitted for consideration to a district panel. In general, projects were critically reviewed for several factors, including their relationship to Board of Education goals and potential value to the district. Because results of this investigation could have a direct effect upon school district procedures and practices, the panel readily gave its approval to conduct the research. In addition to local district approval, it was also necessary to receive approval from Michigan State University's University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). This committee must review any study or investigation involving personally-identifiable data on human subjects to ensure that the subjects' rights are protected. Of particular interest to UCRIHS was the types of data to be collected and the nature of the consent forms to be used in this investigation. Although several members of UCRHS initially expressed concern about the voluntary nature of the parent and student consent in this investigation, particularly' as the investigator' was an. employee of the Lansing School District's Student Services Office, final approval was given after minor modification was made to the consent form. There were four distinct types of data collected with this study: (1) on district population; (2) on suspensions; (3) from. student interviews; and (4) from interviews of 64 administrators. Each type of data was collected in different ways. Data on district population were collected from each building each year of the study and reported to the State of Michigan's Department of Education as part of the district's annual funding claims. These data were audited annually at the intermediate school district and at the state level. They were then published by the district and the state. Data on each suspension were recorded regularly by the suspending administrator. These data were then forwarded to central administration for coding and entering into a computer data base. This entry was theoretically done on a daily basis; however, it must have been completed by the end of each semester when various reports were extracted from this data base. An annual non-demographic suspenSion report was then generated, which became part of the district's public information library. The building making the suspension identification code, the student's identification number, the student's name, the date suspended, the date returned, the total days suspended, the grade level, the student's ethnic code, the student's gender code, the reason code for suspension, whether the student was sent to central administration, if a school change was done, and the semester in which this suspension took place were all entered (see Appendix E). An entry was made for each incident of suspension. This suspension was entered into the district's computer system, a computer program checked for correctness 65 of demographic data against the district master student file which superseded any contested suspension data. The computer program also determined the number of days suspended from the dates given rather than the number of days listed. Normally these suspension data were expunged from the computer data base after the annual reports were produced. For the purpose of this study, three years of demographic suspension data were maintained. These data will be destroyed at the conclusion of this study. From this data base, all middle school suspension data were extracted. Students' history of middle school enrollment was reviewed from the district's student enrollment data base. All students who had attended two or more Lansing School District's middle schools during the 1988-89 school year were selected. A letter explaining the purpose of the investigation and requesting an opportunity to interview the student at his/her school, along with a parent permission form and a request for the student's voluntary participation in this study, was mailed to all parents or guardians of students who had transferred (see Appendix C). From this population of 288, 62 affirmative responses were received. These responses were separated in categories by their currently' enrolled. schools. Students 'were interviewed. at their schools. Interviews were randomly conducted until at least ten had been completed at each building. Because of the relatively small number of interviews, this investigator 66 was able to conduct all interviews himself. This interview procedure eliminated the need to train interviewers and helped to standardize the manner in which the interviews were conducted and the responses were recorded. The interview was comprised of five parts. The first part included questions designed to gather general information about the student. The second part contained questions related to the student's relationship to his/her former school. The third part contained questions designed to have the student compare his/her current with his/her former school. The fourth part contained questions related to the student's relationship to his/her current school. The final section contained open-ended questions designed to elicit student's opinions about diSCipline systems in general. A complete copy of this questionnaire is part of Appendix B. The interview generally took about ten minutes per student to complete. Administrators were sent letters requesting their voluntary participation in this study. The letters described that the method of data collection was by personal interview augmented by taped recording. This interview was expected to be ten to fifteen minutes in duration. An agreement form for participation was included. The eight questions to be asked were included (see Appendix D). A summary of the statistical analysis was also included for preview. All middle school 67 administrators responded affirmatively, and all administrators were interviewed as a part of this study. Statistical Method Used The statistical technique of Chi-square was used. "Chi-square is defined as the sum of the squared deviations [(observed - expected)2] divided by the expected value of each cell. The formula is: X2=z!O-C!2 e ." (Besag, 1985, p. 279) This statistical technique was chosen because there were nominal and ordinal level data. The cells forms were less than 30, with less than 20% of the expected frequencies having a value of less than 5; there were no empty cells. The samples were independent and form frequencies in discrete categories. The significance level of .05 probably was chosen, the generally acceptable level in social science research (MacEachron, 1982, p. 159). This .05 level of significance was used throughout this study. The operations procedures were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences programs (SPSS) through the Lansing School District's IBM 4381 computer system. The SPSS Subprogram CROSSTABS programs computing formulas and basic assumptions follows. Chi-square is a test of statistical significance. It helps us to determine whether a systematic relations exists between two variables. This is done by computing the cell frequencies which would 68 be expected if no relationship is present between the variables given the existing row and column totals (marginals). The expected cell frequencies are then compared to the actual values found in the table according to the following formula: 7 X2 2:02 74;) i fe‘ where f.‘ equals the observed frequence in each cell, and 1;! equals the expected frequency calculated as fe-N) where Ci is the frequency in a respective column marginal. rt is the frequency in a respective row marginal, and N stands for total number of valid cases." (NIE, 1975, p. 222) Data Reporting and Analysis Because of the variety of types of data several methods of reporting and analysis were employed. Suspension and district population data were mathematically analyzed. Hypothesis 1-5 Date were statistically analyzed using Chi Square. Student interview data were reported in a descriptive manner as it related to each hypothesis. The administrative interview data were also reported in a descriptive manner as the administrative populations reacted to the results of this study. 69 Research Hypotheses The basic hypothesis of this study is that there will be no significant differences in the results of suspension between defined or undefined administration methods according to the variables of number' of suspensions, repeat suspensions, reasons for suspensions, ethnic background or gender of the student, and time spent on suspension. Hypotheses This research was conducted to answer the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. There are no differences in the number of suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Hypothesis 2. There are no differences in the number of repeat suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Hypothesis 3. There are no differences in the reasons for suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. 70 Hypothesis 4. There are no differences in the ethnic background or gender of student suspensions resulting from. Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Hypothesis 5. There are no differences in the time students spend on suspension resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Data on the above null hypotheses are presented in Chapter IV, along with discussion of the research hypotheses to which they relate (see p. 104 below). §EEEEEY Mathematical, statistical and descriptive methods described in this chapter were used to analyze the collected data. The questions of whether a difference between the predefined set of behavior or a non-predefined set of behavior consequences makes any difference in discipline was reviewed by this analysis of data. The collected data are presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the method used for administration of discipline, that is, a predefined (point system) or an objective (non-point system) method, made any difference in discipline. The criteria used were numbers of suspension, repeat suspensions, reasons for suspensions, ethnic background or gender of suspended students, and the amount of time spent on suspension. In addition, the opinions of students with experience in more than one middle school and in some cases both type of systems are sampled. In this chapter the idata were analyzed in three sections: (1) mathematical analysis of population and suspension data, (2) statistical analysis of the suspension data, and (3) analysis of the reported opinions of students. Each of the five hypothesis will be reviewed separately. The computer programs of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), 1986, were used to analyze the suspension data. The SPSS Condescriptive and Crosstabs Sub-programs were used to generate summary information about the suspension data. 71 72 In this chapter, the analysis of the data will be simply presented. There was no attempt to interpret the meanings of these analyses. Chapter V will attempt to extract meanings and present interpretations of these data and analyze them. Presentation of Results During the school years 1986 through 1989, there were a total combined 13,712 student enrollments in the middle school grades of the Lansing School District. (These were not unduplicated students.) During this three year time period, there were a total of 3,672 of these students suspended. Of this total combined student population, 10,550 were defined as being in point-system schools and 3,067 were in the non-point system school. Of the total suspended, 2,628 were attributed to the point-system schools and 1,044 were attributed to the non-point system school. Thirty four percent of non-point system students were suspended. For individual school years these percentages changed. The total point-system percentage of suspensions was twenty five. While 2,628 students were suspended in the point-system, 5,018 suspensions were made equaling an average of 1.9 times suspended for each student suspended. The 1,044 non-point system students were suspended a total of 2,330 times, for an average rate of 2.2 suspensions per student. 73 These rates for point system and non-point system students varied from school year to school year. Twelve reasons for suspension were established by the district. The twelve reasons were collapsed by this redefinition into four categories: (1) attendance, (2) violence , ( 3) opinions , and (4 ) substance . The number of combined suspensions and the percentages of all suspensions per type of school, per category for the point system students over the three years were as follows: (1) Attendance 567 11.3% (2) Violence 1,892 37.7% (3) Opinions 2,484 49.5% (4) Substance 92 1.8% Non-point system students and percentages of all suspensions per type of school were as follows: (1) Attendance 228 9.8% (2) Violence 743 31.9% (3) Opinions 1,331 57.1% (4) Substance 28 1.2% These percentages varied from school year to school year. The percentages by gender for enrolled students appeared relatively constant between point system schools and the non-point system school. The gender percentages also remained. constant. between. individual school years. These percentages were 49.1% female and 50.9% male. The combined suspensions over the three years for point-system schools by 74 gender was 47.0% female, while that same data for the non-point system school was 47.5% female. Ethnic designations were defined by the district in five categories: (1) American Indian or Native American, (2) black or African American, (3) Asian, (4) Latino or Hispanic, and (5) white or Caucasian. The percentage» of tenrollment. by ethnic group compared to the percentage of suspensions by ethnic groups over the combined three years for the point system schools were as follows: (1) American Indian 2% of population 2.2% of suspensions (2) African American 30% of population 46.9% of suspensions (3) Asian 3% of population 0.5% of suspensions (4) Hispanic 10% of population 11.3% of suspensions (5) Caucasian 50% of population 39.1% of suspensions The percentage of enrollment by ethnic group compared to the percentage of suspensions by ethnic group over the combined three years for the non-point system school were as follows: (1) American Indian 3% of population 4.5% of suspensions (2) African American 22% of population 34.2% of suspensions (3) Asian 3% of population 0.5% of suspensions (4) Hispanic 16% of population 19.7% of suspensions (5) Caucasian 56% of population 41.1% of suspensions Gender and ethnic percentages were relatively consistent across the three years. A pattern emerges which Suggests that "African American" students received 75 proportionately greater number of suspensions than the other ethnic group. The time spent on suspension was divided into five categories as defined by the district: (1) one day, (2) two days, (3) three to five days, (4) one to three weeks, and (5) over three weeks. During the three year period the percentage of point-system schools' suspensions were divided into the five categories as follows: Category 1, 24.5%; Category 2, 10.4%; Category 3, 62.9%; Category 4, 1.7%; and Category 5, 0.5%. The non-point system school's percentages were divided as follows: Category 1, 25.9%; Category 2, 15.6%; Category 3, 42.2%: Category 4, 13.8%; and Category 5, 2.5%. These percentages varied for the various school years. The SPSS Condescriptive and Crosstab Sub-Programs also generated summary information which showed that within the point system schools there was often nonconsistent patterns between schools on all criteria investigated. For this study the .05 level of probability was chosen as the level of significance throughout. Hypothesis I There are no differences in the number of suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration 'versus Non-Quantifiable IDiscipline Administration. 76 When data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistics comparing' the incidences of jpoint system suspensions with the incidences of non-point system suspensions for the' school years September, 1986 through June, 1989, significant differences were found. The Chi-square statistics at one degree of freedom had a value of 7343.38275 with significance beyond the .05 level. Clearly the non-point system over three years generated significantly more suspensions than the point-system did. This finding is one of the most prominent in this study. Comparing each school with the others also showed significance (see Table 4.1). The data in Table 4.1 serve to confirm the overall comparison of the systems cited immediately above. Table 4.1--Chi-square Suspension - Incident Each School - All Years Cases School Observed Expected Residual Gardner 1,565 1,999.03 -434.03 Pattengill 2,330 1,642.83 687.17 Otto 1,282 1,715.68 -433.68 Rich 2,171 1,990.46 180.54 TOTAL 7,348 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 507.668 3 0.000 77 Table 4.2--Chi-square Suspension - Student Point Versus Non-Point, 1987 Cases Category Observed Expected Residual Point System 884 923.90 -39.90 Non-Point System 309 269.10 39.90 TOTAL 1,193 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 7.641 1 0.006 Table 4.3--Chi-square Suspension - Student Point Versus Non-Point, 1988 Cases Category Observed Expected Residual Point System 743 833.56 -90.56 Non-Point System 334 243.44 90.56 TOTAL 1,077 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 43.522 1 0.000 Table 4.4--Chi-square Suspension - Student Point Versus Non-Point, 1989 Cases Category Observed Expected Residual Point System 1,001 1,093.45 -92.45 Non-Point System 401 308.55 92.45 TOTAL 1,402 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 35.521 1 0.000 78 The data showed that in comparing the number of students suspended in the point system schools versus the non-point system school per year over the 1986-87 through 1988-89 period there was significant difference using the Chi-square statistics at a ‘value of 3667.08714 with one degree of freedom. Comparing student point with non-point system suspensions per each school year using Chi-square statistics showed significant differences beyond the .05 level (see Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). When the number of students suspended in each school over the three years was statistically compared, significant differences were found. Also when this comparison was done year per year significant differences were found (see Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Table 4.5--Chi-square Suspension - Student All Schools - All Years Cases School Observed Expected Residual Gardner 858 999.04 -141.04 Pattengill 1,044 821.03 222.97 Otto 788 857.17 - 69.17 Rich 982 994.76 - 12.76 TOTAL 3,672 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 86.212 3 0.000 79 Table 4.6--Chi-square Suspension - Student Each School - Each Year School 1987 1988 1989 Total % Gardner 331 242 285 858 23.4 Pattengill 309 334 401 1,044 28.4 Otto 255 247 286 788 21.5 Rich 298 254 430 982 26.7 TOTAL 1,193 1,077 1,402 3,672 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 36.24553 6 0.0000 The data presented in Tables 4.2 through 4.6 indicate the non-point system tended to generate more suspensions than the point-system. The incidents of suspension were compared for each school over each year. Statistical significant difference were found (see Table 4.7). Table 4.7--Chi-square Suspension Incident Each School - Each Year School 1987 1988 1989 TOTAL % Gardner 600 408 557 1,565 21.3 Pattengill 678 750 902 2,330 31.7 Otto 372 414 496 1,282 17.4 Rich 541 442 1,188 2,171 29.5 TOTAL 2,191 2,014 3,143 7,348 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 232.53748 6 0.0000 80 The year 1989 saw a jump in suspensions, especially at the Rich Middle School. See Chapter V, page 126, for discussion of why a jump occurred in 1989. The non-point system school was compared for each individual point system school for the year 1986-87. Statistical significant difference was found (see Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10). Table 4.8--Chi-square Suspension - Incident Gardner Versus Non-Point School, 1987 Cases School Observed Expected Residual Gardner 600 1,177.07 -577.07 Pattengill 678 100.93 577.07 TOTAL 1,278 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 3,582.424 1 0.000 Table 4.9--Chi-square Suspension Incident Otto Versus Non-Point School, 1987 Cases School Observed Expected Residual Otto 372 530.48 -158.48 Pattengill 678 519.52 158.48 TOTAL 1,050 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 95.689 1 0.000 81 Table 4.10--Chi-square Suspension Incident Rich Versus Non-Point School, 1987 Cases School Observed Expected Residual Rich 541 665.01 -124.01 Pattengill 678 553.99 124.01 TOTAL 1,219 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 50.881 1 0.000 Pattengill, the non-point school, had proportionately more suspensions than the point-system schools. The incidents of suspension at non-point system school were compared over each of the three years with themselves. The students suspended at the non-point system school were also compared over each of the three years with themselves. In both comparisons there was statistical significant differences recorded (see Tables 4.11 and 4.12). Table 4.11--Chi-square Suspension Incident Non-Point School - Each Year Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 678 792.37 -ll4.37 1988 750 784.77 - 34.77 1989 902 752.86 149.14 TOTAL 2,330 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 47.591 2 0.000 82 Table 4.12--Chi-square Suspension Student Non-Point School - Each Year Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 309 355.03 -46.03 1988 334 351.63 -l7.63 1989 401 337.33 63.67 TOTAL 1,044 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 18.869 2 0.000 The number of suspensions at Pattengill, the non-point school, went up in 1989 as did suspensions in the other schools, however, the increase was proportionately greater at Pattengill. The number of incidents in each of the three point system. schools was statistically' compared. over the three years. Statistically significant differences were found. Point system schools Otto and Rich were individually compared to themselves over the three years. Significant differences were found in each comparison. Each of the three schools was compared over the years 1986-87 through 1987-88. Only in the comparison made for the year 1987-88 was there no significant difference below the .05 level (see Tables 4.13 through 4.17). 83 Table 4.13--Chi-square Suspension Incident Each Point School - Each Year School 1987 1988 1989 Total % Gardner 600 408 557 1,565 31.2 Otto 372 414 496 1,282 25.5 Rich 541 442 1,188 2,171 43.3 TOTAL 1,513 1,264 2,241 5,018 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 189.58788 4 0.0000 Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 372 426.40 -54.50 1988 414 430.40 -16.40 1989 496 425.20 70.80 TOTAL 1,282 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 19.355 2 0.000 Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 541 731.46 -190.46 1988 442 715.68 ~273.68 1989 1,188 723.86 464.14 TOTAL 2,171 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 451.854 2 0.000 84 Table 4.16--Chi-square Suspension Incident Each Point School - Year 1987 Cases School Observed Expected Residual Gardner 600 534.05 65.95 Otto 372 449.97 -77.97 Rich 541 528.98 12.02 TOTAL 1,513 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 21.928 2 0.000 Table 4.17--Chi-square Suspension Incident Each Point School — Year 1988 Cases School Observed Expected Residual Gardner 408 446.68 -38.68 Otto 414 382.01 31.99 Rich 442 435.31 6.69 TOTAL 1,264 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 6.132 2 0.047 Again the patterns in Tables 4.13 through 4.17 indicate a jump in suspensions in 1989 which almost surely is a reflection of the system-wide decision that year to abolish "in-school" suspensions (see Chapter V). The number of students suspended in each of the three point system schools was individually statistically compared over the three years. In two cases significant differences were found beyond the .05 level. In one case no difference was found at the .05 level (see Tables 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20). 85 Table 4.18-Chi-square Suspension Student - Gardner - Each Year Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 331 290.60 40.40 1988 242 288.99 -46.99 1989 285 278.41 6.59 TOTAL 858 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 13.413 2 0.001 Year Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 255 262.09 - 7.09 1988 247 264.55 -17.55 1989 286 261.35 24.65 TOTAL CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 3.681 2 0.159 Year Cases Year Observed Expected Residual 1987 298 330.86 -32.86 1988 254 323.72 -69.72 1989 430 327.42 102.58 TOTAL 982 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 50.416 2 0.000 86 It is not altogether clear why Gardner and Rich are less consistent than Otto over these three years, but these data do portray that one point-system school can vary from others, while a different one can maintain consistency. Hypothesis II There are no differences in the number of repeat suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline .Administration. versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. When data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistic comparing the number of single suspensions to the number' of repeat suspensions between. point and non-point systems schools significant differences were found. Table 4.21--Chi Square Suspension - Repeat Suspension - Point Versus Non-Point - All Years Repeat System One Suspension Suspensions Total Point 1449 1179 2628 Non-Point 503 541 1044 TOTAL 1952 1720 3672 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 14.24484 1 .0002 When data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistic comparing the incidences of repeat suspensions between each of the four schools for each of the three years (1986-1989), significant differences were found beyond the .05 level (see Tables 4.21 through 4.24). 87 Table 4.22--Chi-square Suspension Student - Repeat Suspensions - Each School - 1987 Repeat Suspensions Gardner Pattengill Otto Rich TOTAL % 1 186 155 171 173 685 57.4 2 84 60 57 58 259 21.7 3 32 40 21 39 132 11.1 4 12 27 6 12 57 4.8 5 9 10 10 29 2.4 6 4 8 5 17 1.4 7 1 3 1 5 .4 8 2 3 5 .4 9 2 2 .2 10 1 1 .l 14 1 1 .1 TOTAL 1,193 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 64.16927 30 0.0000 88 Table 4.23--Chi-square Suspension Student - Repeat Suspensions - Each School - 1988 Repeat Suspension Gardner Pattengill Otto Rich Total % 1 150 161 148 146 605 56.2 2 53 76 55 58 242 22.5 3 18 35 24 31 108 10.0 4 14 27 16 13 70 6.5 5 3 17 4 3 27 2.5 6 1 8 2 11 1.0 7 3 2 5 .5 8 2 1 3 .3 9 3 3 3 11 2 2 2 12 1 l 1 TOTAL 1,077 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 55.48123 30 0.0031 Table 4.24--Chi-square Suspension Student - Repeat Suspension - Each School - 1989 Repeat Suspensions Gardner Pattengill Otto Rich Total % 1 147 187 158 170 662 47 2 2 72 83 70 91 316 22.5 3 30 58 39 56 183 13.1 4 16 34 14 41 105 .5 5 12 19 5 19 55 3.9 6 6 6 15 27 1.9 7 7 15 22 1.6 8 2 4 8 14 1.0 9 3 6 9 .6 10 5 5 .4 11 3 3 .2 13 1 1 .1 TOTAL 1,402 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 90.91775 33 0.0000 89 An arithmetic comparison of repeat suspensions of each school and the two type of school administration with the population figures was made. While the percentage varied at different levels of number of repeated suspensions, overall the percents of repeated suspensions reported were not what would be expected compared with the population (see Table 4.25). Table 4.25--Suspensions Student - Frequency of Repeat Suspensions Repeat Valid Cum Suspensions Frequency % % 1 1952 53.2 53.2 2 817 22.2 75.4 3 423 11.5 86.9 4 232 6.3 93.2 5 111 3.0 96.3 6 55 1.5 97.8 7 32 .9 98.6 8 22 .6 99.2 9 l4 .4 99.6 10 6 .2 99.8 11 5 .1 99.9 12 l .0 99.9 13 1 .0 100.0 14 1 .0 100.0 TOTAL 3,672 Hypothesis III There are no differences in the reasons for suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. 90 Table 4.26—Student Percent of Repeat Suspensions Each School All Years 8 OF TIMES PERCENT OF SCHOOL POPULATION POINT PATTENGILL SUSPENDED GARDNER-27.2 OTTO-23.3 RICH-27.1 SCHOOLS-25.8 (Non-Point) (77.6) 22.4 1 24.7 24.4 25.1 24.7 25.8 2 25.6 22.3 25.3 24.4 26.8 3 18.9 19.9 29.8 22.9 31.4 4 18.1 15.5 28.4 20.6 37.9 5 21.6 8.1 28.8 19.5 41.4 6 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 7 12.5 0.0 50.0 22.1 37.5 8 18.2 0.0 40.9 19.7 40.9 9 0.0 0.0 42.9 14.3 57.1 10 16.7 0.0 83.3 33.3 0.0 11 0.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 40.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 13 0.0 0.0 100.0 33.3 0.0 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 TOTALS 23.5 21.6 26.4 25.8 28.5 (71.5) 91 When data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistics comparing the incidents of suspension by reason between the point system schools and the non-point system school for the school years of 1986-87 through 1988-89, significant differences were found. Chi-square statistics at 11 degrees of freedom had a value of 881.45002 with no significance at the .05 level. The reasons for suspensions were collapsed from 12 items into 4 categories. This analysis produced a Chi-square with 3 degrees of freedom with a value of 38.80915 with significance beyond the .05 level. All schools were analyzed both. with reasons uncollapsed and collapsed. There were significant differences in these statistics (see Tables 4.27 and 4.28). Table 4.27--Chi-square Suspension Incident - Reason - All Schools - All Years Reason Gardner Pattengill Otto Rich Total Truancy 33 85 34 42 194 Striking Teacher 4 5 3 l2 Fighting 676 573 367 588 2,204 Smoking 5 15 7 29 56 Extortion 7 1 4 12 Defied Authority 11 388 114 38 551 Assault 15 170 59 164 408 Tardiness 302 143 138 583 Point System 283 218 265 766 Drug Use 29 13 16 6 64 Misconduct 90 793 428 849 2,160 Other 110 150 33 45 338 TOTAL 1,565 2,330 1,282 2,171 7,348 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 1980.88352 33 0.0000 92 Notice in Table 4.27 that Pattengill, the non-point school, registers approximately 70% of all "defied authority" infractions. Table 4.28-~Chi-square Suspension - Incident Collapsed Reason - Each School - Each Type - All Years Reason Gardner Otto Rich Point Pattengill Total Attendance 335 34 180 549 228 777 Violence 702 432 759 1,893 743 2,636 Opinion 494 793 1,197 2,484 1,331 3,815 Substance 34 23 35 92 28 120 Totals 1,565 1,282 2,171 5,018 2,330 7,348 CHI SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 480.90789 9 0.0000 The figures in Table 4.27 show a relatively high frequency at Pattengill for the category "opinion," which includes the incidences of "defied authority" registered in Table 4.26. Hypothesis IV There are no differences in the ethnic or gender of student suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. The. data. were analyzed using the Chi-square statistics comparing the incidents of suspension per ethnic group between point system schools and the non-point system school over the three years. The Chi-square statistics at 4 degrees of freedom had a value of 168.20348 with significance beyond the .05 level. The data were also analyzed comparing 93 the incidents of suspension per gender group between point system schools and the non-point system school over the three year period. The Chi-square statistics at 1 degree of freedom had a value of 0.38085 with no difference at the .05 level. The incidents of suspension for each school per ethnic group were compared. There was statistical significance found (see Table 4.29). Table 4.29--Chi-square Suspension Incident - Each School By Ethnic - All Years American School Indian Black Asian Latino White Total Gardner 40 498 6 196 825 1,565 Pattengill 104 798 11 459 958 2,330 Otto 46 611 8 190 427 1,282 Rich 25 1,245 9 183 709 2,171 Total 215 3,152 34 1,028 2,919 7,348 2.9% 42.9% .5% 14.0% 39.7% CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 457.23966 12 0.0000 Blacks were more frequently suspended than other ethnic group members with a similar pattern in all four schools. The incidence of suspension for each school per gender group were compared. There was statistical significance found (see Table 4.30). 94 Table 4.30--Chi-square Suspension Incident - All Schools By Gender - All Years School Male Female Total Gardner 1,203 362 1,565 Pattengill 1,663 667 2,330 Otto 845 437 1,282 Rich 1,570 601 2,171 Total 5,281 2,067 7,348 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 42.34853 3 0.0000 Males were more frequently suspended than females, with a similar pattern in all four schools. The number of students suspended per ethnic group compared to all schools and that number compared to point versus non-point schools were» statistically' analyzed. In both of these analyses there was significance (see Tables 4.31 and 4.32). Table 4.31--Chi-square Suspension Student - All Schools By Ethnic - All Years American School Indian Black Asian Latino White Total Gardner 22 265 4 98 469 858 Pattengill 44 355 8 194 443 1,044 Otto 30 361 4 111 282 788 Rich 13 567 7 77 318 982 Total 109 1,548 23 480 1,512 3,672 3.0% 42.2% .6% 13.1% 41.2% CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 228.60433 12 0.0000 95 The pattern of higher frequencies of suspensions of blacks persisted in all four schools. Latinos had the highest frequency at Pattengill. See also the data for Latinos in Table 4.28 above. Table 4.32--Chi-square Suspension Student Point versus Non-Point School by Ethnic - All Years Type American School Indian Black Asian Latino White Total Non-Point System 44 355 8 194 443 1,044 Point System 65 1,193 15 286 1,069 2,628 Total 109 1,548 23 480 1,512 3,672 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 65.53324 4 0.0000 Blacks were frequently suspended in both non-point and point-system schools. The number of student suspended per gender group compared to all schools when analyzed had statistical significance beyond the .05 level (see Table 4.33). Table 4.33--Chi-square Suspension Student All Schools by Gender - All Years School Male Female Total Gardner 620 238 858 Pattengill 708 336 1,044 Otto 497 291 788 Rich 671 311 982 TOTAL 2,496 1,176 3,672 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 16.01424 3 0.0011 96 When the number of students suspended per gender group was arithmetically compared between point system versus non-point system schools, the percentages were similar (see Table 4.34). Table 4.34--Student Percent of Suspension Point versus Non-Point By Gender - All Years Type School Male % Female % Total Non-Point System 708 67.8 336 32.2 1,044 Point System 1,788 68.0 840 32.0 2,628 Total 2,496 68.0 1,176 32.0 3,672 That males were more frequently suspended was true in each of the four schools and both point and non-point schools. Hypothesis V There are no differences in the time students spend on suspension resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. When data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistics comparing the incidences of time spent on suspension comparing point with non-point schools for the school years 1986 through 1989 significant differences were found. 97 Table 4.35--Chi Square Suspension Incidence - Point Versus Non-Point By Time Spent on Suspension - All Years 1 2 3-5 1-3 3 or More Total School Day Days Days Weeks Weeks Suspensions Point 1229 521 3158 84 26 5018 Non-Point 603 363 984 322 58 2330 TOTAL 1832 884 4142 406 84 7348 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 636.82750 4 .0000 Data were analyzed using the Chi-square statistics comparing the incidents of time spent on suspension between the point system with non-point system suspensions per each year. For the year 1986-87 the Chi-square statistics at four degrees of freedom had a value of 244.34535 with significance beyond the .05 level. For the year 1987-88 the Chi-square statistics at four degrees of freedom had a value of 378.36399 with significance beyond the .05 level. For the year 1988-89 the Chi-square statistics at four degrees of freedom had a value of 192.24237 with significance beyond the .05 level. Comparing each school with the time spent on suspension per year resulted in statistical significance (see Tables 4.36, 4.37 and 4.38). Student Interviews Forty—five students were interviewed. These were students who had enrollment experience at two or more middle 98 Table 4.36--Chi-square Suspension Incident All Schools by Length - 1987 1 2 3-5 1-3 3 or More Total School Day Days Days Weeks Weeks Suspensions Gardner 100 29 450 18 3 600 Pattengill 99 76 363 117 23 678 Otto 136 29 203 3 1 372 Rich 6 10 506 14 5 541 Total 341 144 1,522 152 32 2,191 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 485.5869? 12 0.0000 Table 4.37--Chi-square Suspension Incident All Schools By Length of Suspension - 1988 1 2 3-5 1-3 3 or More Total School Day Days Days Weeks Weeks Suspensions Gardner 17 45 334 8 4 408 Pattengill 212 145 282 100 11 750 Otto 119 35 252 5 3 414 Rich 1? 11 411 2 1 442 Total 365 236 1,279 115 19 2,014 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 524.21176 12 0.0000 Table 4.38--Chi-square Suspension Incident All Schools By Length of Suspension - 1989 1 2 3-5 1-3 3 or More Total School Day Days Days Weeks Weeks Suspensions Gardner 130 72 341 9 5 557 Pattengill 292 142 339 105 24 902 Otto 136 33 314 9 4 496 Rich 568 257 347 16 1,188 Total 1,126 504 1,341 139 33 3,143 CHI-SQUARE D.F. SIGNIFICANCE 473.26520 12 0.0000 99 schools within the Lansing School District during the school year 1988-89 and whose parents and themselves had agreed to be interviewed. At least ten students were interviewed from each school. The questions addressed in the research were designed to determine what student opinion might be about administration of discipline and their comparison of different schools or methods. The questionnaire used for student interviews is presented in Appendix B. Of the students interviewed 28 were female and 17 were male. There were no students interviewed in ethnic category 1. Eighteen students interviewed were in ethnic category 2, one in ethnic category 3, five in ethnic category 4, and twenty-one in ethnic category 5. The students interviewed reported in 39 of the 45 responses that the reason for a change of school was a family move to the new school area. Sixteen students interviewed reported that they had been suspended while in their old school. Out of this same 16 students, 14 had received points and/or suspension in their new school. Out of the 29 students that reported no suspensions in their old school, 13 had no points or suspensions in the new school. Also out of this group of 29 students, 3 reported suspensions in their new school. Twenty-one students interviewed reported no perceived difference in the Student Discipline Code between schools. Out of the 14 that reported a difference, the difference was attributed, in all cases except 4, to the point system or 100 dress codes. Twelve students interviewed reported that they expected a difference between schools in what would happen as a result of the same behavior. Twenty-eight students interviewed reported some difference at different schools in school discipline. Eight. students of the 45 interviewed reported that they did not believe that the discipline system at their old school was working. Of these students two did not believe that the system at the new school worked. Overall four students interviewed did not believe that the discipline system at the new school was working. Generally' comparing' the jpoint systems between. two schools of the 37 students expressing an opinion and 26 saw a difference. Students interviewed with experience in both point and non-point system schools expressed a general opinion that the system used did not matter. Only 2 of these eighteen students express that they thought there were differences in the two systems other than the point, non-point system or other minor differences. Only 3 of this group believed that something different would happen given the same behavior in the two different systems. Four interviewed students in this group of 18 who experienced both systems thought there was a real difference in the way the two systems worked. 101 Summary Suspension data were gathered and compared between point system and non-point system schools. The five proposed hypothesis were statistically analyzed, and in each case the null hypothesis was shown to be non-significant at the .05 level. The student interview data was tabulated and results reported. The implications of these results will be discussed in detail in Chapter V. Chapter V will also contain a brief overview of the study and findings. Interview results of involved middle school administrators, after their review of the» presented data, are analyzed. Study conclusions and recommendations are made. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS seam The basic purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of types of administration of discipline. This study compared a predefined or objective system called a point system with a non-point system or subjective approach to discipline administration. Time and energy has been expended debating the relative merits of one system over another or defending the system in use. In this study the factors used to compare these systems of discipline were the total number of suspensions, the length of time on suspension, the reasons for suspension, the ethnic background and gender of students suspended, and the number of a student's repeat suspensions. It was hypothesized that the methods compared would show no significant difference. Students were interviewed to ascertain some of their thoughts about the methods of administration of discipline. It was hypothesized that their responses would also show that the type of system would not make any difference. After reviewing the statistical data results, the administrators using these systems were also interviewed. It was hypothesized that these administrators would have allegiance 102 103 to the system in use in their own schools but would modify these allegiances after reviewing the data. Although a great deal has been written about student discipline, limited information. ‘was found about the administration of specific systems such as the point system and the non-point system reviewed in this study. It was believed that the point system could be a more objective system because all discipline reactions are predefined and, therefore, could be applied equally to all students. Further, the system was believed to have built-in actions' points, thereby having built-in objectivity. Overall, it was believed that a predefined system would produce fewer suspensions and the suspensions it did produce would be equal across gender and racial categories. To interpret collected information concerning the effects of these two types of discipline systems, statistical analysis was used. The population comprised all Lansing School District, regular; middle» school students enrolled during the three school years from September 1986 through June of 1989. Information was gathered about the suspensions which occurred during this period. Questions were devised for students as well as a different set of questions for administrators. These questions addressed various aspects of the opinions of these two groups toward the two systems. Arithmetic calculations were performed on the suspension data to compare what effects these two systems had on suspensions. 104 Statistics procedures were performed to test five proposed hypothesis. Students' interview responses were tabulated to view student opinions of the systems of discipline reviewed. Only students who had enrollment experience at more than one middle school during the prescribed time period were interviewed. Finally, administrators were interviewed, and their responses are also presented with the discussion in this chapter. Of the 45 students interviewed, 28 were female and 17 were male. The ethnic group defined as American Indian had zero students interviewed, African-American accounted for 18, Asian accounted for 1, Latino accounted for 5, and Caucasian students accounted for 21 students interviewed. Thirty-nine of the 45 students interviewed responded that the reason for their school move was a family’ move to the new school attendance area. Sixteen of the 45 students responded that they were suspended in their old school. Fourteen of these 16 students were also suspended in the new school or had received points. Twenty-nine of the 45 students responded that they had no suspensions in their old school. Sixteen of these 29 had suspensions in their new school or had received points. Only 3 of these 29 students were suspended in their new school. Twenty-one of the 45 students responded that they perceived no differences in the Student Discipline Code between schools. Ten of the 14 who reported differences attributed them to the dress code and/or the point system. 105 Twelve of the 45 respondents expected to find a difference in what would happen as a result of the same behavior if committed in a different school. Twenty-eight of the 45 respondents saw some difference in school discipline between schools. Eight of the 45 respondents thought that the discipline at the old school was not working. Two of these 8 also thought that the discipline at the new school was not working. Four of the 45 respondents thought that the discipline at the new school was not working. Thirty-seven of the 45 respondents had experience in two or more point-system schools. Twenty-six of these 37 saw differences between the point system schools. The students' responses from their experience or feelings seemed to agree with the statistical analysis of the collected data. Most of the students did not report involvement with the discipline system in a negative way. Their school move was due to the family's move to a new residence. For about half the students the school or point system or non-point system did not matter; they were all the same to them. When it came to discipline problems, the sameness was even stronger. Most students who had problems in one school or system had problems in another building. Even. most students who felt there 'were some differences thought that these differences were due to the point systems themselves or to differences in the dress codes. Some students thought what might happen for the same behavior in 106 the two different systems or within different point systems would change. The system alone did not make discipline consistent. Over one-half the students interviewed thought the discipline systems to be different. Those students experiencing one or more different point-system schools believed these systems were different from each other. A conclusion can be easily reached that students involved in the systems felt that the type of system did not matter. Some students thought that discipline, not just a type of system, did not work. For those students whether a system was point or non-point had little meaning. All 12 building administrators were interviewed, one principal and 2 assistant principals per building. Five were female and seven administrators were male. Three administrators reported their ethnic background as Latino, five reported as African-American, and four reported as Caucasian. Four administrators had .worked in both point and non-point systems in their administrative career. The time of administrative service ranged from 3 to 22 years, with the median service being 10 years. The questions explored in these interviews are presented in Appendix D. Of the seven persons responding to the question, "Is there a difference between administration of Student Discipline Code per your experience in different buildings?" six said "yes" but each added only in very minor ways. Of this seven, two thought the point system had support from 107 parents and students. Two others thought that the point system was a means for documentation, and three expressed the belief that the point system was more structured, requiring less judgment on the part of the administrator. All reported "yes" to the question, "Does the statistical data match your perceptions of what is taking place on a day to day basis?" Of the 10 responding administrators, all responded "no change" to the question, "What kind of changes would you make as a result of the statistical data presented?" Four administrator respondents had no recommendations for on-going evaluation of the data. Three respondents thought the information should be made more available to the public, especially special interest pressure groups. Five respondents felt the data could be usefully analyzed looking at who was being suspended and for what reasons, to identify if there are groups of students that are disproportionately suspended. Every administrator interviewed expressed the need for uniform administration of discipline throughout each building, each system, and the entire district. More communication among administrators was one suggestion to reach the above goal. Other suggested ways given were workshops, in-services, use of effective school models, more measurement, and documentations. 108 The administrators who responded to the question of differences of discipline codes thought any differences were only minor. The system in use did not seem to matter to this group. About half the administrators thought the point system could offer better documentation or more structure. Everyone in this group agreed that the system, be it point or non-point, did not matter to administration of discipline. Knowing that which system being used did not matter; these administrators would not make changes to their system in use. Uniformity of administration was a unanimous concern. The knowledge of differences, not only within the point system but even within a building, was implied. The persons whose job it was to administrate these systems of discipline agreed the system did not matter. FINDINGS Hypothesis I Null Hypothesis: there are no differences in the number of suspensions resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Statistical tests resulted in the rejection of the above null hypothesis. There was a difference in the number of suspensions between these two systems. The data were evaluated statistically in many different combinations. The number of students suspended per year in point system versus non-point system schools were compared. The number of suspensions per year in point system versus non-point system 109 schools was compared. In both of these comparisons significant differences were found. The number of students suspended in each school over the three year period was compared. The comparison was also done year-per-year, and significant differences were found. The incidents of suspension were compared with each school per each year. The non-point system school was compared with each point system school for the year 1986-87. Incidents of suspension at the non-point system school were compared for each of the three years with themselves. The number of students suspended at the non-point system school was compared over each of the three years with themselves. All of these comparisons showed significant differences. The number of incidents in each of the three point system schools were compared over the three years. Point system schools two and three were individually compared to themselves over the three years. Each of the three schools were compared for the years 1986-87 through 1987-88. Only in the comparison for the year 1987-88 was there no significant difference found. The number of students suspended in each of the three point system schools was individually compared over the three years. In each of these comparisons, significant differences were found. In every' case except. one statistical comparison, there 'were significant differences between the data compared. While there was a difference in the number of suspensions in the point-system schools compared to the 110 non-point system school, there was also a difference in suspension rates within the point-system schools and within the same school in different years. These differences were for both the number of incidents of suspension and for the number of students suspended. The students interviewed reported rup perceived difference in the Student Discipline Code between schools. About half the students thought there were differences in school discipline at different schools. About 70% of the interviewed students who had experience in two or more point-system schools saw' differences between point-system schools. It appeared not to matter what system was used or what school or year were examined; the rates of suspension were generally different. There was a difference between the number of suspensions between these two systems. However, there was a difference within the point-system schools and a difference between years with both the point- and non-point system schools. The students interviewed confirmed this conclusion. They concluded was there were differences, but the results of discipline from building to building would be different. After reviewing these findings, the administrators unanimously agreed the system did not matter. Hypothesis II Null Hypothesis: there are no differences in the number of repeat suspensions resulting from 111 Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Statistical tests resulted in the rejection of this null hypothesis. There was a difference in the number of repeat suspensions between each of the schools in the two systems for each of the years. Comparing the repeat suspensions for each school and the two types of systems with the population figures resulted in percentages that would not be expected (see Table 5.1). Table 5.1 presents data that at least one student was suspended 14 times during one school year. The frequency row shows the percentage of all the suspensions for that frequency of repeat suspensions by each building. An average percentage was calculated for all the point-system schools. When this average was compared to each point-system school also to the non-point system school, it appears clear that the percentage varied. When the frequency of suspension was presented in Chapter IV by each observed year, the variability was even more apparent. There was a difference in the number of repeat suspensions between the two systems. There also were differences between schools within the point system, and there were differences between years in the same schools. It appeared that the system used did matter. In repeat suspensions, within point-system schools, there was as much variability as compared to non—point system schools. 112 Table 5.1-Student Percent of Repeat Suspensions Each School All Years 3 or TIMES PERCENT OF scaoon popunarxou POINT PATTENGILL SUSPENDED GARDNER-27.2 OTTO-23.3 arcs-27.1 scsoons-zs.8 (Non-Point) (77.5) 22.4 1 24.7 24.4 25.1 24.7 25.8 2 25.6 22.3 25.3 24.4 26.8 3 18.9 19.9 29.8 22.9 31.4 4 18.1 15.5 28.4 20.6 37.9 s 21.6 8.1 28.8 19.5 41.4 6 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 7 12.5 0.0 50.0 22.1 37.5 8 18.2 0.0 40.9 19.7 40.9 9 0.0 0.0 42.9 14.3 57.1 10 15.7 0.0 83.3 33.3 0.0 11 0.0 0.0 50.0 20.0 40.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 13 0.0 0.0 100.0 33.3 0.0 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 rosars 23.5 21.6 26.4 28.5 28.5 (71.5) 113 Hypothesis III Null Hypothesis: there are no differences in the reasons for suspension resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Statistical tests resulted in rejection of this null hypothesis. There was a difference in the reasons for suspension between the systems. The 12 items identified as suspendable were collapsed into four categories (see Table 5.2). These categories also were different between the systems. Each school was analyzed both uncollapsed and collapsed (see Table 4.27 and 4.28). There were difference between reasons and schools. Table 5.2 shows that suspensions for attendance problems at the three point schools varied each year within each school. Overall, this variability' was not seen to increase or decrease for each school each year. The non-point school's suspensions for attendance problems varied each year. This collapsed category of attendance include truancy and tardiness. The collapsed category of violence appeared more consistent across years per point school. However, between point schools there were varying rates. The non-point school's rate varied across years, some years being higher and others being lower than individual point system schools. The collapsed category of opinion included defied authority, point system, misconduct, and other. The collapsed category of .opinion, as the previous collapsed category of violence, varied between point-system schools and 114 mm mm MG MVFH vaH vNOH MNm mph mnm mmc find GQH Q‘BOB ma 0 v mdm Gm? mam mnN MGM mNn and mm on JJHOZNBBCQ .eznomuzoz. NN an an mNNH vmm m0# 000 can VHO N06 00 mmH QAOOSOQ BZHOQ v 0a HN VHF 00H MVN HEN mNN CON mnd MN OH SCH“ ma G ¢ NNM FMN VMN mmH OVH OMH V FN n 0980 m PH #fi mNH bfld QNN NmN mHN GNN mmfi mm ona GHZOG‘G mm. mm. #0. mm. mm. 50. mm. 60. ha. $0. 00. PG. Q0050” fiOZ‘HmmDm ZOHZHQO HUZNQOH> MUZCGZflfiht condom poumoaaoo >3 uno»\aoocom an nucopaoculnu.m edema 115 between years within the same school. Overall, however, the non-point system school had higher incidents of opinion than point-system schools. The collapsed category of substance showed the same pattern as the other collapsed categories. While there were differences between the types of systems used, the differences also existed within the point system schools and between years within all schools. Hypothesis IV Null hypothesis: there are no differences in the ethnic or gender of students suspended resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Statistical tests resulted in conflicting results. The null hypothesis can be separated into the two variables, ethnic background and gender. The variable ethnic background, for incidence of suspension, resulted in differences being found between the two systems. The variable gender, for incidence of suspension, resulted in no difference between the two systems. The number of incidents of suspension for each school by ethnic group when compared was different (see Table 5.3). The number of incidents of suspension for each school per gender group were compared and also found to be different (see Table 5.4). The number of students suspended per ethnic group compared between all schools and compared between the two systems were different (see Table 5.5). The number of 116 coauuosmu no onus: .m. can .Oacemuaz no ocauaa Av. .coauc Am. .cmo«um&¢ cocaumc uo xooam AN. .ca04uOEd o>aumz no conqpcm cnoauoad .Hvlluocoo oaccuu wens Oman mom amp who meow flown coma mama dram moan new Hem Noun one «go wen menu hmm oov com a mama mmm mom ohm «mm Home chm use mvm mow hon ANA nan hue men can vua man can noa vnm m mmv mme «ma ova aw“ mmm mmm own om” mmfl om an on omu om No we omH he no mm c em HH 0 w H nu ma m h m a a o m h o a o m n o n «man was man ohm mom vmmm moOa mum moo mena mom emu mum Hum can mom mod mmv «on emu cow N mam cod on we mu Hna me on mm mm ea o On we ofi en «a ov em «a va a a 9 mm. mm. pm. a mm. am. no. 9 mm. am. no. a on. ma. no. a mm. no. no AAHGZNHLEQ Hz Hon :0 Hz 0880 may—2‘0 .3 goo» so oucnuu an ¢ sacrum an “coeducanun.m usage 117 mcnh amNm Foam ncan oNNN ham QaON anva mam amaN vaa bum aluOB onnN mama hwo mom aao amN own man ca“ who mam Noa aaamcouuam maOm mamm coca avNN mama mum coma moo mom mama mov QOaa usaom ahaN Ohma aom mmaa 0mm 0mm ave can mNa avm coe hma :Oam NmNa mvm hmv omv mvn Oma Vav nmN ama an new mNa Oqu moma Mona Non hmm mav mna mov own No com mmv flea Hocvuuo aouoa 0am: maueob aouoa can: mamemm anuoa mam: oamemm aouoa can: oaoeom aoocom 04909 mmmalmmma mmaalhmaa homalmmaa yam» an nuance an sacrum sn acouqocnuue.m canoe 118 .mumusooo woo ma uuomou can» .uuouuo no newsman ouoo oacsum no ouncomm ”ouoz coaueosoo uo ouacz Am. poo .oaoomnam uo ocauon Avv .coamc Am. .cmoaum84 cooauud uo xouam ANV .cnOauoad o>aooz no cacapCH covauoad .avlloopoo naccum c hmmm 000a mom MNm pmN mNmN com Gab «mm mmm oNv meN omN men moN «MN mvN mNm th aMN man a ahea va mma ova mma mMOa hem ehN man man mNa on maa ohN aOa No no mme mea NNa oma m coo mma am am we ohN Naa oh no me mm ma mN 00a ov vn Nn mm hm mN mN e NN h e N a ma 8 m m h a N e v m o a e m a o n mmma mmm Nma «ea moa vana 0am mom own new meN oma mva oen maa oaa baa mVN on an no N mOa me ma ma m No 8N ma Na na m N m cm Na m m aN h o o a a 8 mm. mm. no. 8 mm. mm. so. 8 mm. mm. so. a mm. mm. so. 8 mm. mm. ho Adaozmuhkm 82H0m Evam 0880 “M220 .3 now» an escape an season as unassumnnm.m manna 119 students suspended per gender group compared to all schools was different (see Table 5.6). However, when the number of students suspended per gender was compared between the two systems there were no statistical differences found. The ethnic designations were divided into five categories: (1) American, (2) African American, (3) Asian, (4) Hispanic, and (5) Caucasian. The ethnic groups of Native American. and Asian had suspensions consistent with their percentages of populations (see Figure 3.2). This consistantly was true for both point-system schools and the non-point school. The ethnic group of African American had suspensions at a higher rate than their percentage of population. This was also true for both point-system schools and the non-point school. The ethnic group of Hispanic, while having a higher percentage of population at the non-point school than the average of the point-system schools, had a much higher rate of suspension at the non-point system school than its rate of population. Rates of suspension per ethnic group varied between years within schools. The categorizing of ethnic groups between the two systems resulted in a difference of rates of suspension between these two systems. There also were differences within the point-system schools between ethnic groups suspended. 120 when omVN obaa mmma moo mmc nnOa 0mm mnn mama 000 can a0u08 VVOa 008 mnn man 0mm ana nun maN vOa Nnn anN aOa aaaocmuuum mNmN mafia ovm com ovo can Cab mbv anN 0mm awo mmN acaom Nmm aho aan ONV CNN oma ch mma 08 8am NMN mm 50am mob hmv amm mow nha mm emu mna mm mmN oma mm Oqu mmm one QMN mum hma m8 anN Nha mm Nmn amN aOa Mocvuuo amuoa can: oaoEOh aouoa can: oaosmm aouoa can: oaoeom aeuoa can: mausmm aoonom 0‘808 mamalmmma ommalboma homalomma ago» an nausea an Hoosom an unassumuuo.m manna -—.— --_ . 121 The gender of students suspended seemed to be close to consistent no matter which system was used. The population percentage of gender was divided almost by 50% for all schools, all years. However, males were suspended at much higher rates than females. Hypothesis V Null hypothesis: there are no differences in the time students spend on suspension resulting from Quantifiable Discipline Administration versus Non-Quantifiable Discipline Administration. Statistical tests resulted in rejecting the above null hypothesis. There is a difference in the time spent on suspension between these two systems. The data were evaluated for each of the three years for the two systems. The data were evaluated for each school for each of the three years. In each comparison there was a difference found in the time spent on suspension (see Table 5.7). For all schools for all years with the exception of Rich in 1989, the highest percentage of number of suspensions with the time spent was for a duration of three to five days. At Pattengill, the non-point school, an average of 16% of the suspensions for the three years were for more than a week duration; one ‘year this rate *was higher than 20%. The overall average for this same duration of time spent on suspension was just over 2%. The duration of time on suspension within point-system schools varied greatly. For years 1986-1988 Rich had an average 2.5% of suspension for 122 Table 5.7-Incident by School by Year by Length of Time Suspended CODE FOR SCHOOL OBIS 86-87 8 87-88 8 88-89 % Total 8 GARDNER 1 100 16.7 17 4.2 130 23.3 247 15.8 2 29 4.8 45 11.0 72 12.9 146 9.3 3 450 75.0 334 81.9 341 61.2 1125 71.9 4 18 3.0 8 2.0 9 1.6 35 2.2 S 3 .5 4 1.0 5 1.0 12 .8 Total 600 408 557 1565 OTTO l 136 36.6 119 28.7 136 27.4 391 30.5 2 29 7.8 35 8.5 33 6.7 97 7.6 3 203 54.6 252 60.9 314 63.3 769 60.0 4 3 .8 5 1.2 9 1.8 17 1.3 5 l .3 3 .7 4 .8 8 .6 Total 372 414 496 1282 RICH l 6 1.1 17 3.8 568 47.8 591 27.2 2 10 1.8 11 2.5 257 21.6 278 12.8 3 506 93.5 411 93.0 347 29.2 1264 58.2 4 14 2.6 2 .5 16 1.3 32 1.5 5 5 1.0 1 .2 O 0.0 6 .3 Total 541 442 1188 2171 Table 5.7 (cont'd.) 123 POINT l 242 16.0 153 12.1 834 37.2 1229 24.5 SCHOOLS 2 68 4.5 91 7.2 362 16.2 521 10.4 3 1159 76.6 997 78.9 1002 44.7 3158 62.9 4 35 2.3 15 1.2 34 1.5 84 1.7 S 9 .6 8 .6 9 .4 26 .5 Total 1513 1264 2241 5018 PATTENGILL 1 99 14.6 212 28.3 292 32.4 603 25.9 (Non-Point School) 2 76 11.2 145 19.3 142 15.7 363 15.6 3 363 53.5 282 37.6 339 37.6 984 42.2 4 117 17.3 100 13.3 105 11.6 322 13.8 5 23 3.4 11 1.5 24 2.7 58 2.5 Total 678 750 902 2330 TOTALS 2191 2014 3143 7348 Code for Days - (1)-l; (2)-2; (3)-3 to 5 days; (4)-l to 3 weeks; (5) over 3 woeks. (Categories defined by the Lansing School District) 124 one day while for all three years Otto had an average 30.5% of suspensions for one day. Between years for all durations of time spent on suspension the rates per duration period per school varied from a low of one-half a percentage point to as much as 46 percentage points. From these data it would appear that the system used did not matter in the duration of time spent on suspension. Discussion and Conclusions The hypothesis of this study was that there were no differences in suspensions between the point system and the non-point system schools. The variables were the number of incidents of suspension, the number of students suspended, the number of repeat suspensions a student experienced, the reason for suspension, the ethnic background or gender of the student, and the time a student spent on suspension. These variables were viewed over a three-year period of time using four schools, three schools used a form of point system and one used no point system. The data showed that generally there were differences between the two systems. Only in the variable gender were their no difference. If the review of the data ended here, a logical conclusion could be drawn that each system was different and, therefore, that one system could be shown to be better than the other. Looking further at the data revealed that the differences not only exist between the two 125 systems but also in other comparisons. When the three point-system schools were compared to each other differences existed. Differences existed in some cases when the same school was looked at comparing different years. The results of the data should be considered random. No prediction was found to determine what would happen to a student based on the system that student was in or even if in a school where the point system was used. From the beginning of the observed time period until June, 1989, each middle school maintained an in-building suspension room. The school year 1988-89 these programs were dropped due to Board of Education budget cuts. Suspension rates for this last year were much higher. The number of days a student spent on suspension may have been affected this year by the removal of the in-building suspension room. Reasons for suspension also were effected by this removal. The categories of attendance and. opinion under* collapsed reasons for suspensions saw greater numbers of suspensions. At the non-point system school, Hispanic students were suspended at a greater rate than their proportion in the population. There was no obvious reason for this disproportion. African American were suspended at a higher rate than their proportion of the population throughout all schools. There may be a general belief that African American youth cause more problems. Males experienced more suspensions than females in all schools. Males may be 126 believed to cause more problems than females. African American males are likely to experience greater rates of suspension in all schools. The non-point system school had a much higher rate of suspension for the category "defied authority" than any other school. However, the non-point school did not have use of the category of "point system." When the reasons were collapsed where the collapsed category of "opinion" included defied authority, point system, misconduct and other, then the non-point system school's suspension rate was not consistently greater than the point-system schools' rate. The use of an administrator's opinion may be less where there are some predefined formal categories in which to place a behavior. The collapsed category of 'violence is very consistent in all buildings. However, there is no obvious reason for the high rate reported at Pattengill in 1986-1987. The point-system schools generally have predefined three-day suspension periods. This is reflected by the high percentage of three-to-five day suspensions at the point-system schools. The non-point system school's administrators can easily determine the number of days for suspension. In the school year 1986-87, the non-point system school had a high rate of three to five days. Also that year the non-point school appointed a new principal. This administrator had previous administrative experience only in 127 point system schools. The three-day suspension custom would seem to have followed this administrator. Interviewed students indicated that generally those students suspended in one school were suspended or received points in another school. This further verifies that the system has little influence in student suspendions. Students not suspended in their old schools were generally not suspended in their new systems. Close to half the students interviewed. perceived. no differences in the Student Discipline Code between schools. At the same time, about one-third of the interviewed students expected to find a difference in what would be the result of the same behavior at different schools. Over half thought there were some differences in different school discipline. Of the students interviewed with experience in two or more point-system schools, 70% thought there were differences in these systems. These student reports would indicate a difference from one school to another rather than between the systems of suspension. The administrators interviewed, even after reviewing the data, thought there was no difference as a result of the system in use. Their responses supported the data that shows suspension is not effected by the method of discipline administration. Administrators believed the point system. provided better documentation and a basis for judgment. However, 128 those administrators using non-point system also used their own methods of documentation and established their own basis for judgment. An example is "Five appearances in the office would result (generally) in suspension." Students in the point-system schools as well as students in the non-point system schools were aware of the criteria. The administrators and students interviewed overwhelming believed that the teacher had more to do with suspensions than the method or system used. No administrator would commit to changing their methods or systems as a result of review of these data. However, one building had already modified their point system as a result of an ongoing study and review of' their system. The need for better communication between buildings and consistency within buildings was expressed. Generally, administrators looked to needed items such as more parent, teacher, and student input; better community involvement; more resources both in terms of monies; and community agencies. Recommendations This study concluded that the method or system of point or non-point does not matter. The judgment of the administration in both systems can influence the rate and reasons for suspensions. Emphasis can be better placed not on the system but on the judgment of the administration. Administrators interviewed recommended more communication and 129 training to produce more consistency across all schools. Further investigation could be made to determine reasons why different administrators react in different ways to similar student behaviors. This study revealed different levels for suspensions for specific ethnic and gender groups. Administrators should review these data and determine if they are expressing bias not related to student behaviors. Further investigation could be made to determine the basis for such biases and their effect on suspension. Because the point systems differed between schools and years further investigation could be made to determine why such a defined system experienced such variability. This study did not include input from groups such as parents, teachers, or' other community' groups affected by school discipline. This study used suspension rates, reasons, and duration as the criteria to determine if a method did or did not work. Further investigation could look at other criteria for success of a method of behavior change. Other interested groups could be studied to determine how school behavior affected them or methods that could be used to make discipline more effective. If the goal of discipline is behavior change, the basic question, "Does suspensions work?" may need to be investigated before the questions of method or system used is studied further. 130 Final Remarks The researcher concludes this study' with certain personal hunches and feelings regarding the study's outcomes: 1. It is both clear and not surprising that both boys and blacks were suspended more than girls or other ethnic groups. The researcher was not surprised by these outcomes. The study did not undertake to show why these results were obtained. It is the researcher's hunch that in our society at the end of the twentieth century, boys are perceived as being more rebellious than girls and ‘therefore more likely' to :need such. disciplinary action as suspension. Similarly blacks, who as an ethnic group, have been subject throughout the life of this society to racial discrimination, are still perceived as the group who is more likely to be violent and in need of disciplining. For instance, four white boys are seen as a group, but four blacks as a gang. 2. Though Table 4.1 above and the comparisons of systems when data are most highly aggregated show that the non-point system differed from the point-system in that the non-point tended to generate significantly more suspensions than the point-system, the researcher maintains skepticism that the outcome is in fact a function of the nature of the system used. His hunch that the relatively higher proportion of non-point system suspensions was more a function of the 131 personalities of the school administrators in those four schools during those four' years. The administrators themselves in their interviews tended also to perceive that the differences between the two systems were not as significant as other variables might be. APPENDICES 132 133 APPENDIX A BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT 134 The following background information on the Lansing School District. is quoted. from. the dissertation by' Webb (1980. PP. 4-9). "The Lansing School District is centered in the city of Lansing, Michigan, serving the city and portions of several surrounding townships. The schools of the district are organized as elementary (K-G), junior high (7-9), and senior high (10-12). The Lansing School District also operates an extensive Continuing' Education program” Lansing Community' College originated as a part of the Lansing School District but has severed that tie and now operates as a separate entity. 2 The Lansing School District reached its peak K-12 enrollment in 1971 with 33,080 students. Of this number, 18,702 were elementary. The elementary enrollment of the district had actually reached its peak in 1969 at 19,004 students and had started a steady decline by 1971. The district began to keep statistics on students by race in 1967. In that year the total enrollment of the elementary schools was 18,664 of which 15,766 or 85 percent were white and 2,878 or 15 percent were non-white. By 1971 the elementary enrollment of 18,702 was composed of 14,516 or 78 percent white and 4,186 or 22 percent non-white. In 1967 the Lansing Board of Education had redrawn the junior and senior high boundary lines so that each junior and senior high approximated the minority enrollment of the over-all district. At the elementary level, however, over 85 percent of the non-white students attended schools which contained a majority of non-white students. By 1971 despite the closing of two majority non-white enrollment schools and the assignment of their students to majority white enrollment schools the situation had not greatly changed. In addition there was a growing dissatisfaction among non-white parents that their children were bearing the brunt of efforts to desegregate the Lansing elementary schools through a pattern of one way busing. In the fall of 1971 the Board of Education formed a citizens committee to study the problem and to make recommendations to desegregate the Lansing elementary schools. The committee submitted its report in April 1972. The report included four alternate plans for desegregating the elementary schools all of which involved the busing of pupils away from their home school area. The Board of Education held six public hearing on the committee report during the month of May 135 1972. Following the hearing the Board developed a modified elementary desegregation plan calling for less busing than any of the four citizen committee plans. The Board then held a public hearing on the modified plan. The modified plan called for each elementary school to have an enrollment of no less than 10 percent nor no more than 45 percent non-white students. Schools which did not meet the criteria were to be left alone. Schools which did not meet the criteria were to be grouped or "clustered" in clusters of from two to five schools. Each of the cluster schools would retain its own neighborhood enrollment in grades kindergarten through second. In addition each cluster school would contain grades three and four' or grades five and six. Students in these four grades would spend two of the years in their home school and the other two years in a different school within the cluster. Students in grades one and two were to have joint activities with other cluster schools to prepare them for the time they entered the desegregation plan. The plan specified that two clusters of four schools each would be initiated in the 1972-73 school year and a third cluster involving an additional five schools would be initiated in the 1873-74 school year. Following this would be a period of study to evaluate the cluster plan and to develop recommendations for its modification and/or expansion. During the period of public hearings in May a group calling itself Citizens for Neighborhood Schools (CNS) was formed. The CNS declared that it opposed any attempt to bus students away from their neighborhood school and that any Board members who voted for such a plan would be recalled. In June, 1972 the Board adopted the modified elementary desegregation plan by a five to four vote. The CNS filed recall petitions against the five Board. members who voted for the plan. A recall election was scheduled to be a part of the regular November 7, 1972 election. Efforts by CNS to have the Board enjoined by court order to prevent implementation of the elementary desegregation plan in September 1972 were not successful. In September the Lansing schools opened and implemented the elementary' cluster plan ‘without incident. In November the electorate recalled the five Board members who had voted for the cluster plan, leaving the Board without a majority of its members and unable to operate. Governor Milliken appointed five interim Board members to allow the district to 136 operate until a new Board election could be held. In January 1973 five candidates endorsed by CNS were elected to the Board of Education. The new Board voted six to three in February to discontinue the cluster plan effective September 1973. The NAACP sought an injunction in federal district court to prevent the Board from discontinuing the cluster plan. Judge Noel Fox denied the NAACP request and asked both sides to reach an out of court settlement. In July 1973 Judge Fox held a hearing on the NAACP motion when the two sides failed to reach agreement. In August 1973 Judge Fox issued a preliminary injunction against Board ordering reinstatement of the cluster desegregation plan. The Board appealed Judge Fox' ruling to the Court of Appeals but the appellate court denied the appeal and remanded the case back to Judge Fox for a trial on the merits. The opening of school in September 1973 was delayed two weeks due to a teacher's strike but when school did open the three clusters were in place and the opening took place without incident. During the 1974-75 school year the cluster program was evaluated. Student achievement levels in math and reading indicated no loss in academic achievement in these fields for white or non-white pupils and both groups actually showed some gains in the upper elementary grades. A public opinion survey commissioned by the Board of Education showed that ‘while the community did not favor busing it had been accepted and parents, students, and teachers all had positive feelings about what was happening in schools. In September 1975 Judge Fox conducted a pre-trial hearing on the Lansing desegregation case and asked for a total desegregation plan by October 14, 1975. The Board of Education developed several plans all of which were unsatisfactory to the court. In October 1975 Judge Fox ordered a trial on the merits of the case. In December 1975 Judge Fox ruled. that the ILansing’ School District and its Board of Education had. been guilty' of acts of segregation in violation of the Constitution and laws of the united States and of the Constitution of the State of Michigan. He ordered the Board to submit to him by March 1, 1976, a comprehensive desegregation plan. The Board was unable to agree on a plan so in May 1976 Judge Fox ordered the implementation of a desegregation plan submitted instead by the NAACP. The plan. called for' the addition. of three new clusters containing a total of nine schools. The original three clusters were to continue by the 137 grade structure was adjusted. Under the new plan all kindergarten students would- remain in their home schools. One school in each cluster would house all fifth and sixth grade students of the cluster. The remaining schools in the cluster would divide the students in grades one through four between them. The court ordered plan was to be implemented in September 1976. Schools opened in September without incident. The Board appealed the order of Judge Fox to the Court of Appeals where their appeal was denied and on to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal. The cluster plan ordered by Judge Fox is still operating in the Lansing School District but in September 1979 four elementary schools, including three cluster schools, were closed due to declining enrollment." 138 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE 1:39 S'IUDBJT INTERVIEH SCHEDULE Backflmd mta What school did you last attend before this transfer? How long were you in that school? Why did you transfer? When did you transfer? Grade : Sex: Ethnic Group: Age : Were you ever suspended at your old school? Why? How often? Data and opinions about this 212 school Did you review and understand the Code of Conduct at your old school? Has that coda- set up using a point system? 140 Here you comfortable with the school rules? Did you receive "points" or suspension? Did you believe the systen worked? Did you like your old school? Did you know the principal and assistant principals? Comparison g Schools which school do you like better, the old or the now? What are the good points and bad points in each school? Is there a difference between the Codes of Conduct in the two schools? Is there a difference between what will happen if you were to have had the same behavior in both schools? If one school had a point system and the other did not or if they were both point systems, is there a difference in the way the systen works? Which discipline system do you like better? 141 Ibiza and opinion about the new school Did you revise and understand the Code of Conduct in your new school? Is the code set up using a point system? Are you comfortable with the school rules? Have you received "points" or suspension? Do you believe this system works? Do you like your new school? Do you know the principal and assistant principals? Opinions about the discipline system What do you think cmld be changed to create a better discipline systen? Do you see any difference between discipline at different schools? What is wrong with the discipline systen? 142 APPENDICES C STUDENT INTERVIEW LETTERS 143 March 1, 1989 Dear Parent/Guardian During the 1988-89 school year, your son/daughter transferred from one Lansing School District Middle School to another. we would appreciate your cooperation in helping the Office of Student Services look at how the differences in Codes of Conduct between Lansing School District Middle Schools are perceived by and affect students. To gather this information, we would like your pe-mission to interview your The interview mould take about ten (10) minutes and will be will be son/daughter . arranged sometime in March. With your permission, inte'viewed at school during school hours. A pe-mission slip for your signature and a stamped, self addressed return envelope is enclosed. Your son/daughte's participation in this study is strictly voluntary. Your son/daughter -y elect to terminate the interview at any point. Your son/daughter may also choose to not answer any questions. Results from these interviews will be used for planning in the Office of Student Services and reported as a part of a doctoral dissertation on administration of Codes of The final results of this study will be made available to parents and All student's Conduct. students upon remest from the Office of Student Services. identities will be kept strictly confidential. No data will be reported that in any way could be used to ideatify the person who gave the information. Thank you for ymr participation in this study. Should you have further questions or consents, please feel free to contact me at the Office of Student Services at 3713-4071. Sincerly , mans HoClellan Assistant in Student Services 144 LANSING SCHCDL DISTRICT Permission Form I give permission for to participate in the Office (student's name) of Student Services study of achninistration of Codes of Conduct. I understand that our cooperation in this study is voluntary and that participation may be discontinued at any time without any penalty by myself or by my son/daughter. It is also my understanding that any information which is provided will be kept confidential and will not be personally identifiable in the final report of this study. Parent Signature Date Student Signature Please return this form to the Office of Student Services. Enclosed is a stamped, self addressed envelope for your convenience. 145 APPENDICES D ADMINISTRATORS LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE 146 ATTENTION MIDDLE SCHOOL BUILDING ADMINISTRATORS The Office of. Student Services is conducting a study of the administration of the Code of Conduct. Your voluntary participation in this study would be appreciated. Attached are the results of statistical analysis of suspension data. After your review of this data. I wish to conduct a 10 to 15 minute interview with you at your building to discuss the following questions: 1. How long did you won in each system? 2. Is there a difference between administration of Codes of Conduct per your experience in different buildings? 3. What are your views of these differences and perceptions of the administration of Codes of Conduct. 4. Does the statistical data match your perceptions of what is tafing place on a day to day basis in the real world of students? 5. What are your comments on the study and the use of different types of discipline administration? 6. What kinds of changes would you make as a result of the statistical data presented? 7. What suggestions do you have for further or on-going evaluation of these data? 8. What suggestions do you have for improving areas of evaluation of the administration of the Code of Conduct? The results from your participation in these interviews will be used for planning in the Office of Student Services and reported as a part of a doctoral dissertation on administering of Codes of Conduct. The interview data will be reported to help validate and clarify the statistical data. The individual interviews will not be personally identifiable. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected. Final results of the study will be available upon request through the Office of Student Services. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary. If you choose to participate you may also choose to withdraw at any point from this study without any penalty. 1f will set a convenient date and time for you through your secretary for this interview. I will tape record your interview to facilitate later analysis. However. the recording will not be retained as part of this study. Should you have further questions or comments. please feel free to contact me at 374-4071. Sincerely. Thomas McClellan Assistant in Student Services I agree to participate in the interview process as outlined above. Signature Date 147 Attached is a brief synopsis of the results of a Study of Administration of Discipline conducted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for a degree. Suspensions were reviewed in the Lansing School District at the middle school level for the years, September of 1986 to June of 1989. Comparisons were done between schools, individual schools were compared with themselves over school years and those schools using point systems were compared with the school not using a point system. The following hypotheses investigated: 1. There are differences in the number of suspensions resulting from schools using point systems versus schools not using point systems. 2. There are differences in the number of repeat suspensions resulting from schools using point systems versus schools not using point systems. 3. There are differences in the reasons for suspensions resulting from schools using point systems versus schools not using point systems. There are differences in the race, but no differences in 4. gender of student suspensions resulting from schools using point systems versus schools not using point systems. 5. There are differences in the time students spend on suspension resulting from schools using point systems versus schools no using point systems. Chi Square statistical analysis, in general, showed that there were significant differences between most compared populations. The results indicated that it did not matter what method was used for Administration of Discipline. The results on all criteria's showed no consistent results between schools, individual school over school years and between schools using the point systems versus the schools not using the point system. 148 .1 APPENDICES E SUSPENSION CODING FORM 149 :. a: 8 3 3.3 2 S 86. 8-: 8.: 3.3 3.: . 3a 730258 mooo .13 5. auzcamc enormaaaa 55a 3.2.2 53 Search is 0» 202m: xwm 0.25m wo<¢o :5sz mp403“. D «.- 7393 _ _ m5 _ _ razor III! $3232 2.3.8 mzoazmamam hzmoahw Exam? 150 SUSPENSION CODES (BENNEHRPUL ‘AJIEHK Adruuaenanuscua 10 - Truancy 15 - Tardiness PHYS ICAL/VERBAL CONFRONTATION 20 - Striking Teacher 30 - Fighting 33 - Assault 35 - Battery 37 - Verbal & Written Threats SUBSTANCES 40 - Smoking/Use of Tobacco 43 - Possession of Tobacco 45 - Drug or Alcohol Use 47 - Drugs/Alcohol Possession - Sale - Distribution CITY , STATE , FEDERAL ‘ 50 - Possession of Weapons, use of 52 - Possession of Fireworks, etc. 55 - Possession of Illegal Devices, use of 60 - Extortion 65 - Theft 70 - Trespassing 73 - Violation of City & State, etc. 75 - Vandalism/Malicious Destruction 77 - Arson MISCONDUCT 80 - Misconduct - Disorderly 82 - Persistent Misconduct 83 - Defied Authority - Insubordinate 85 - Lewd/Obscene Behavior 87 - Sexual Misconduct 90 - Other ETHNIC CODES 1 - American Indian or Alaskan Native or Native American 2 - Black (not of Latino or Hispanic origin) 3 - Asian or Pacific Islander 4 - Latino or Hispanic 5 - White (not of Latino or Hispanic origin 151 APPENDIX F DWIGHT RICH CODE OF CONDUCT 152 -40— 1988 - 1989 DWIGHT RICE MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHOOL RULES School rules are made because it is important that students not do things that deny the rights of others. These rules are written down so that students, parents, and staff know exactly how students should act. It is also important to write down the rules so that students, parents, and staff know what will happen if students do break the rules. The list of rules on the following pages are the most important ones in the school. But it is not a list of every possible action that violates the rights—of others. Any act that disrupts the school or causes danger to people or property is against school rules. So, if you don't know whether something breaks school rules, ask your teacher, counselor, or an administrator before you perform the act. There is one other thing everyone should know before you read the rules. State law gives the school the responsibility for student behavior not only at the school building, but at any school activity, on school busses, ancF on the way to and from school. There are two kinds of rules at Dwight Rich Middle School. They are called: Category I - District-Wide Rules --- These rules are the same in every Lansing Public School Category II - Building Rules --- Two Strands: 1) Suspension Violations 2) Detention Violations In the next few pages we will discuss what each rule means and what action will be taken when a student breaks that rule. . Parents are encouraged to contact an administrator if there is a question. 153 -‘IL- CATEGORY II - BUILDING RULES: The rules listed below will be handled in the building in which they happen. In all cases where points are given for breaking building rules, students and parents will be notified by the teacher or.assistant principal giving the points. SUSPENSION OFFENSES: A. D. E. F. Classroom Disruptions: l - 3 Any conduct in the classroom that is disruptive or dangerous. Disorderly Conduct: 1 - 5 Any conduct in or around the building, including the classroom, which is dangerous or disruptive. This is to include, but is not limited to, throwing snowballs, stones, or other objects, pushing, shoving, shouting. Insubordination: l - 5 The failure to obey, comply with, or carry out a reason- able directive from any school employee (administra- tors, teachers, secretaries, custodians, cafeteria workers, security staff, aides, or bus drivers. Petty Theft: 1 - 3 Taking or attempting to take possession of the properties of others, including school supplies, without permission of the owner. Truangy: 2 Unauthorized absence from school for any period of time. Unauthorized Presence/ Loitering: 2 Being in or around any area of the building when the student has no legitimate reason to be there: the act of collecting and/or lingering in the school building or on school property without permission of a staff member. POINTS ACTION TO BE TAKEN IN EACH CASE 0? BUILDING INFRACTIONS: Parent(s) will be contacted by teacher giving points. Parent(s) will be contacted by assistant principal giving points. ‘- Parent(s) will be contacted by the person giving points. Parent(s) contacted. Parent(s) contacted. Parent(s) contacted. 154 -42- ACTION TO as TAKEN I N""BA"CH" he's—""2: or SUSPENSION OFFENSES: (Continued) POINTS BUILDING INPRACTION: G. Parent(s) contacted. Littering : 2 Oeliberately throwing or scattering rubbish, trash, paper, waste, etc. on school property or on private property going to or from school. J Remaining On School Property: 1 - 3 Parent(s) contacted. Once a student has arrived on school property he/she must remain on the property at all times. It is also expected that when students leave home they will come directly to school with no loitering. Possession of Games or Toys: 0 - 2 Parent(s) contacted. Possession of radios, tape players Irecorders , puzzles , any electronic devices or toys, etc. at school. Any such items confiscated may be picked up by students or parents at the end of the semester. Unauthorized Selling: 1 - 3 Parent(s) contacted. Items should not be brought into the school building by students to be sold or distributed to other students . Forgegy: Using or writing the name of another person for the purpose of gain or falsifying times, dates, grades, addresses, or other informa- tion, including school forms. 1 - 3 Parent(s) contacted. 155 -43.. DETENTION OFFENSES Students who accumulate points for the following infractions may settle their discipline obligations by attending After-School Detention rather than being suspended from school. DETENTION OFFENSES : A. Tardiness: Failure to be in the assigned work station, classroom, lunchroom, locker room, etc. at the proper time in accor- dance with the rules of that area. Runn ins : To move quickly through the halls at a pace faster than walking. Failure to Bring Supplies to Class: Not bringing the proper supplies for a class. Overdue Library Materials: Library materials that are excessively overdue. Cafeteria Infractions: Violating anyone of the Cafeteria rules listed on page 51. POINTS 1 ACTION TO BE TAKEN FOR THE , FOLLOWING INFRACTIONS Student hand carries notification of point received to parentis). Student hand carries notification of point received to parent(s). Student hand carries notification of point received to parent(s). Student hand carries notification of point received to parent(s). Student hand carries notification of point received to fish. 156 .. 44 - DETENTION TRACT SUMMARY - 5 POINTS EACH PHASE One (1) Day Detention (5th Point) g A Parent Conference. Failure to arrange for one of the above alternatives will result in a school suspension until a parent conference is held . One (1) Day Detention (10th Point) 0 Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. Two (2) Day Detention (15th Point) Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. Two (2) Day Detention (20th Point) Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. Three (3) Day Detention (25th Point) Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. With A Required Parent Three (3) Day Detention (30th Point) Conférence Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. A Parent Conference is regaired. Three (3) Day Detention (35th Point) Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. Three (3) Day Detention (40th Point) Failure to attend detention will result in a school suspension for the number of detention days assigned. Suspension for One (1) Day (45th Point) Suspension for Two (2) Days (50th Point) With A Required Suspension for Three (3) Days (55th Point) Parent Conference ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION REMOVAL OF DETENTION POINTS Whenever a student goes twenty (20) consecutive school days with- out receiving any detention points, all the points at that level will be removed. 157 -45- DETENTION RULES Detention will provide students an alternative for settling discipline infractions that would normally result in suspension. This permits a student to remain in school full-time with the advantage continuity provides. During detention there is an opportunity to complete work that should benefit a student's . regular school program. All rules in the Code of Conduct apply while a student is making up time. In addition, the following rules must be obeyed. l. Tardy students will have detention hours extended. PLEASE BE PROMPT. 2. Students will not be allowed to leave the room without permission. They cannot go to their locker or use the telephone after detention. 3. Students must bring sufficient work to keep busy during their stay. 4. No radios, tape players/recorders, cards, magazines, or other recreational articles will be allowed. 5. No food or beverages will be allowed (including gum). 6. Students may not leave their seats or talk to other students. 7. Students should use bathroom facilities before going to detention. 8. If a student fails to report and make up the appropriate time, he/she will be suspended. 9. If a student fails to cooperate or violates any of the above rules, appropriate action will be taken which may include suspension. 10. Students will leave the building with the person in charge. 158 - 45 - SUSPENSION TRACT OF THE DISCIPLINE CODE Conference (5th point) When a student accumulates five suspension points, a parent conference will be held. The conference is normally held at a mutually agreed time within twenty-four hours. There need not be any loss of school time in this category. (A student whose parent(s) fail to make a commitment to come in for the conference will be suspended until such time as the parent(s) cooperate.) . One Da Suspension (10th int) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for one (1) school day. One Da Sus ensien (15th point) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for one (1) school day. Two Da Suspension (20th int) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for two (2) school days. An educational conference is re uired before reinstatement can take lace. This WWW , parens ,counseor, teachers and an administrator. No Dav Suspension (25th point) I a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for two (2) school days. Three Da Suspension (30th int) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for three (3) school days. A parent conference is rflired before reinstatement can take 2 ace. Three Day Suspension (35th int) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. The student will be suspended from school for three (3) days. A parent conference is required before reinstatement can take place. Student Services Sus sion (40th int) If a student accumulates five additional suspension points, the parent(s) will be notified by an administrator. This suspension may be to the Director of Student Services, of the Lansing School District. REMOVAL OF SUSPENSION POINTS wEenever a student goes twenty (20) consecutive school days without receiving any points, all the points at that level will be removed. 159 - 47 - DISCIPLINE STEPS The following pages describe what steps will be taken by staff members when students break any of the school rules, whether in the classroom, in the halls or at a school activity. Breaking District-Wide Rules When issuing points for District-wide offenses, the teacher or- staff member will: 1. Report it to the assistant principal immediately. The assistant principal will then: 1. Find out what happened. 2. Take the action that is required by District-wide rules. Breaking Building Rules in the Classroom When issuing point fer classroom offenses, the teacher will: 1. Write down what the student did wrong and make two copies. 2. Tell the student that she/he is getting points and how many. 3. Call the parent(s) to tell them about the points. (Mail out ahcopy to the parent(s) only if they could not be reached by p one.) 4. Send two copies of what happened to the appropriate counselor. S. Retain one copy for the teacher's records. Detention Rule Violations when issuing points for detention offenses, the staff member will: 1. Complete the entire Detention Incident Report. 2. Have the student sign his/her name in the appropriate area. 3. Have the student hand carry the white point sheet home and refer the yellow copy to the appropriate assistant principal. Breaking Building Rules Outside The Classroom I a stu ent rea ru es outSi e e c assroom, the assistant principal will be told by the person who saw it. The assistant principal will: 1. Find out what happened. 2. Decide how many points to give. 3. Tell the student and the parent(s). 4. If a staff member related the problem to the assistant principal, the staff member will be told what action was t Bein Tard Without An Excuse If a student is tardy to class with no excuse, the teacher will assign the tardy point. The student will hand carry the white point sheet home, the teacher sends the yellow copy on to the appropriate assistant principal. If a student is tardy to homeroom, he/she will have three days to bring an excuse. If he/she does not bring an excuse, the teacher will write it down and send the form.to the office. Teachers should write down the day the student was tardy and not the day the form.is sent to the office. The student will be assigned two suspension points from the Main Office. 160 _ 48 - APPEALS An appeal means that you ask another person for help. Sometimes when students are given points, they don‘t think that they really broke the rules. Often students feel this way because they have not read the rules carefully. But, sometimes it is because a staff member has made an honest mistake about what happened. If a student really believes that a mistake has been made in giving her or him points, they can follow this process to appeal the points. A) Read the rules to make sure you are not the one who made the mistake. B) Set up a time to talk with your counselor and review why the points were given to you. C) If you still think that a mistake has been made after talking to your counselor, you should ask for a meeting between you, your parent(s), the teacher, the counselor, and the assistant principal. You have to ask for this meeting within 72 hours after you find out you were given points. D) If you still think there is a mistake after the meeting, ask yourself, ”Has there really been a mistake or did I break the rule?" APPEAL PROCEDURES The Appeal Procedures are standard throughout the school district. Refer to pages 30, 31 and 32. STUDENTS IN THE BUILDING AFTER SCHOOL Students are expected to be out of the building by 2:45 p.m. unless they ate under the direct supervision of a teacher. If students are waiting for a ride, they should wait in front of the Main Office. If a student is involved in an activity, he/she should take his/her books and coat to that part of the building and when finished with the activity, leave by the nearest exit. Disciplinary action will be taken against those students that fail to cooperate. This policy is necessary to prevent stealing of items and damage to the school. POLICE REPORT Pupil Personnel sends to the Lansing Police Department on a monthly basis, a list of students that have violated city law in the schools. Any quantity of illegal drugs in any form is being reported. 161 CAEETERIA AND NOON HOUR RULES ,. While using the cafeteria, students are asked to observe the 'following general rules of good behavior and courtesy. When passing to and from the cafeteria area, students are asked not to run in the halls. 1. 10. ll. \ Students must wait in line to enter the food service line and sit at a table until they have finished eating. When they have finished eating, or if they do not eat, students may leave the building through the West exit doors. Please do not cut in line. Have your money or lunch tickets ready, the exact change, if possible, and wait your turn. Students may not purchase food for others. Remember to remove all money from your tray before leaving e cashier. Excessive noise will not be tolerated. Students are required to return their travs, dishes, milk cartons, and any paper or food scraps to 5e cleanup area. No food should be taken from the cafeteria. After returning their trays, students should return to the same seats and remain until dismissed, or if they so desire, they may leave the building for the remainder of their respective lunch module“ Students who leave the building must remain in the immediate vicinity of the building and go no further away than to the baseball diamond nearest the building and use the basketball and tennis courts. When gym classes are using the grounds, students are asked to refrain from interrupting theif’ activities. The fiat students may leave the Building is not to be taken as permission to go to McDonald's, the school parking lot or elsewhere for lunch. Students that go out of the building should remain outside for the rest of their lunch period. They should not return to the cafeteria or any other area of the building until the end of their lunch module. Whether in the cafeteria or out-of-doors, students are expected to observe all regulations in the DWIGHT RICE RIDDLE SCHOOL CODE OF CONDUCT. Leave the table and floor clean, replace your chairs in the proper position, furniture should not be moved. Pick up the paper and debris from the floor or frem the out-of-doors area and deposit it in the waste container. When the end of the lunch module is signaled, pass to your proper classroom. Students having a split lunch module and not returning to class after lunch will be reported as being truant. Please remember that classes are in session. Be quiet in the halls when returning to classes. Permission for students to go out-of-doors to the assigned area is dependent upon the good behavior of those who avail themselves of the privilege. If it is abused, the program will be discontinued. Points will be issued if rules are not followed. 162 APPENDIX G OTTO CODE OF CONDUCT 163 August, 1988 LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT CODE OF C SOUCT 9‘ OTTO MIDDLE SCHOOL SUPPLEMEHT It is the belief of the Lansing School District that discfn!ine i3 . _ . ‘ tn innuirrant part of what students should learn in school. This Code is nu: gunative. 5”; is desibned to protect your youngster's rights. There are two purposes for discipline l. To make school a pleasant. clean, orderly and safe place to learn. 2. To help students learn what behavior is evoccted of them at school and in the community. Discipline is best when each student learns the rules and takes responsibility for following them without being told. This is called self-discipline. But. when students do not follow the rules on their own, it then becomes the responsibility of the school staff and the parents to help the student understand the rules and form acceptable behavior habits. WHEN THINGS GD WRONG Good discipline in school is the responsibility of students, parents. and staff. It is the goal of teachers, counselors, and adninistrators to stop problems be- fore they get serious. when they can prevent problems, it will help to avoid the need for disciplinary action. But we need the help of parents and students. if a student or parent feels that problems are beginning that might lead to trouble. we would like you to talk to a teacher, counselor or administrator. If the staff can deal with problems early enough, they can keep it from getting serious. Pre- venting proolems is the best way to solve them. One of the many important things you can learn in school is the rights you have as a member of the school and what it means to have rights. Just as you have rights. so does everyone else at school. That means you cannot act in a way that denies other people their rights. This is called responsibility. It is the re- sponsibility of the school, the parents. and the student to make sure that students learn to act in a way that does not deny other people their rights. This will help to make the schon! a pleasant, clean, orderly and safe place to be. it is impossible to list all student rights and responsibilities. The following is a list of the rights and responsibilities that are most important to a good education. This list does not include all the rights a students has at school. RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITY l. The most important right that l. Students have a responsibility to students have is the right to a come to school regularly, to be free public education. on time and be ready to learn. to Students have the responsibility not to deny other students their 3. Students have the right to be safe right to learn. at school. 2. Students have the right to learn. K’ 0 Students have a resoonsibility not to act in a way which threatens. scores or injures others. .1 IO. 1(54 RIGHTS Students have a right to a clean 4. school building. Students have a right to get help from counselors, teachers, and adninistrators. Students have a right to work on comittees that talk about student concerns and student rights. 5, Students have a right to be respected by other students and staff. Every students has the right to due process. That means students have a right to a fair set of rules that 8. are applied in a fair and even manner. The student has the right to make up any classroom work after an excused or unexcused absence. The student has 9. the right to receive homework at home during an extended absence by contact- ing their counselor. Students have the right, in conjunc- tion with their parents, to determine their own appearance providing they are in accord with the provisions of this Code. 10. U! RESPONSIBILITY Students have a responsibility not to litter in the building. Students have a responsibility to ask for help in a polite manner and at a time that doesn't dEny other students a fair chance to get help from staff. Students have a responsibility to volunteer for committees and to bring their ideas and problems to the right people. Students have a responsibility to respect each other and staff. Students have a responsibility to obey rules and use proper means for telling staff members about rules they believe to be unfair. Students have the responsibility to obtain make-up work missed dur- ing an excused absence during the regular scheduled class period. Hark missed due to unexcused ab- sence must be obtained after school (2:30-3:00 p.m.). All work must be made up within one week from last day of absence. Exceptions made in the case of extended ab- sence by individual circumstances. Students have the responsiblity in conjunction with their parents to dress themselves in a manner that does not disturb the educational opportunities of other students. Nothing may be worn that, in the judgment of the building administra- tors. detracts from the educational process by directing attention away from the learning activity and fo- cusing it on the wearer. Short: or athletic shorts or any other type of apparel which does not reach to the knee of the wearer may not be worn by middle school or senior high school students. Principals will have the right to interpret this rule in a reason- able manner and their decision shall be final. Halters. bare midriffs. or other revealing and inappropriate attire shall be unacceptable. -2 lESS SCHOOL RULES School rules are made because it is important that students do not do things that deny the rights of others. These rules are written down so that students. parents, staff know exactly how students should act. It is also important to write down the rules so that students, parents and staff know what will happen if students break the rules. The lists of'rules on the following pages are the most important ones in the school, but it is gpt_a list of every possible action that violates the rights of others. A student can get in trouble for doing something even though there isn't a rule saying students should not do that. Any act that disrupts the school or causes danger to pepple or property is against school rules. So, if you do not know whether something breaks school rules, ask the principal. There is one other thing everyone should know before you read the rules. State Law gives the school the responsibility for student behavior not only at the school building, but at any school activity. on school buses and on the way to and from school. So, remember if you break any rules at a school activity - such as an away basketball game. or get into a fight on the way home or swear on the bus. you're still in trouble. There are two kinds of rules at Otto Middle School. They are: District-Hide Rules ..... These rules are the same in every Lansing Public School. Building Rules ....... Two strands: 1) Suspension Violations 2) Detention Violations In the next few pages, we will discuss what each rule means and what action will be taken when a student breaks that rule. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU REMEMBER THE DISCI- 'PLINE CODE IS IN EFFECT HHILE YOU ARE GOING TO AND FROM SCHOOL. AS WELL KS HHEN YOU ARE ON THE PROPERTY. 166 BUILDING PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT HIDE DISCIPLINE CODE All District-wide Infractions will result in 8 points being assigned and the stu- dent being suspended. Other possible alteratives are described on page 4 of the Administrative Regulations. Building Infractions will have the following point values: Building Infraction Points Action To Be Taken Abusive Language l-B Parent Contact Disorderly Conduct l-8 .. .. Failure to Identify Oneself to Staff 1-4 u .. Forgery 1_4 .. .. Insubordination l-8 .. .. Littering 1_4 .. .. Petty Theft 1-4 n u Possession of Games or Toys 1-4 .. .. Tardiness 1 .. .. Truancy - an hourly truancy will be assigned points Unauthorized Presence/Loitering 1-4 . .. .. N SUSPENSION TRACT OF CODE OF CONNCT Level I Conference when a student accimmlates eight (8) suspension points, a parent conference will be held. The conference is normally held at a mutually agreed time within 24 hours. There need not be any loss of school time in this category. Students, whose parents fail to make a comnitment to come in for the conference will be suspended until such time as the parents schedule the conference. Level I Suspension A suspension and a parent mnference will always take place for any District-Hide Infractions. A parent conference is necessary before reinstatement can take place. Level II Suspension If a student accimulates six (6) additional points, a three (3) day suspension and an educational conference will take place. The educational mnference will include the assistant principal. counselor, teachers and parent (the student may attend). The conference is designed to elicit staff input regarding ways to change the stu- dents' inappropriate behavior. A parent conference is necessary before reinstate- ment can take place. In-School Suspension (I.S.S.L An option for the three (3) day suspension at Phase II and Phase III would be for the parent to decide they would rather have the student in the In-School Suspension 167 (1.5.5.) Cont. Room for the three (3) days. If a student fails to follow the rules in 1.5.5., they will be suspended or given additional I.S.S. time. The suspenSion will be for 3 days at home. Following 1.5.5., the educational conference will be held. The I.S.S. Option applies only to points accumulated under the Building Rules. It does not apply to violations of the District-Wide rules. Level III Suspension If a student accumulates four (4) additional suspension points. suspension to the Director of Student Services of the Lansing School District will result. If the student returns to Otto, he/she is at Phase II level of the Code of Conduct. Parent could select the option of the In-School Suspension at this level if infractions are building level violations. The time spent in I.S.S.at this level is five (5) days. REMOVAL OF SUSPENSION POINTS Whenever a student goes 20 consecutive school days without receiving any points. all the points at the level the student is on will be removed. DETENTION TRACT OF CODE OF CONDUCT Students who accumulate points for the following infractions may settle their disci- pline obligation by attending Saturday or After-School Detention rather than being suspended from school. Infraction Points Action To Be Taken Tardy 1 Parent Contact Did not bring supplies l-2 Parent Contact prior to assigning points or re- ferral to counselor Did not do assigned work l-Z Parent Contact Failure to dress for physical education 1 Parent Contact Excessively overdue library materials 2 Parent Contact Minor damage to school property 2 Parent Contact Running l Parent Contact Violation of classroom rules l-2 Parent Contact Parent will be given the choice of students making up time in Detention or being suspended. The Detention Option will operate as follows: Level I Detention When a student accumulates B detention points. the parents will be given the choice of the student spending three (3) hours in the Detention Center or Suspension from school until a parent conference is held. The three hours could be on Saturday or after school on days the Intramural program operates. 168 Level II Detention If a student accumulates six (6) additional detention points, the parent will be given the choice of the student spending six hours in the Detention Center or suspension from school for three days and a parent conference, The ISS Room is an option at this point. Level III Detention If a student accumulates four (4) additional detention points. the parent will be given the choice of the student spending nine hours in the Detention Center or a three (3) day suspension from school and parent conference. After a student has reached a Level III Detention and resolved their obligation. all future points will be assigned the suspension strand. REMOVAL OF DETENTION POINTS whenever a student goes 20 consecutive school days without receiving any detention points. all the points at the detention level the student is on will be removed. APPEALS Sometimes when students are given points, they do not think they really broke the rules. Often students feel this way because they have not read the rules care- fully. but sonetimes it is because a staff member has made an honest mistake about what happened. If a student really believes that a mistake has been made in giving her/him points, they can follow these steps to appeal the points: Step I - If a student feels points issued for a given incident are unfair. he/she has the right to appeal within 48 hours after the incident. This is to be done directly to the staff person who issued the points. The staff person issuing the points has the right to grant the appeal. deny the appeal, or compronfise by reducing the number of points (in the case of 2 or more). Notification to the appropriate assistant principal of any reduction in points shall be arranged by the person who issued the points. Step 2 - If you still think that a mistake has been made, talk to your counselor. Ask for a meeting between you, your parents. and the assistant principal if it is not solved with the counselor. You have to ask for this meeting within 72 hours after you find out you were given points. Step 3 - If you cb not think you should have received points. you can ask for a meeting with all the people in Step 2 plus the principal. The principal will tell you his decision 48 hours after the meeting. At any time that one teacher is persistently giving points to one or more students, the adninistration shall look into the problem. Step 4 - Any time a student is suspended the parent has 48 hours in which to ques- tion that decision. The parent could contact the person making the sus- pension. If the problem cannot be resolved at this level, the parent should contact the principal to discuss the decision. If the problem is not resolved at the building. the parent may appeal to the Director of Student Services office. 1659 DOCUMENTATION & PARENT CONTACTS Any time a point is assigned or other disciplinary action taken, parents will be contacted by phone or mail. In most cases. parents will not be notified of warn- ings issued. There wili be written records of all incidents except warnings. REMAINING ON SCHOOL PROPERTY Once a student has arrived on school property. he/she must remain on the property at all times. It is also expected that when students leave home they will come directly to school - with no loitering. Parents will be notified of all suspensions, detentions or placement in the ISS room in writing. The length of disciplinary action will be clearly stated. If an incident is not observed by an adult, there will be an investigation by an authorized adult before any disciplinary action is taken. CAFETERIA 8 NOON HOUR RULES l. Students must wait in the food service line and then be seated after being served. when finished eating, students can go into the hallway or outside in the designated area. when a student once leaves the cafeteria, they can- not return. Students in the cafeteria must be in line or seated. There is no room for students to stand or walk around. 2. Students are not permitted to cut into line or buy food for other students. Students should have their lunch money or their ticket on the tray. 3. Students are reouired to return their trays to the tray window and take care of the dishes and waste. No food should be taken from the cafeteria. 4. After returning their trays, students may go into the hallway. In the hall- way they can stand and talk. but they cannot touch each other. There is to be no hitting, pushing, pulling chasing, etc. The play area is outside. 5. The designated area outside is bound by the cement curb, metal guard rail and the trash gondolas. Students must stay on the paved area within the abOve designated boundaries. 6. Students remaining in the cafeteria must be seated. ?. Whether in the cafeteria or out-of-doors, students are expected to observe all regulations in the C. H. Otto Code of Conduct. 8. when the lunch mod ends and students return to class, we expect them to do so quietly. Remember that students with a different lunch mod are in class. Cafeteria infractions will be handled in the following fashion: I. The first infractior wiil result in a warning. 2. A second infraction will --sult in a student eating in a detention area for 5 days. . 3. A third infraction wili result in a youngster staying home until a parent conference is held . 1'70 4. A fourth infraction will result in the student being assigned a seat in the cafeteria. Cafeteria infractions are not removed at the end of 20 days. PROCEDURES FOR LOCKER SEARCH Student lockers are the property of the school district and are subject to search by the building principal or assistant principal where there is reasonable cause to believe that illegal or dangerous materials are located therein. whenever practicable, the student to whom a locker is assigned. plus one adult witness, TS to be present at any time his/her locker is searched. In cases of mass locker checks. such as those resulting from a bomb threat, it is understood that the student need not be present when his/her locker is checked. In no instance is a locker to be searched without at least one adult witness present. District-Hide means that these rules are the same in every school in L District-wide rules deal with serious acts that are not but are also against the law. District Code of Conduct as District-Hide Rules. 1'71 DISTRICT-HIDE RULES ansing. . only against school rules. The following rules are listed in the Lansing School The Code states that. "while recognizing that behavior problems are best handled by the school where the pupils are know, certain offenses are so serious in nature that they are considered to be district-wide infractions and must be reported and/or referred to the Student Services Office. INFRACTION ARSON Points: 8 ASSAULT/THREATS Points: 8 BATTERY Points: 8 EXTDRTION Points: 8 FALSE ALARMS Points: 8 MAJOR THEFT Points: 8 we The deliberate burning, or attempt to burn any part of any building or any property belonging to. rented by or on loan to the school district or property (including auto- mobiles) of persons employed by the school orin attendance at the school. An attempt to threat to inflict harm upon another person or their property. under such circumstan- ces as denote at the time an in- tent to do it, and ability to carry such intention into effect. No actual body contact is nec- essary. The unlawful intentional touch- ing or application of force to another person, done in a rude, insolent or angry manner. Obtaining money or property (something of value) from an unwilling person or forcing an individual to act by either physical force or intimidation. Activating the fire alanm system in any school building or on school property and/or reporting a fire or bomb when none exists Stealing of money over $25, or property judged by the adminis- trator to be worth more than $25 is major theft. In addition, repeated minor thefts (under 325) Shall be considered major theft. DI.CIPLINARY ACTION -Reouires suspension from l-3 days and possible re- port to Special Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alter- native program. -Possible expulsion. -Reguires suspension from l-3 days and possible re- port to Special Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alter- native program. _Possible expulsion. -Requires suspension from l-3 days and possible re- port to Special Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alterna- tive program. -Possible expulsion. -Requires suspension from l-3 days and possible report to Special Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alterna- tive program. -Possible expulsion. Same as above. Same as above. INFRACTION MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION Points: 8 MOLESTING Points: 8 OBSCENE AND/OR LEND BEHAVIOR Points: 8 PERSISTANT MISBEHAVIOR Points: 8 SALE. POSSESSION AND/OR USE OF NEAPONS Points: 8 1'72 DISTRICT-HIDE RULES (cont) DEFINITION The deliherate destruction of or defacing of property belong- ing to. rented by or on loan to the school system or property (including automobiles) of per— sons employed hy the school Or in attendance at the school. The deliberate act of moleSting an unwilling person by handling, grabbing, or touching inappropri- ate parts of the body of the other person. The act of using obscene. profane language in verbal 0r written fonm, possessing obscene pictures, or performing offensive gestures or acts. Frequent misconduct and/or coo- sistentlv breaking the same rule. Carrying. using or storing weapons or other dangerous objects (e.g., explosives or firecrackers) in a school building or school grounds. weapons are identified in two (2) categories: a) Articles commonly used or designated to inflict bodily harm or to intimidate other persons. Examples are: fire- anms. knuckles, knives. chains, clubs. numcnucks. b) Articles designed for other purposes that could be easily used to inflict bodily harm and/or in- timidate. Examples include. but are not limited to: belts. combs, pencils. files. and compasses. Students acting in an aggressive or heligerent manner with any such article will be judged to be in possession of a weapon. DISCIPLINARY ACTION -Reouires suspension from l-3 days and possible re- port to Special Services, -Possible transfer to another school or alter- native program. -Possible expulsion. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. Same as above. 10 INFRACTION *SALE. USE. POSSESSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF LEGAL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS. MATERIALS. SUBSTANCES. OR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SCHOOL BUS INFRACTIONS VIOLATIONS OF CITY. STATE OR FEDERAL ORDINANCES 1'73 DISTRICT-HIDE RULES (com DEFINITION Selling, distributing, using possessing legal or illegal drugs, materials, substances. or alcoholic beverages. DISCIPLINARY ACTION -Suspension from l-3 days -Referral to police agency. Special Services and/0r Student Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alternative progrwu. Definitions of school bus infractions and disciplinary actions including suspension are found in the appendix of these regulations. Any violation of legal ordin- ances not previously listed, for example: possession of fireworks. gambling. etc. -Suspension from l-3 days. oReferral to Police agency. Special Services and/or Student Services. -Possible transfer to another school or alternative pro- gram. 'Excludes medication taken in accordance with Administrative Regulation 5141.3.2. In case of conflict between the Building Code and the District-side Code. the District- uide Code shall take precedence. 1.744 ..uo.cou acute; .mu=_oq o:_>_o .aq.u=_ca “caum_mmo x5 no.uaacoo on __.: ”acute; .uu:.oq o=_,_a cmauaou x9 nouuaucoo an __.3 m.cacoa .u>oo n. macs. so. on ___3 :o.n=mauam. “mac. eo.au. __.: .aa.u=.ca ac.u«.uu. ugh .uu.m_a5ou a. co..ao ._u«~>c_ oz. so... caucoamam on an: ou>.o) .c. n.=~u=.u on. .0 aces co oco .ua..o.. -uo>=_ ¢e_ua .. .30.. as. o_.zx «So: “can an __.3 ou>.o>:_ «accuse, __< .uuaucou acute; mwg-nuuuuz_ mz_n__=m mo um co xaeoe =u.=z :. «sum >=¢ ac—xo—a co .u:_ou u:.gu.ac Lo a:_guu.a .u=.u.oa 12 "uc.—asau .—.u .ncogac so waco_c on. ma.cuu “as. co_>~goa segue xca Lo .=o_nu_acoa “:ogu.z ago—uncancasou e. o:...g_u.ucaa .uo:.. ._co.a..u cue. a=_.u:u ..__~azo=. so on: as. moon—uc_ “.3— .ncoaaus .~.au La magmas“. Log.o .no>_uasogu aucuuaua ca «accuocau co o>.aaaca_o a. .agu o=_u—_=g as. peach. to c. nuanced >e< ”auaueou a.coucon_a .aaocoocau go‘s:- o>_.n=cu_u “— “as“ scoLaa._u as“ c. “unecou a=< “aco.ummuw_c noocna._u .uao .ucaoco so coop. as“ go a: uc'ueu .oc._.aacz .o=.=n=a unocoocau u:- oco>oa La .uoocaguxu Lo can a «L. axe—a chug: ue.u=a. snap oco>om u.” «amp an .ug .. a o. a... o» a o a. gu.g: cauc- e. o=.>og. a:- a=.=u:m "d mm»fi .- "ac..=a.. .o .oa». as. at. acogp .Au.o ...eo>o u..o_=.. .no_.caa .uoucou. >u_s..u- .oogu. >=~ ue.u:.uc. ._oo;u. not. to o. oc_oo co sugoaoca oogua co to c. eunucou .ou..>=a .0 up. og— mac..gadu .u .< mumzuuuc zo_m=umm=m ..»=.aa as» uc.>.a .na -_u=_ca acaun.mna Lo Lacuna“ as. »: u_o. as ___x “acute: ac. nacooauu .uo_:c u=_u__:a ac.aaoca so. =o>mo ace aa=_oa "muaaz ¢z_aa_=m __ >¢c¢upmucaaam «.n.mmoa .uuaucou “cocoa “uneduco some to» =o>_a ma cu mu:_oa Amy mmcgp .=o_m=mam=m ace AMV mmczu a m. cmumm mmemuuo spam .co.m:mamzm >au Amy macs“ a m. mmcmbmo vacuum .ms_u amt.» Homecou “cocoa __u:: =o_m=mam:m .uuaucou acmcmn ”mmcmcco spam Lac =m>vm an o“ mu:.oa Amv “gm.“ .ma:_oa mc.>_o comcma >n umuuaucou ma ___3 mucmcaa mzo~hu=~ ca use: __=» L=o> w>_a a» mczp_a~ mg» "~_om ampucmo_ cu pomauaa v-— ..aa.u=.ga ugu ecu conga; was» do copmm_5coa on“ uaosu_3 «Logan Lo aucmqoca as» La =o_mmommoa m=_xau >_umo=ozm.u we you ask ”uuugp.auuom v-— ..aa_u=.aa m=.a__=a «ea ca =o_mm_=:ma uaogupz .poozum easy use cu m:_oa N m. “amend“ a a_.;: to .>ucmaoca _oc=um ea m:_o> Lo mcvgu>ea Lo aucos :occca ou >5“ co =3occon: o» m=_m:m4 Lo «zap mgu umcwaoa aw ”— umm.3occom uo~_co;u=a== .man .oogum a so xucmaoca .oozum :o to :. muuauocq ouuaaou Lo :o_mmmmmo¢ .N .__aum soocummc act; m:_sou to .man —oogum a co m aucchcq poonum co co :. uxoam m:._ag -xa cc gouacam.u uau;a__ a La =o_mmmmmom .— .mc—xgm .mccaocm .oogum Lo m=_vp_:a «ea :. uuvcum.a .oozum m=_m=ua as“ mo Aqua .mco>_cu man can app: _a_cmuoeuu .mca.ucamau .ma.caumcuom .mcmsuuo. .mcouacum.=_suav Luau“ .oogum >3 amused; u_na=am -amc a use zccou Lo .zo_—ou .aonc cu uca__u~ ugh "=o_ua:_ucoaam=_ m-— .a mumzumuo zo_mzmmm=m 1'76 .cm_._.e= .ems.caaac oo_.oa a:_m=a4 as. we: co_m=mam:m >4 m=_n__:c as“ soc. _a>oEm¢ Sua.:ou “emcee ..oozUm sac. conconam an ___2 mzm\mz .umacum as. :_ m:.¥_az to. ou__oa mg. >a Huxo_. a =m>.a m. acmnzum a ._ 1.90.2509 acmgaa .uouucou “cocoa uuoucou “cocoa uuoucoo “cocoa mzo—puzmuz_ o:_ed_=m ma wmaa .m:o_»acuu=asou moo:.uc. «.s. m_aa.u:.ca oc.u__=a on. be co.aa~.coga:. .=o=._: accooca .oogum ca_=ooc as. .o :o.uq:ca_u an. e. “.nmuc ugm_e =u.g: o=.umoaoca co gun a;— "meo.uacuucoEoc co «amouoca aeuuaam eu~.cogu:o== .ma_=u. u=_>_a>=. .xacoqocq .oogua so La :— mucaamoo o>_m=obca co .nacauauacazu .mocauu_a .gcoc euuu.cz_go .oaco> :. owaaucu. o>.m=o..o »_.au.eguo co acacoca .ocouuao oe.u= co cu. ugh "co—>ugoa Lo «magmas; «cognac co o>_m:a< .a.cc.t. as. aa.aac ac. coat us. ca as.“ we. cca x.a: u_=o=m macovaam .a¥_ozuu_m a: «La «Luz. .— .mx_a:mu.m ace «toga cosocugz m¥_a2~u_» 0:. co ¥_ax “use mucueaam ._oo=un eat. can a. a=_oo c. "uaagam og— :— «e.g.az .¥_.=aa.m to __.= . a=_.ua_a co soocumoc a c. ac_uuu_.ou mucous.“ on e.go: mo_a5axu .uuemuaam cuguo cu amen Lo >u.._ua. as. to am: .95coc >=ou cu "ecu. gu_g: o=.u__:a as. acapca Le a. u:.coa=__ Lo o=.uuo__cu Lo .ua o:— "a=.co..oa .ca.nm_3cma “nogu.z eoocumapu o=.>~od Au .xou .oozun as. “a couc..2uc oz. Lac :o.«m.acoa .aogu.: mc.u..:n as“ o=_>.od .n .noan._u 00 on up: «can “an sucoaocq _oo:un co to o:_u_.:a .oosua as» :. u=_o5mc acmuaau 0:. «cos: aucomaa >_c:oz .. .o:_u_.:a as. o:;>ou. caucus uu_.co u.=__u .ooguu agu «a «no gonzo “as: gene -=am mg. .mcaog .oozuu o:.c=u m=_u_.:a as. o>.u_ o. co_mm_ecoa Heated 0).: “was “coca.“ < .oe_a be uo_coq >=a to. .aozum a. 9:.om do: Lo .u. as» ">ucaac— mumzumuc zo_mzumm=m 14 1'77 .uuaueou peace; __a:: :mxau ma >ae mam._ .uuaucou “coca; .gooucou “amend .uuaucou acute; .auoacoo “cocoa .co.u_u:ou u_aom= op =o_uucoummc co c_uamc .ucoEouapqoc 5o “mod to. co.u:u.umuc "_ua_u=_ca ueoum_mma as“ ho :o.aucum.u as. an =o_mchm:m .eo.a.ccoo o_nam: o9 co.uoco.mmc Lo .c_aquc .ucuano—aoc Lo “mod to. «acute; >3 :o_u=a_amo¢ .uuoacou acmgca umzo_hg~_a.oqau .ucovccuoc mama .mofluac .uusao u.=ocuuo_o oz "mach a “pace .o=.coa_o_ a: nu.) - .oogum cu a_uuoc_u «sou —__x >onu pea: o>oa_ aucuuaum gas; “as. vouuuaxo ou_u a. a. .35: :o u. 3.3%.... 2: so 525.. 3:: 2&2. >.coaoca .oozum co uo>_cca an; “aqua.“ a once uxucomoca .oozum :o a=.=.a5o¢ ..oogum spec can a“ >ucmacca mua>_cq to >ucuqoca .oogun co oc.gauu__ be you asp "ac—cm.a_a .co_mm_eLoq “:o;._z coca nouoca_m~c== ea c. u=.u¢ ”auc< nouacm_muc=: .xacoaocq Anvcomcua caguo La ecocgaon a m:.u~2ou >_o>.n:uuxu "Loan: an .meomcoa cacao co .oogu» on“ o. me.o:o_ -mo ..uuo .ueosa.:ao .uu_.qa:u .nxooa o:_oa5ou co mcvuocou .m__o: co oc.a_cz "soc—z A» usucuaocq .aeomcoa co\u=a .oogum Lo o=.aasau uuacoa._ou og— "sm__au=~> .>u_>.uua eucomech .oogun ago so .oonum o.ue.: ouac spec cc cu ac.oo .uo mom—soc: as“ so uucoeaum .m=_ama ou=a_o_> co coco. on: cu a=.=ouoocgp "memo; o» «co—uae.3..c_ mumzuumc =c_mzwmm:m 15 uC OucL 1f78 .uuaucou usage; .mucmcoueou Hedda; __u:= :o.m=QO=m .uuaucou acute; .uuuucou gauge; m2¢-uxm as“ Lo>a mmocu “was >mzp .x_az>aa go: umzs xmga .sm m: mmocu >ozu can .oo39m seed to ca mcpoa m. acoeaum a can: .au=a=.uco mmaqmogp m=_m=a4 Lo >u_u we“ be :o_uu_o_> a a. uemczum a no uu__occo go: ago no» 5. .oozum >ca Lo augaaoca as“ ea ea c» "a=_mmommocp .eo~_co:a:a ac: once ea c. an cu “.sch as“ mm: cage ecu u_e.oa a =.aunc »_=:oa Lo om:m_= .mEm_aocn Loguo oaaocu cc mu.:a—_ _—_am .uco5a_:au :. “gazed “mm up: on mango sock mm>oo—m uagu on acme -mc_:cmc xumfiam a m_ m.;p .mm~_u >Louacoaa_ segue ace co uc< .muc< _a_cum:u=_ .mu.sccoum «so: .mmuco.um >=a :_ ego: an o“ go: new u:_x >=o Lo mucmscam gauze “saw—Emu Luuza .p mumzmmmo zo_mzmmm=m 1'79 .o>ccc an chm .o>ccc we cecm .c>ccc we cscm .c>ccc me cscm .uecccum >9 mace cc_cecc cc cu etc. “cocoa cecc_ce_ cc __cc cecec >c ec_cccvc_ace “emcee .cecccum >c mace cc_eecc an o» sec. ueccca cemc.ce_ cc __cc cecec >c “emcee cc ec_cc -ec..ecc eceu mec_cmeecc a ca .ccecccc cc mce_cc oe_eo_mmc cu ec_ca accuecc “emcee .c>cac no ascm .ueoccam ma mace cc.cecu cc cu etc“ uecccz ueccvce_ cc __cu mecca >c ec.ccu_u.uce “emcee zmx

. coca .ce.ecec. .mc cccm cea mxccc me.mcecc mcceuc .c >aec N . .cemmccc "Mecca .m__c: ec oe_u.c: we gone uoeecc cce.z I ">cccecce _cecmcce cc pccecm c» nausea Lce.s .c N .u:cec>c >pu>_mmouxu we. age» ape—Luann >ccea_4 "m_c_ecuc= >ecLe—4 occec>a .m .cececccccc ec_uccccu .cc_mxem use an cce.>ccc _ eccc_e: Loecc— a ecu: cu me_mabog cec «ma—u Ema cc. mmccc cu maeac_u eccccc we“ me.>ce ucz coaucusuo acuuuxsm ecu cacao cu unaduam .u N._ .xccz cue—came «ea on so mac—c e. cuec_c_uece cu oe.meuce »—.=c_..= .xuoz cacao on ya: can .a .m—_cecc oe.cc_ue. ~-_ .mmc_c c ecu mm..cccm Locccc oeu oe.me.ee .cz "mac—u cu mc__amcm we.co cu occ__cm .u .x_cz a cue“ cognac _ coca a cc m_pce on“ eaccceu >_xu.:c u>cs ch Hue—eecz .a _ .._cc xcecu ceu 5c ae_ce=cm me“ an sccc me“ e. an cu oe.__cc 5c up. cep unmoe_ecc~ .< m_=_oe mumzmmuo zo_hzmpuo ._ccecm ecec cccecemcm me.cc ece. ece.ec ec_cecdcc eecccecm me_cecucc >c mec_uca._cc ce._c_cm.c L_cec c_uucm >ce mec_uceece_ ae_3c__cc cec cc. mce_ce cam—cecccc ces mcecccum "muczz uz_oc_=a 17 180 APPENDIX H GARDNER CODE OF CONDUCT 1£31 umwncn flLUUbt. aunuuu Viabiruluu hue-It'- INFRACTION Abusive Language: Disorderly and/or _. Disruptive Behavior: Level 1 Level 2 c . pea-3 . Code *0. Sighting “ L‘V9$.1- Level 2 Level 3 *B. Firecrackers. Smoke Bombs. Etc. F. Forgery 6. Gambling 3. Insubordination I. Littering J. Petty Theft K. Tardiness *L. Unauthorized Distribution of Printed Materials,“ H. Unauthorized Presence N. Unauthorized Student Protest *0. Vandalism: Minor Major *P. Possession of Tobacco *0. Use of Tobacco R. Failure to Bring Materials to Class *District-Hide Infractions **ALL PARENT CONTACT SHOULD BE “ADE BY rumour. PENALTY ACTION TO BE TAKEN' 3 Points Parent contact is necessary if more than 3 ; points are assigned. . (Preferably by telephone) 3 Points 6 Points See complete descriptions _ ' and definitionscinside., Put on appropriate ' ' 7‘”" attire. C 3yPoints Suspension ,Suspension Suspension .3 Points 3 Points 3 Points 3 Points Suspension See Tardy Procedure 3 Points 3 Points Suspension 3 Points 6 Points 3 Points Suspension until Conference Teacher Action: (a) Tell student. (b) Con- tact parent. (c) Grades a Citizenship lowered. Counselor Action: (a) Referred to counselor by teacher. (b) Counselor/Student Conference. Asst. Principal Action:'(a) Parent contact. (b) Points assigned. 1-3 s 4. s. I? AFTER SEVERAL**' AIIEHPTS I! PRONE FAILS, THE INCIDENT REPORTLSROULD BE HAILED AND THE COUNSI103.NOTIIIED THAI PEONB.GDNIACT WAS NOT MADE. 182 Introduction to Building and District-Hide Rules . '0 Discipline. combined with due process. shall be administered in a consistent. fair. and reasonable manner throughout the Lansing School District to insure that students conduct themselves in a socially acceptable manner while in school. on school pro- . petty. on school buses. or traveling to and from school. Its primary purpose is to' help students adjust to standards and structures they may encounter in community life. as well as in school. ' Parents are responsible for the conduct of their Students. Students unable or unwilling to conform to provisions of this Code shall be subject‘ to suspension or expulsion and shall have the right to appeal any disciplinary ac- tion taken against them by school authorities. The following pages of this supplement contain the rules which have been set up to make sure that every student of Gardner Middle School is able to enjoy the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by the Board of Education of the Lansing School DiStrict and to provide a school setting in which all students have equal oppor- tunity to receive quality education necessary to prepare them for future life in democratic American society. The rules of this Code of Conduct are in force when Gardner Students are in school or on school property. to and from school. when riding school buses and when at athletic games. dances. parties. field trips or any other activity put on by the school. in addition to setting forth the penalties for breaking of rules. expla- nation of how to earn cancellation of penalties from the record. rules covering search of students and student's lockers and the method students and their parents may use to make an appeal of any penalty if they think the Students' rights have been denied or that the students have not been treated fairly are lisced. The Lansing School District Code of Student Conduct includes rules and regulations for safe school bus conduct. 1E33 .oouecemese ecu no Aevucoumn ecu ensued and: och unequcaum Demands». cm an east Anv nous» wow sentences as due: euuusmuu ecu mo ouoa uo.oco .moceuouu.n« conunmaueu>cu or» our: .emea mode: cu usage are no comes» Wuueepnu 1e saws: can; acne on has eunuzmum .eucuom mouomqeee spends .an oven uueucou unseen use. vecmuens euruom e O . 0 reumcmmmpm eunuch n .ovou manna ovum caduceus new i nuance ounuunounne no use .oocouuumou acumen Hugs: menopause no mucuom n .eouuusquue doocuniucuue wouuym.ou.ence ea neuron or dad: anemone or» cons sea eueo>e doosueiuouue an uoa>ncuonqz .eucqom acucuueee scenes as eons uueucou uceusm one macaques eucuom .eucqom newsman-e common so some uueucou acumen one. communes eucuom nausea as ou cowuu< anecoe c aseaoe n nucuom n Nuuocom .aoocun oaoc ecu magenusa. «cocoa or» cars“: morgue pounce; on dads cuxonm cos: m . :n. mnoo UZmQJuan .uuo .ucuuunowa .nsoua anatomy .mcquuus “N ~o>oa .usmwuhs . venue; he: soars mou>o£n no nous-om “u uo>ea neasecsa ovoo ensue .aDwomoum deacon so no mcueauoa 0:» cu uuuuuoqowm weaponry .uueue o» consume» an comma .nxuneuu «ounces-enema .unueeco xuuucomu ou arduous: "u ~u>oa .uue .ueoe macaques cu acumen. uoc «ocean c« mchaeu bson ucoooeuu ”a nosea .o>«umsun«r no announces ea cones couuq>uuue «ensue us .uoocue cu uou>egoaeux uuo«>ocum e>uumsueqm woxvme announced: .ADuemowm Hoocue so no cu compared o>uncouuo no acouomcu .ecsuowm .oaueppe mc«e= ”unmanned ea«-sa< enquueuuou .a .0 .< up cuoueuunacqeve as» as no enema use» saga ounce one roux escapee need as» one endow emu» mouuuasn 1I34 .uonuucqum ucmueunme on as couucomnse may no vuuuuuoc Anvucoumm .uuco icoucou unseen Huge: Hoozun Ecru councocasm .eucuom «cinnamon cannon an evm6.uunwcoo accuse one vacuumed eucuom .mu:.c; azuzwumrc comes; so some Dungeon genome rem cozw.mmm mucus; .nueaoc wrucwunnn coerce so some uuoucow unseen one vocmqnmm nucaom .nucqoc acucwunnm romeo; an omen uumucou common one mozwunmm condom .euu«>uom sternum on rescue in:n.uo .coueconnsn org .0 Anvucuuen ecu abound uaus or: donmucqun ucmumummm cm x; name any oeucu Lou quorum so». councenmsm coxmh o; o. coluu< .Puu . — eoanecemsm . .nuocuo no synonoue mead-sum steep Assoc. .c .AULumosm «cocoa co .uuo .Oueea .uenem .cnenu nus—cm n .cnuccsu acqunuueun so weaponry aneueuocuuuo . . ; ucuuuguaa .u .uDu .euuxuoz n.uoco_cu unencucon .nousmaonuon .uuu>_um ms; .nnoumuunucaemn .muecumuu an monsoon. a.:_:e m odcnzonmou uso Apnea no .auno on arduous: eouuecaonoosncu .= .uno~ no cos on an: modems—c> no aucoe suds: :« neon xce seamed: moc_om n no .ncuou mcqzuuoa no unusuumm .ucuuuon , ... $2.... «5255 .c .. . . _ .. .soaeu. cu can: .090 .auuoc .niuou co couuseuoucu Lasso no .noaaoucce .nooeum .cou-c .nusuu. meqmcecu no couneueuun n.eoeuom “ecu onerous muewoe n cocoon seasons as oeec.u£u acuumua no mean: .. auumuom .m :o_ncoem:m .ueumnnu .wc«-oo .mcuapc .ucuxuuuu .ucuusnuu .UDN..mchm 0x02m .musxuauuuuuh .u Noamcum scuuuouucu 1(35 .mmcuummn on ad“: muzuom .mewxee eucsouu ecu cu use; neuxou eueevsue uo Aevucuusm aubucd aqua or: .dnmuuoqum aceu ieueno so an couummuueu>cu ecu up couuuueeou com: codenamepe noxvee acoeuuemom ouuaom mounts; on» o» «spoons» cardamom .co«uem iaunn>cu neurone ”sandman ecu scum qm>OEoz .auovuu can sou muwo->uum use up menu oqavmnom .uucucou uceunm .noocuucou cocoons; conuuocusnc: «a mucououcoo Deanna «due: oceansm an ? " museums auquoz Am .muc«om.mcucw«nnc cocoon as some uumucou unseen one mucwumnm nucuom .., .u onscuucum amuse new .rfi. Evy—Oh. 0; OH COuuU< .qoocun an econuon uncuo no uuuuunwv dengue can on nucoaoc some: ..uuo .auonOLm .ucosmusoo .msuqmmsm .nxoon .muuma acummemc no .so ucuuuu) as soon .xuuueoum Announce no doocue no mcuueuoo no wcuxonunuo .wcummEmo aunsou0u~ms are aqueouopuuua “anuaaoce> . .Ioumoum noocue weusmou ecu no oouumownqm cu monsoon couch mason» no eueomu>umcw >3 codeeuauem coqmcocnsm e.gnnuucmsn mcuvawoc ecu upocuua mcuueeuoum umououm acuvoum vuwuuocusec= . . .uoocun an acu>uuus segue coumcqanom opossum announce goocum wcd>no4.:“>uunmoum uoocom cc .uwmc sowou.ocu up mcqwcuu use nouns amorous n saga“: eooumnmuu use an .acuup uoz. .mmhh.b-1> o usosuqs euros unnuu meuupv ”reasons macaques urqnuso .ncm«20um doozun co mouse Handmade: on cordon n eucueoum conquosuseez .qecqucuum mefimwusc ecu an museums: no: ascsom n ndnuouume courage mcuueom Lo acuuocuuumum . . .nd-«noun: ouucuum no endureduuuua venuuosuseca .-oc honey or» no acumcuu use us.suue permanee as no use. e c« on on masquem mascara-H Nuance; couuueuucu .2 186 .. .wa<: Hoz m<3 Huwm zmhk< mu .uzo:mmauh »n mo«uue mononcomn.~oo:ua on ~qus eouuoe unusofidou ecu .cowuqrvc an no .nonpn accrue .auuomoum doocun so cu .co«uunuucq cone sou macaques nucuom nucuom n no on show are c« pounce» no couceenaom ouuecoh no someone-om .m . .couuqucOu moon cu gums u:m_auwrmcum remnant ecu cease; so upon one . .mcuuuemeu no acquoueeu no. Anvucouen no Anvucocsue ecu an.ucusaem ocoauo reunion sq auuemoum an . "uofie: .muofiam or» reason oz: Anvucupsuo use as couuuocou room cu xuec sensuous .oxums quorum scum-we use comment ecu unauusm no Cancun .csiceodu :usn .ouuounos on can mahoganm u- . "hora: .u.cou "Enuasmcn> _ coach no no couuu< Nuance; toque-nucu 187 IARDY PROCEDURE The following procedure will be used for cardiac to class 1. and unexcused tardies to school. Teachers will use white tardy slips to recdrd tardies. White slips sent to office and recorded in folder. After 5 tardies. parent will be notified by phone or letter (handled in offices). Five (5) more tardies will require a parent conference before returning to school. 'Five (5) additional tardies will result in a suspension by assistant principal. (1-3 days or after school detention.) Twenty school day cancellation for tardies. same as discipline points. 8/88 188 LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT GARDNER MIDDLE SCHOOL 333 Dahlia Drive Lansing. Hichigan 489ll DAVID C. DIEDRICH Principal Dear Parents. To maintain and assure safety in the locker room area. a procedure of Improper Locker-room Behavior has been initiated. This has been done because of the number of students using the locker room per hour. We will have about 150 students per hour using the locker room from as many as four different classes. Any student who disobeys the following rules will be assigned 3 points for Improper Locker-room Behavior; 1. No running in the Physical Education halls or locker room. 2. No pulling any student into a locker room of another sex. 3. No raising ones voice louder than a normal conversation level in the hallways or locker room area. 4. No snapping of towels. 5. No leaving of the locker room area before the passing ball. 6. No making of sounds like the passing bell to disrupt the locker room. 7. No swearing or improper language. 8. No horseplay of any kind. 9. No sitting on or pounding on the lockers. 10. No loitering in the hallway between locker room and gym. ll. No pounding or kicking of the locker room or gym doors. 12. No taking of physical education locks out of the locker room. 13. Students must be sitting down on the benches in the locker room after getting dressed. 16. No sharing of baskets or lockers. 15. No writing on benches. walls. or lockers. 16. No glass containers in locker room. Physical Education Department Gardner Middle School 1£39 CLASSROOM OR BUILDING SUSPENSIONS Building Suspensions Rules have been set up to make sure that every student of Gardner Middle School'is' able to enjoy the rights and responsibilities guaranteed by the Board of Education of the Lansing School District and to provide a school setting in which all stu- dents have equal opportunity to receive quality education necessary to prepare them for future life in democratic American society. Students who repeatedly interfere with the learning of other students. disturb the classroom or disrupt teaching may be temporarily suspended from the classroom by the teacher in charge. In addition to bding suspended for breaking a rule which calls specifically for suspension. students who repeatedly break rules which call for assignment of points may be suspended from the building when they have collected point totals as follows: a. Ten (10) points: (Level I): Suspension from the building until conferences between the assistant principal who makes the suspension and students' parent(s) are held to discuss their behavior and the conditions for their return to school. b. Ten (10) points after returning from Level 1 suspension: (Level II): Suspension from the building for three (3) days. when students return. an educational conference may be held if desired by the students' classroom teachers; a copy of students' incident record will be available to counselors if needed. c. Six (6) points after returning from Level II suspension: (Level III): Suspension for anorher 3 days or may be suspended to the office of the Director of Student Services of the Lansing School District. lf returned. students will be readmitted at beginning of Level II. Each time students are suspended from a classroom or from the building. they will be given the opportunity to tell their side of the story (in writing for filing with the record if they wish). They will be told the reason for the suspension. the length of the suspension. and told of their right to appeal the suspension. The students' parents will be supplied the same information (before the student leaves the building during school hours) with written follow-up as soon as possible. Building suspensions will not usually last more than three (3) days: however. suspen- sions from the building may be extended for three (3) more days if cooperation or Other satisfactory conditions for return can not be worked out with the students or parents. If the conditions for returning to school are not worked out'by the end of the three (3) day extension. the case will then be sent to the Director of Student Services. ' 190 CLASSROOM OR BUILDING SUSPENSIONS - CONT'D. PENALTY (POINT) CANCELLATION In addition to collecting points. it is possible for students to remove points from the record by good behavior. Upon expiration of 20 school days. points assigned for an infraction of rules set forth in this code will be cancelled. SEARCH PROCEDURES The following procedure will be used if there is good reason to believe Students have illegal material in their possession. Illegal terms include such things as drugs. alcohol, weapons. fire crackers, dangerous or forbidden material or goods stolen from the school or from members of the.staff or student body. a. Students will be called in or taken to the privacy of the principal's or an assistant principal's office and asked to submit to a search. The search will be made by a school administrator or by someone appointed by an administrator to make the search. b. If students will not consent to being search. the parent(s) will be contacted and asked to come to the building and co- operate in resolving the probelms. or to remove the student until a solution can be worked out. c. If there is good reason to believe that students' lockers contain illegal materials. the lockers may be searched by the building principal. assistant principals. or by some- one appointed by them to make the search. If the findings of the search discloses illegal materials. the student will be dealt with under the rules of this Code of Conduct. or reported to the Lansing Police Department. STUDENT APPEALS If students or their parent(s) feel that the students' rights have been denied them. or that they have not been treated justly or in accordance with due pro- cess. the students or their parent(s) may appeal any action taken. punishment or penalty received under this code by writing a note or message to the admin- istrator who imposed the penalty. A further appeal shall be made to the ' building principal. District appeal procedures are outlined in the "Lansing School District's Code of Conduct" given to parents along with Gardner's Code of Conduct. 191 ROOM SUSPENSIONS when behavipr is severe enough to remove a student from a classroom situation. the following will occur: 1. Parents will be notified. by phone if possible. (otherwise a letter for parents to sign will be sent home with the student). The sending teacher should also follow with a parent call. Pointsnshould be issued in accordance with the conduct code. If a student receives more than one room suspension within the same day. the student will be suspended until a parent conference is held with the assistant principal. - - . A room suspension will be for the day issued ONLY. (Form sample-following page) A note indicating action taken will be sent to the teacher. (See sample form below) CLASSROOH SUSPENSION REPORT Student Teacher Hour Action Taken ____?upil verbally corrected .____Counselor referral Parent contacted _phone _letter Parent conference set: Student/Teacher conference Suspended for - days Teacher should issue points . - AssistantAPrincipal 192 CAFETERIA AND NOON ROUR RULES ‘flhile using the cafeteria. students are asked to observe the following general rules of good behavior and courtesy. 1. Students must wait in line to enter the cafeteria. and must sit at a table until finished eating. when they have finished eating. or if they do not eat. students may go directly to the open gymnasium for activities. Please do not crowd in line. Have your money ready. the exact change if possible. and wait your turn. Students are required to return their trays. dishes. milk cartons. and paper or food scraps to the clean-up area. LEAVE THE TABLE AND FLOOR CLEAN. Replace your chair in the proper position. No food is to be taken from the lunchroom. Whether in the lunchroom or in the gym area. take no part in rowdiness. Students go directly to the gymnasium. using the side door only. If students go to the gym. they may not return to the lunchroom. No students will be allowed out of the gym. Students should not leave the lunchroom the last 10 minutes of the lunch mod. When the end of the lunch module is signaled. move quickly and quietly to your proper classroom. All rules concerning tardiness will be observed. Students who are not in line. in the cafeteria. or in the gym when the tardy bell rings will be assigned 3 points for unauthorized presence. Students are not allowed to leave the building for lunch. 193 SCHOOL HIDE CLASSROOM RULES These rules are to be school wide: and followed in each classroom. You may as a teacher feel it necessary to have additional rules for your particular classroom situation or expectations. Please list any additional rules below. Classroom rules must be consistent with Gardner Middle School Discipline Code. TO THE STUDENT 1. You are to be in your seat'and ready to work when the bell rings. a) to be in your seat and quiet; b) pencils are to be sharpened; c) books. paper and pencil are to be out and ready for work. 2. You should have with you. when you arrive at each class. all of the materials you need for that class: a) a pen or pencil; b) a book; . c) paper or folder or notebook; , . d) activity supplies such as gym_shoes. 3. You should show respect for and be polite to all people: a) listen while others are talking; b) behave properly when a teacher or substitute is in the room; c) no hitting or fooling around. A. You should obtain permission to speak or leave your seat: a) raising your hand; b) not leaving the class until dismissed. 5. You should respect other's property: a) keep the room neat and clean; b) pick up litter and put it into the wastebasket; c) do not write on desktops; d) return borrowed property. OTHER: It is recommended in order to ensure that the students are aware of and understand the expectations we have of them. we teach these rules to them. have them practice them. and test and monitor them in respect to these rules. 194 APPENDIX I PATTENGILL CODE OF CONDUCT 195 14 PATTENGILL MIDDLE SCHOOL - CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT The intent of disciplinary action is to correct student behavior and to maintain a productive learning environment. This individual building code of student conduct is in addition to School District Policy No. 5114.1. The school district philosophy of discipline. rights and responsibilities of students. regulations for bus conduct. suspension procedures. and discipline infractions are explained in 5114.1 and are considered the primary guidelines for the building procedures. In addition to $114.1. there are procedures which are used at Pattengill. consistent with the philosophy of the specific building. adopted for the purpose of providing a learning environment which will make the educational process as described in items included under Responsibilities and Rights of Students in 5114.1 a reality. Guidelines are clearly explained for district-wide infractions. The building code deals directly with the infractions as enumerated in the section of $114.1 labeled Building Infractions and as are contained in this document. Student records will be kept by teachers and administrators for documentation at each step. Classroom teachers will provide information regarding appropriate classroom behavior to the Students and will work within school and District guidelines to enforce these rules. Methods of enforcement will include the use of verbal and written reprimands. citizenship grades. parent contacts/conferences. detention. referral to a building administrator. and classroom suspension during the class hour to the office. Building administrators may also impose building suspension. require restitution of property. or suspend to the Student Services Office. Specific policies and regulations for the lunch period. school supplies. hall lockers. absences (including truancy). tardiness. school conduct. personal manners and behavior. and dress are distributed to students at the time of enrollment. This material is included in the document titled: Information About Pattengill. and is considered a part of this building code. Students are'also provided with a copy of Policy and Regulation No. 5114.1 a copy of definitions of building infractions and disciplinary procedures at this time. 196 15 Once an infraction falling within the category of Building Infractions has come to the attention of the school administration. certain procedures will be followed. While these procedural steps are generally sequential in nature. it should be understood that not all steps need be taken in every case. The severity of the disciplinary action will be based upon the nature and frequency of the infraction and the impact upon the total learning environment including safety conditions. 1. Conference with involved party or parties to get the facts from all viewpoints. Conference may be joint with those involved. 2. When the matter is first referred to the administrator. and the alleged violation is of such a serious nature that the administrator determines that the situation would be handled more effectively by a law enforcement agency. then he/she shall report the matter to the Lansing Policy Department or to the Fire Department, as appropriate. When such a report is made. the parents of all pupils accused of the violation shall be notified as soon as possible. 3. If there is a claim that property was taken, an attempt to locate items will be made. 4. If property has been destroyed, a report of the damage will be made and parents will be notified of the amount due for repair or replacement. 5. Notify parents. 6. Request parents or guardian to contact the school at the earliest convenient time to discuss the situation in detail. 7. In cases where suspension is the most appropriate action. suspensions shall be made by the principal or the assistant principal in accordance with procedures set forth in 5114.1. Referral to the Student Services Office or suspension for tardiness will be until a parent conference is held. Suspension for other Building Code violations will be for a period of one to ’three days and a parent conference may be required prior to readmission. Before his/her readmission it will be necessary for the student to agree to make every effort not to repeat the offense and for the parent or guardian to express support of the student‘s agreement to correct behavior. when the situation remains unresolved. the suspension may be extended for up to three additional days. If still unresolved. it 197 16 will be referred to the Student Services Office for disciplinary action. In cases which are either repetitive or severe with regard to endangering the learning environment. students will be suspended to the Student Services Office for disciplinary action. 8. Any suspension may be appealed by the parent or guardian of the pupil involved. The parent or guardian will be notified of his/her right to such appeal and of the procedure to follow. APPEAL PROCEDURES Students. parents. guardians. or school district employees wishing to file an appeal on any matter related to the implementation of this Code shall within five days of the action state the nature of the appeal in writing. including references to specific sections of the Code which relate to the situation and file the statement with the administrator who imposed the penalty. After having received the request for appeal. the administration shall: Level 1 - Within five days. discuss the appeal with all parties present who will be affected by his/her disposition of the matter. he/she may give his/her disposition orally to the appealing party. Level 2 - If the appeal is not resolved to the satisfaction of the appealing party at Level 1. the appeal may be referred to the building principal. Level 3 - If the appeal is not resolved to the satisfaction of the appealing party at Level 2. the statement of appeal and the principal's written statement of disposition shall be forwarded to the Director of Student Services. Level 4 - If the appeal is not resolved satisfactorily at Level 3. the appealing party may appeal the decision through the District-wide procedures as outlined in 5114.1. DISTRICT-WIDE INFRACTIONS ARE DEFINED IN THE LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CODE OF STUDENT CONDUCT POLICY NO. 5114-1. 198 1? DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING INERACTIONS 10. ll. Definitions of the infractions are as follows: asusws on osscrur LANGUAGE: Using verbally obscene. profane. or ethnically offensive language; possessing obscene materials: or performing offensive gestures or acts. CAPE INERACTIONS: Cutting into line. failure to clean up the eating area including trays and waste items. excessive noise and/or horseplay. and failure to obey staff directions in the lunch area. DISORDERLY CONDUCT: Any conduct in or around the building. including the classroom. which is dangerous or disruptive. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY SELF: The failure to give one‘s full name upon request to any employee of the Lansing School District in or on school property. FORGERY: Using or writing the name of another person for purposes of gain or falsifying times. dates. grades. addresses. or other information. INSUBORDINATION: The failure to obey. comply with. or carry out a reasonable request from any school personnel (administrators. teachers. secretaries. custodians. cafeteria. and/or security staff. aides. or bus drivers). LITTERING: Deliberatelqr throwing or scattering rubbish. trash. paper. waste. etc. on school property or on private property going to or from school. MISUSE OP PERMIT: The act of improperly using school forms for purposes of gain or falsifying times. dates. grades. addresses. or other information on school forms. OUTER GARMENTS (OUTDOOR APPAREL): Wearing or bringing outdoor apparel of any kind to the classroom. PETTY THEFT: Taking or attempting to take possession of the properties of others including school supplies without permission of the owner. POSSESSION OF GAMES AND TOYS: Possession of radios. cameras. tape players/recorders. puzzles. any electronic devices or toys. etc. at school. Any such items picked up will be returned at the end of the semester to students or to parents. 18 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 199 REFUSAL TO STAY FOR DETENTION: Refusing to comply with a disciplinary action taken by a staff member by not appearing as assigned. RUNNING: Moving quickly through the halls at a pace faster than a walk. TARDINESS: Failing to be in the assigned work station. classroom seat. lunchroom. lockerroom. etc. at the proper time. in accordance with the rules of that area. TRUANCY: Unauthorized absence from school for any period of time (see ”Information about Pattengill” for additional attendance information). ' UNAUTHORIZED PRESENCE/LOITERING: Being in or around any area of the building when the student has no legitimate reason to be there; the act of collecting and/or lingering in the school building or on school property without permission of a staff member. OTHER VARIETIES OF MISCONDUCT: Other varieties of ndsconduct deemed offensive or illegal not specified as district-wide infraction i.e.. chewing gum or eating candy; bringing gym bags to non-P.E. classes; writing. passing or reading notes. 2 0'0 19 AUTHORIZED DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR THE BUILDING INFRACTIONS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: Infraction l. 10. 11. Abusive Language Cafe Infractions Disorderly Conduct Failure to ID Oneself to Staff Forgery Imubordination Littering Misuse of Permit Outer Gaments (Outdoor Apparel) Petty Theft Possession of Disciplinag Procedures Verbal/Wri tten Reprimand Detention . Classroan Suspension Building School Suspension Verbal/Wri tten Reprimand Detention Classroan Suspension Written/Verbal Reprimand Detention Class Suspension Building Suspension Verml/Wri tten Reprimand Detention Classroom Suspension Written/Verbal Reprimand Detention Classroan Suspension Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classroan Suspension Building Suspension Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classroom Suspension Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classrotm Suspension Verbal/Wri tten Reprimand Detention Classroan Suspension Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classroau Suspension Restitution on Property Verbl/Wri tten Reprimand Detention -- Classroan Suspemion Parent Contact Parent Contact Parent Contact/ Conference Parmt Contact Patent Contact Parent Contact Parent Contact Parent Contact Parent Cmtact Parent Contact Parent Contact 20 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. kfusal to Stay for Detention Running Tardiness to School/Class 5th tardy to any one class Truancy School/ Classroan Unauthorized Preseace/ loitering Other varieties of Misconduct deened offensive or illegal not specified as a district-wide infraction . i.e. . gum chewing or 201 Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classroom Suspension Building Suspension Verbal/Wri tten Reprimand Detention . Classroan Suspension Detention Building Suspension Student Services Suspension Detention milding Suspension Student Services Suspension vubal/Wri tten Reprimand Detention Verbal/Written Reprimand Detention Classroom Suspension Building Suspension Restitution of Property Student Services Suspension eating candy. writing passing reading notes. bringing gym bags to non-P.E. classes. Parent Contact Parent Contact Parent Contact by office at 3rd tardy to any class Parent Contact Parent Contact Parent Contact 202 APPENDIX J DISTRICT CODE OF CONDUCT 203 - 25 - Policy No. 5114 mmsnnemm FWEIBQWARYWWYW Discipline. common with due process. shall be adm‘nistered in a consistent. fair, and reasonable mr throughout the Lansing School District to insure that students conduct flaemselves in a socially acceptable merrier while in school. on sum] property. on school buses. or traveling to and from school. Its primary purpose ls to help students adjust to standans and structures they may encomter in oommnity life, as well as in school. Parents are mime for the oondxt of their students. Studmts who have renamed the age of la may elect to be mime for their own contact. Students unable or unwilling to conform to provisions of this Code shall be abject to short or long-term Sispersion or‘expulsion. Any student in possession of a gm on school district property shall be abject to both expulsion and prosecution. Stu- dents shall have the right to appeal any disciplinary action taken against them by school authorities. Students moving into the district who have been placed on long—term suspmsion or expelled by another school system for serious offenses. such as assault or posses- sion of a dangerous weapon. will not be considered for enrollment in the Lansing School District for at least one full semester following the effective date of the disciplinary action taken by the other scnool system. The Board authorizes the Su- perintendent to refuse adsittance to any resident student expelled by another school district. The Superintendent shall notify the Board about the disposition of any such case. School district eaeloyees shall be responsible for- enfonclng the provisions of this Code and its accoapanying Aasinistrat‘ive Regulation. In doing so. they shall have the right to use that wt or physical force and/or restraint on the person of a student necessary to pnotect the persons and property for which they are respon- sible. Spank-ing of students and other forms of corporal pmisrment shall be prohibited. All school district esployess shall also have the right to sign a police coupla'int for any violation of their personal or preperty rights which comes while they are adlinistering this Code. The school district shall maintain worship of all student lockers. The use of lockers to store illegal or dangerous materials shall be prohibited. and the sdaool district reserves the r1911: to search lockers mendever there is reasonable cause to believe suds items may be located therein. Copies of this Code shall be distributed to district euployees. studmns. and parents at the begimr‘ng of each school year. The Suaerintendmrt of Sdmols shall be resaorrsible for developing Ware regilat‘lais to lmlaent this policy. Footwote: Wt this-policy, the tens “parents" shall be interpreted to in- clude ”legal mardians.“ 5-23-57 W sad: 9- 2-82 Adopted: mud: 2-13-69 7-17-86 3-19-70 1- 7-88 : 8-16-73 7-21-88 Ammded: 10- 2-75 204 -26- Administrative Regulation No. 51M @6me FGIELBB'TARYNDWYW gggxgzg 1mg AM) m The home school shall be responSible for disciplining students who violate pro- visions of this Code while on sdiool property. on the premises of another school. riding a school district U.S. or traveling to and from school. Disciplinary in- fractions are separated into two categories: Building Infractions and District-wide Infractions. all 1:11 By October l of each year. individual schools shall develop procedures for handling disciplinary infractions following the involvement of building staff mothers and parents. Secondary students shall have a voice in the development of middle school and high school building codes. Principals shall be responsible for insuring that parmtsmdsecmdarysnmitshavemopportmitytoreviewmcmmtmmme building codes before they are finalized. Building procedures must include: l. A definition of each infraction. including lmdrrpom violations 2. A list of authorized disciplinary actions for infractions 3. Preceares for documentation 4. Appeal procecmres at the building and district-wide levels Building codes lust be consistent with Board policies and the district-wide Code of Stment Conant. These codes shall be filed with the Student Services Office by W l of each year for review and modification. if needed. Copies of the build- ing discipline code and procedures shall be furnished to students and parents. Following are exarmles of the types of infractions which shall be included within this category: - Abusive language - Disorderly cornact - Disrespect for safety patrols - Failure to identify case" to staff - Forgery - Insmordinatiori - Littering - Petty theft -Possession of gates and toys (mless brought to school for a classroom pre- saitatiai) Footnote: Througiout this regulation. the term 'pamts" shall be interpreted to include “legal guardians.“ 205 -27- Tardiness to school and to class Truancy from school and single class periods unauthorized presence/loitering Other varieties of misconcnct deemed offensive or illegal. not specified as a district-wide infraction Definitions of these infractions appear in the appendix to this Code. It is also expected that students shall obey classroa and school rules identified in this Code. In addition. students shall calmly with library and lunchroom regula- tions and correlate assigned detentions. Failure to do so shall be classified as in- subordination. ' The intent of disciplinary action is to correct stuient behavior and to maintain a proactive learning anviroment. The severity of the disciplinary action shall duvet! upon the nature and frequmcy of infractions. Exuples of authorized dis- CTPHnary action for building infractions shall include: - Verbal or writtai raprimmds by teadier's Parent cmtact/conference Detention Classroom mien Referral to in-school suspension room for secondary studants milding alternative program such as Saturday school Building susnersion — Restitution of - Suspa'sion to Student Services Office In cases of conflict between the building and district-wide codes. the district Code shall take precedence. District-with [Mia :ertain offenses are so serious in nature that they are considered to be district- wide infractions and that be reported and/or referred to the Student Services Office and. if deemed necessary. to the Special Services Department and/or the appropriate law anforculmnt agency. Following are exaIples of the types of infractiorns included within this category: Arson Assault/threats - Halicious destruction - Phlesting — mscune and/or lead behavior - Persistent misbehavior - Sale. possession. aid/or use of weapons or incendiary «vices - Sale. Lse. possession. or distribution of legal or illegal drugs. materials. cigarettes. tm sxbstances. or alcoholic beverages - Violations of city. state. and federal ordinances Definitions of these infractions appear in the appendix to this Code. 206 -23- The authorized disciplinary acticrn for district-wide infractions shall be a l to 3- day suspension. Depending upon the nature and severity of .the offense. are or more of the following may also be imosed: - Suspension to Student Services Office - Transfer to another school or alternative program - Long-term suspension (more than 10 days) - Handatory professional counseling - Reduction of student's scheme - Expulsion from the school district by the Board of Education DISTRICT ARE m g; Students have the responsibility. in conjunction with their parents. to dress them- selves in a merner that (hes not disturb the educational opportunities of other stu- dents. Nothing may be worn that. in the Judgnernt of the building aministrator. detracts from the echcational process by directing attention away from the learning activity and focusing it on the wearer. The student and the student's apparel shall be neat and clean and conform to health and safety rules. Footwear must be worn. Shorts or athletic shorts. halters. bare nidriffs. or other revealing and inappropriate attire shall be unacceptable. with the exceptien of students in grades K-5 for whom shorts are acceptable. Non-prescription sunglasses. coats. Jackets. hats. arnd other fornns of outerwear shall not be worn in school we to health arnd safety considerations. ldnool district emloyees shall be expected to openly with the above dress pro- Jisiais. . OI I NARYIIFRACTIUSOO Students who coll-it disciplinary infractions while riding a school bus shall be handled in accordarnce with the procedures outlined in the appendix to this Code. Depending upon the nature and fremency of the infraction. students may have their riding privileges snspended for a given period of time. W unenever practical. the student to whom a locker is assigned shall be present any timethatlockerisseardned. Incasesofmass lockerchecks. suchasthosere— sultingfrombouomreats. it ismderstoodthestudentrneednotbepresentwhen his/her individual locker is searched. In no instance is a locker to be searched without at lest one other amlt witness present. 207 -29- DI I ONCFPRI HA Students wishing to distribute printed materials in a school may do so only in .the building in which they are currently enrolled arid shall be responsible for the con- tent of such publications. The building adlinistrator or appropriate designee shall establish specific times and locations for the distribution of printed materials by students which shall per- mit access to all students without interferring with the building‘s normal traffic flow. unen distributed. such materials shall be offered but not foroed on others. All materials distributed must bear the name of the snonsoring person or organi- zation arnd indicate the author or printer. The buildirng aministrator or appropriate designee may confiscate any materials which. in that person's Judgment. present a clear danger or imediate incitenent to violence or are blatantly obscene and lacking in any redeeming social value. SUSPETSIUI m \. Buildim Mia's Imediately following the suspension of a student. the responsible aoIninis- trator or designee shall make reasonable efforts to notify the student's parents or other responsible adult. No suspended student is to be sent out of the building during school hours unless the parents or another responsible person have been contacted. Parents - or students if age 18 - are to be notified in writing in all cases involving suspension. A copy of that notification shall also be sent to the Director of Student Services. This notification shall include: - The specific reason for the suspension - The length of the suspension and/or conditions for its termination - Appeal procedures available to the student arnd parents Upon being suspended. the student shall be informed of all the specific rea- sons for the suspension and shall be given the opportunity to verbally or in writing state his/her side of the incident which led to the susaension arnd to file a written statement with the building principal. Building suspensions snall normally not exceed three (3) days. Suspensions maybeextended forenotherthree (3) days ifthestudentorparentsdonot cooperate with the conditions established for the student's re-achission. Cases not resolved within the extension period shall be referred to the Direc- tor of Student Services for disposition. T'hestudent shall havetherignttomakeupall workmissedmringasuspen- sion in woo-dance with building procedures. Iuediately upon returnnirng to the building from a suspension. the student shall be mime for making arrangeeents with each teacher to couplete classwork missed during the sus- pension. 208 -30- 3.W A teacher shall exclude a student from the classroom teaporarily when the gross- ness of the offense. the persistence of the misbehavior. or the disruptive ef- fect of the violation makes the continued presence of the student in-the class- room intolerable. In such cases. the teacher shall furnish the administration full particulars of the incident(s) as promptly as teaching obligations allow. but in no case later than the end of the teacher day unless extenuating cir- cumstances dictate otherwise. Before the principal or assistant returns the student to the classroon. he/‘she shall inferno the teacher. with a personal con- tact or in writing. of the corrective measures taken. A student shall be permanently reneved from the classwhen the teacherarnd prin- cipal concur that disruptions by said student may invade education for the balarnce of the class and the following courses of action have proved to be ineffective: a. Personal consultation with the student concerning his/her conduct b. Referral of the student to the building aoainistrator c. Parental conferences or notification of the conduct If a request to remove a student is denied. the teacher shall have the right to ap- peal to the building principal. W Ste: 1: Astudent. if 18. ortheparernts of astudentunder lByearsefage first shall appeal a disciplinary action to the atinistrator who inposed the penalty. Step 2: A further amal shall be made to the building principal. Ste: 3: Appeals beyond the building level shall be directed to the Student Services Office (Room 308. Aduinistration Building). Step 4: Any disciplinary action imposed by the Student Services Office may be ap- pealed to the Central Review Board by the student's parents or the student if l8 years of age. a. Filing of MT with Central Review Board Ferns to request a hearing before the Central Review Board shall be available in the Information Services Office (Room lll. Antihistratien Building). Appeal forms shall be comleted by the parents or students (if 18 years of age) arnd submitted to the Information Services Office. ls tbefilednola thanlO frouthedatethedi- i line has been assessed. l Review 5:“le grind within five 5 af 1 fi‘lgg with Q f i ffi . , _ 209 -31.. b. Central Review Board Hearim Procedures The Student Services staff. in cooperation with building adninistrators. shall prepare a conprehensive review of the case for presentation to the Central Review Board. including information or statennents taken from witnesses. In its report. the Student Services staff may also recom- mend disposition of the case for the Central Review Board's considera- tion. Any student involved in an appeal to the Central Review Board has the rignt to be represented by counsel. In the event the student elects to have legal representation. the school district shall also engage the services of its attorney. If attorneys are present. the Chairperson (Director of Information Services) shall. advise both parties that the hearirng shall not be conducted in accordance with formal court proce- dures. The student and parents shall have the opportunity to challenge the charges made arnd question the validity of written statements fro- wit- nesses during the hearing. Students who are witnesses to incidents related to the case in Question shall not be asked to appear before the Central Review Board. and their identity shall be protected fronn disclosure if they have given arny tes- timony to investigating adrninistrators. No teacher participating in a hearing shall be forced to disclose any information which came to his/her knowledge through a confidential oom- muncation with a student. Refusal to disclose such confidential informa- tion shall not result in the disciplining of or discharge of the teacher. c. Digo_sition of Cases After each party has had an opportunity to present its side of the case. the Central Review Board shall meet privately to arrive at a recon-rende- tion to submit to the Superintendent of Schools. The Chairperson shall coupile a summary account of the hearing's proceedings arnd present the Central Review Board's reconnendation to the Superintendent within 24 hours after the hearing is concluded. All such reports shall remain on file in the Information Services Office. Once the hearing is concluded. the Student Services Office shall no longer be involved in any further discussion regarding that particular case. Uidnin up ,(2) days after receivirng the Central Review Board's recouen- dation. the Superintendent shall reach a decision in the case. That decision shall then be commieated iumnediately- to all parties involved -- the Centre] Review Board Chairperson. the Director of Student Serv- ices. the building principal(s) involved in the case. and the parents/student who sought the appeal. 210 -32.. Ste: 5: The Superintendent's decision may be appealed to the Board of Education by filirng a written request with the Board Secretary within five (5) days after receipt of that decision. Such appeals shall be filed by the following persons: the parents of the student. the student himself/herself if 18 years of age. the building prin- cipal. and/or the teacher(s) involved in the discipline case. Upon receiving an appeal request. the Board of Education shall schedule a hearing as soon as posible. The appellarnt(s) shall be notified of the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearirng. If the appel- lant(s) chooses such representation. the-Board shall engage the services of its attorney. During the hearing. both parties shall have an opportunity to fully present their side of the case. After listening to both sides. the Board of Educa- tion shall meet privately to arrive at a decision. The decision of the Board shall be binding and commicated innediately to all parties in- volved. MINA?!) 1040: IEUmARD The Central Review Board shall be couposed of: - Four (4) parents to be selected by the Information Services Office from lists submitted by building principals. - Two (2) high school students to be selected by the Information Services Office from lists submitted by building principals. - Two (2) teachers who shall be appointed by the Lansing Schools Education As- sociation (LSEA) upon request of the Information Services Office. - One (1) administrator who shall be appointed by the Lansing Association of Sdnool Aonninistrators (USA) upon request of the Information Services Office. The Director of Information Services shall serve as Chairperson arnd Presiding Of- ficer of the Central Review Board. but shall have no vote in the deliberations of that body. At least three L31 meubers of the Central Review Board a.flll be minorig and shall resentatleasttwo ofthefour 4 ontheReview rd.Nomenber shall be fro: the same school as the student involved in the hearigg. 211 APPENJIXTOTI'EOIEGS'WW FNELBBJTARYWSEWYW This appendix to the Code of Student Conduct contains the following sections: - Definitions of Building Infractions - Definitions of District-wide Infractions - Rules arnd Regulations for Safe School Bus Conduct - Procedures for Issuing School Bus Conduct warnings and Suspensions fiINITIGS CF WILDIK; IfFRACTIGS W -- using profane or offensive language- Disorcerly Conduct -- any conduct in or around the building. including the class- room. which is dangerous or disruptive. This is to include. but is not limited to. throwing snowballs. stones. or other objects: pushing: shoving: shouting: or running in the halls. Dim for Safety Patrols -- not abeying safety patrol directions. Failure to Identify Oneself to Staff -- the failure to give one’s full name upon request to any euployee of the Lansing School District in or on school property. -- using or writing the name of another person for purposes of gain or fal- sifying tines. dates. grades. addresses. or other information. including school forms. ' Irnsupordination -- the failure to obey. conply with. or carry out a reasonable directive from any school enployee (aduinistrators. teachers. secretaries. custo- dians. cafeteria workers. security staff. aides. or bus drivers). Litter-ing -- deliberately throwing or scattering rubbish. trash. paper. waste. etc. on school property or on private property going to or fronn school. Petty Theft -- taking or attempting to take possession of the properties of others. including school supplies. without permission of the owner. ion of or T -- possession of radios. tape players/recorders. puz- zles. arny electronic devices or toys. etc. at school. Any such items picked up will bereturnnedtostudentsorparentsattheendofthesamaster. m - failur‘e'to be in the assigned work station. classroom. lunchroom. locker room. etc. at the proper time in accordance with the-rules of that area. m -- unauthorized absence frornn school for any period of time. mm Presenceflgiterim -- being in or around any area of the building when the student has no legitimate reason to be there: the act of collecting and/or lingering in the sonool building or on school property without permission of a staff Mr. . 212 DEINITIOOS a= DISTRICT 4119; IBFRACT 105 Arson -- the deliberate burning or attempt to burn any part of any building or property belonging to. rented by. or on loan to the school district or property (including automobiles) of persons employed by the school or in attendance at the school. AssaultlThreag -- an attelot or inplied promise to inflict ham upon another per- son or his/her property: no actual body contact is necessary. Bat—tea -- the unlawful. intentional touching or application of fence to arnoflner person in a rude. insolent. or angry manner. Extortion -- obtaining money or property (something of value) from an unwilling person by either physical force or intimidation. False Alarnns - activating the fire alarnnn system in any school buildirng or on school property and/or reporting a fire or boat: when none exists. Fimtigg -- the act of engaging in physical contact in which blows are struck or exchanged with another person in school. on school property. going to or from school. or at any activity under school sponsorship. . or Theft -- stealing of money over $25.00 or property judged by the aduinis- trator to be worth more than $25.00. In addition. repeated minor thefts under $25.00 shall be considered major theft. Halicig Destruction -— the deliberate destruction or defacing of property be- longing to. rented by. or on loan to the school system or property (including automobiles) of persons euployed by the school or in attendance at the school. Holestim -- the deliberate act of molesting an unwilling person by handling. grab- bing. or touching inappropriate parts of the other person's body. anscerne arndLor @ Behavior -- the act of using obscene. profane language in ver- Dal or written fem. possessing obscene pictures. or performing offensive gestures or acts. Persistent hisbehavior -- frequent misconduct and/or consistently breaking the same rule. Sale, Possession. andlor Use of m or Incendia_n: Devices -- selling. carrying. using. handling. or storirng weapons or other dangerous objects (e.g., explosives and firecrackers) in a school building or on school grounds. weapons are iderntified in two (2) categories: (1) articles couldnly used or designated to inflict bodily harm or to intimidate other persons. Examles are: firearms. knuckles. knives. chains. clubs. arid martial arts weapons; (2) articles designed for other purposes that could be easily used to inflict bodily harnl and/or intimidate. Exalnlos include but are not limited in: belts; colds. pencils. files. and comasses. Stunnts acting in an aggressive or belligerent owner with any such article shall be judged to be in pos- session of a weapon. SaleI Use, PossessionI o- Distribution of El or Illgl M, Materials. Sub- stance or Alcoolic m -- selling. using. possessing. or distributing legal or illegal drugs. materials. cigarettes. tooacco substances. and alcoholic beverages. (Excludes medication taken in accordance with Aolinistrative Regrlation 514 .2.) 213 - 35 - Violations of City, StateI or Federal Ordinances -- any violation of legal ordi- nances not previously listed. For examle: possession of fireworks. gasoling. trespassing. etc. WREGJLAT'IGSFERSAE auscmnucr while all provisions of the Code of Student Conduct apply to students who are senool bus passengers. the following special rules must be observed because of the unique safety requirements presented by a moving school bus. Any student violating these rules or couaitting other acts of misconduct on the bus Shall be subject to a written conduct warning and/or suspension notice issued by the bus driver. Suspended students Inst secure authorization from the building principal before their riding privileges can be reinstated. 3. The bus driver is mime for the school bus and passenger safety. Stu- dents must cooperate with and obey the driver at all times. IV I Loading arnd unloading of the scnool bus shall be controlled by the driver. princnpal. and building staff. 3. llne emergency exit shall be used only as the driver directs am is never to be touched at any other time. Students shall be advised to arrive gt their bus stgg five (5) minutes before the scheduled gickg time and to wait in a safe area off the roadway. Stu- dents snall enter the bus in an orderly faShion and remain seated and quiet until it is time to leave the vehicle. Heads and anus shall be kept inside the bus windows: feet shall be kept out of the center aisle arnd on the floor at all times. Students shall be instructed to stop arnd look both ways before crossing in front of the school bus. 2. A driver may require students to take assigned seats whenever it is necessary arid may establish a seating chart for that purpose. 5. Information on bus stops and time schedMes. along with identification carts. shall be mailed to all eligible students prior to the opening of the school year. Secondary students must show their identification cam to the bus driver each time the student boards the bus during the first two months of school or at arny other time the driver and/or principal deem necessary. Eligible students who fail to receive identification cards or misplace them must secure replaceoent caros from the scnool office. No pets or other animals shall be taken on the bus without advance permission from the driver arnd principal. Any animal allmd on the bus shall be boxed -or caged. -. Visitors not authorized by the Transportation Services Office shall not be permitted on the bus during regular runs except with the written or verbal permission of the principal . School bus routes. stops. arnd time schedules shall be established by the Trarnsportation Services Office. Any proposed changes shall be discussed with the Director of Transportation Services or the route supervisor. 214 - 35 .. Bus drivers shall be responsible for distributing copies of these rules and the accouparnying “Procedures for Issuing School Bus Conduct warnings and Suspensions” to all student riders at the beginning of each school year and to new students who become eligible for transportation after the new year has begun. W Fm ISSUIM; m 8‘5 M! WINS NO 5159951098 It is essential for students to observe a standard of safe conduct while riding a school bus. The bus driver shall have the authority to issue a written conduct warning or suspension notice to any student who violates provisions of this Code or coinits other acts of misconduct. Examles of such misconduct Shall include. but not be limited to. the following: unsafe contact at the bus stop Throwirng anythirng on. fronn. or at the bus Vandalism of the bus Smoking Lighting of matches Chewing. eating. or drinking on the bus Fignting Carrying. handlirng. or using weapons and incendiary devices Tendering with emergency equipment Refusal of secondary students to show identification cards when requested Excessive pushing. wrestling. or yelling Use of profanity or abusive language (bsoene behavior Disobeying the bus driver Hisuse of bus windows Issuance of Contact Harnigg l. Usually. the driver will issue a written conduct warning unless the student is a repeat offender or the offense is so severe as to cause continuing danger to the safety of the bus end its passengers. 2. Three copies of each conduct warning shall be made. One will go to the parents with the student. one to the school principal. and one to the Transportation Services Office. The form must be signed by the parent and returned to the driverbythestudent thenext time he/she is toboard thebus. ‘ 3. The copy signed by the parent shall be given to the principal by the driver as soon as possible or at the corpletion of the bus run the following morning. Issuance of ion Notices 1. Threecopiesofeachsuspensionnotice shall bemafiandoneeadnfurnishedto the parents via the student. the school principal. and the Transportation Services Office. ' ' 2. A student whose riding privileges are suspended shall not be able to board the bus for a school day following issuance of the notice. During that time. the principal and the driver shall agree on a final disposition of the problel. Drivers shall be available for parent conferences at the principal's requdst. Excent in emergency situations. a student suspended in the morning shall not be transported home on One bus that afternoon. My excention shall be dis- cussed with the driver by the principal. 215 -37- 3. Studentsshall besuspendedfnoethebusonly attheendofabusrun. Inex- trene was where the safety of others on the bus is in inunediate jeopardy. secondary students may be suspended enroute. Such enroute suspensions shall be radioed innediately to the Transportation Services Office by the driver. In the event a student is suspended from the bus at school. it shall be the principal's responsibility to contact the parents and arrange for the student to get home after classes are dismissed. At no time shall a student be sent hone on foot without the knowledge and consent of the parent. 4. The following guidelines for length of suspensions may be used with students who exhibit serious misbehavior which endangers the safety and-well-being of anyone on the vehicle. The first such suspension may result in a minimum suspension of three days from riding the school bus. In the event a suspended student forcibly enters a bus and refuses to leave at the driver's request. the suspension shall be doubled in duration. A second and third suspension of the same student may result in suspension periods of two weels and/or the re- mainder of the school year. Deviations from these standards may result free an agreement between the principal and the driver. The Director of Transportation Services shall be available for conferences at the request of the driver or principal. Students who feel a driver is executing responsibilities in an unsafe or iron-ope- unanner may file a written couplaint with the building principal. a copy of which shall be sent to the Director of Transportation Services. The principal and Director of Transportation Services snall investigate the counplaint and take whatever action is deenned necessary. Results of the investigation shall be con- nuniceted to the coupleth either verbally or in writing as soon as is practi- cal. _ Approved: 8-30-73 Amended: l2-20-74 (”Regulation for Bus Conduct" Section) lD- 2-75 ("Procedures for Locker Search" Section) 7-30-82 7-l7-86 216 -33- Policy No. Sll4.l ‘Mibilities and Rights of Students and Parents The Superintendent of Schools shall establish written responsibilities and rights for students and parents as participants in the educational process. Muted: 1- 8-87 Aduinistrative Regulation No. Sll4.l 2mibilities arnd Rimts of Students and Parents ’arents and legal guardians shall be responsible for one actions of their stu- ients while they are on school district pneuises. as well as when they are raveling to and from school or ridirng school district buses. Students mo have eached the age of l8 may elect to be responsible for their own conduct. Students and parents in the Lansing School District shall have the following esponsibilities and rignts as participants in the educational process. Mibilities .To allow other students the oppor- l. tunity to participate in the enca— tional process and to help promote a climate free of fear. harassment. intimidation. disruption. violence. and other fornnns of disorder. ngts To participate in the educational process in a climate that is free of fear. harassment. intimidation. disruption. violence. and other forms of disorder. ;.To obey and resnect all school 2. rules relating to safety while go- ing to and from school. riding school buses. arnd being on school PM- To expect that school rules relat- ing to safety while going to and from school. riding sdnool buses. and being on school property shall be aanninistered arnd enforced in a consistent. fair. arid reasonable manner. 3.To engage in socially acceptable 3. conduct which respects the personal and property rights of others. 4.To respect the rionts of all school 4. staff manners and other students. To protection of their physical safety and personal property. To have their rights respected by all school staff murders and other students. S.To respect the rignts ofstaffmee- bes by sonerming appoint-ants] consultations at a wtually accent- able time. To scfnectfle appointments/consulta- tios with staff meters for ap- propriate purposes. such as to review their own student's cal-ala- tive records. (Students under l8 may participate in such a confer- ence: those l8 and above may request a conference without their parents beirng present. ) Approved: 217 -39- ibi 1 H11 6.To report to school staff any in- fringement upon their rights. 7.Toseekaueansofmakingupwork missedasaresultofasuspension orforanyotherreasonandto couplete such work at a time Inutually agreed upon with the teacher(s) involved. 8.To carry out the duties of elec- tive or appointive offices in stu- cunt governuent and other or- ganizations. 9.To pursue concerns and grievances througn procedures established by the building principal. 1 - 8-87 Rimts .To expect that school staff will investigate reports of any in- fringenent upon their rights and respond in a timely mamer. .Tomakeupallworkmisseddueto- an absence resulting frm a sus- pensionorforanyotherreeson as Judged mflam by the teach- er(s) and/or building aolinistra- tor. . To seek election or appoinbnnent to offices in student govern-ent and other organizations. . To present coplaints. grievances. or petitions to the building prin- cipal and to receive an initial response within 3 sdnool days after receipt of same by the ad- ministrator. 218 APPENDIX K REFERENCES 219 REFERENCES "An Interview with Marian Wright Edelman." Harvard Educational Review (February, 1974): 44. Anderson, Robert. "Public Perception of School Management in The State of Washington." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Los Angeles, CA, April 13-17, 1981). Baker, Harry J. Remedial Procedure for Unadjusted Pupils for Junior and Senior High Schools. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Company, 1943. Baldwin, Joseph. School Management and School Methods. New York: Appleton and Company, 1907. Besag, Frand P., and Besag, Peter L. Statistics for the Helpinngrofessionals. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985. Bittel, Edgar H. Due Process for School Officials: A Guide for the Conduct of Administrative Proceeding_. National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1986. Bradley v. Milliken. Memorandum and Order, Judge Robert E. DeMascio. United States District Court, July 3, 1975. Bradley v. Milliken. Memorandum Opinion and Remedial Decree. Judge Robert E. DeMascio. United States District Court, August 15, 1975. Bush, George. America 2000 An Education Strategy, Source-Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1991. Chamelin, Neil C., and Trunzo, Kae B. "Due Process and Conduct in Schools." Journal of Research and Development in Education. (November, 1979): 2. Cleare, MaryJane. "The Process of Change and the Role of the Administrator." Notre Dame Journal of Education. (Summer, 1976): 2. Codes of Student Discipline and Student Rights. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services, Inc, 1975. Connor, Eugene T. Student Discipline and the Law. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Education Foundation, 1979. 220 "Courts Force Schools to Change." Student Rights and Responsibilities. Arlington, VA: National School Public Relations Association, 1972. "Discipline in the Public Schools: Educator Responses to the Reagan Administration Policies." Educational Research Services (April, 1984) Docking, J.W. Control and Discipline in Schools: Perspectives and Approaches. London: Harper and Row, 1987. Dorman, Gayle. ImprovingMiddle Grade Schools, A Framework for Action. Carrbors, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1987. Elliott, John. "A Teacher's Reaction." The Fair Administration of Discipline. (April, 1974). Ephay, Robert. "Suspension and Expulsion of Public School Students." National Organization on Legal Problems of Education. (1971): p. 19. Fischer, Louis, and Schimmel, David. The Rights of Students and Teachers. New York: Harper and Row, 1982. Furtwengler, Willis J., and Konnert, William, Improving School Discipline: Ann Administrator's Guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1982. Gallup, George. "The 15th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan. (September, 1983). Goldstein, Stephen R. "Due Process In School Disciplinary Proceedings: The Meaning and Implications of Goss vs. Lopez." Educational Horizons, 54 (Fall, 1975): 4. Gorton, Richard A. Schoool Administration and Supervision Leadership Challenges and Opportunities. Dubuqe, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1983. Governor's Task Force on School Violence and Vandalism. Report and Recommendations. Lansing, MI: Governor's Task Force, November 6, 1977. Grossnickle, Donald R. Promoting Effective Discipline in School and Classroom: A Practitioner's Perspective. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1985. 221 Guthrie, James W. Educational Administration and Policy: Effective Leadership for American Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986. Hobbs, Gardner. "Procedural Due Process and Its Implications." The Clearing House, 53 (December, 1979): 202. Hollingsworth, Ellen Jane; Lyfler, Henry S.; and Clune, William H. School Discipline Order and Autonomy. New York: Praeger, 1984. Klausmeier, Herbert J.; Lipham, James M.; and Daresh, John C. The Renewal and Improvement of Secondapy Education. Lawham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1983. LaMorte, Michael. School Law: Cases and Concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1982. LaMorte, Michael W. School Law: Cases and Concepts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990. Lansing School District. Lansing School District's Code of Student Conduct. Policy No. 5114. Lansing, MI: Lansing School District, September, 1982. "Learning Is Impossible." New York Times, 20 December 1982. Loken, Joel 0. Student Alienation and Dissent. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall of Canada LTD, 1973. MacEachron, Ann E. Basic Statistics in the Human Services Ag Applied Approach. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1982. Menacker, Julius. "A Review of Supreme Court Reasonings in Cases of Expression, Due Process and Equal Protection." Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (November, 1981): 188. Michigan General School Laws and Administrative Rules. "Rule 380, 1300 Sec. 1300." Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Management and Budget, 1976. Michigan State Board of Education. "Opinions and Attitudes of Voters in the Lansing Public School District." Project Outreach of the Michigan State Board of Education. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education Services, 1983. 222 Michigan State Board of Education. Better Education for Michigan Citizens: A Blueprint for Action. Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education, January, 1984. Miller, Charity R., and Waskowski, Patricia. Callaghans Michigan Civil Jurisprudence, Rules and Regulationsi Discipline. 142. Deerfield, IL: Callaghan, 1988. Moles, Oliver C. Student Discipline Strategies Research and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press, 1990. National School Resource Network. Resource Handbook on Discipline Codes. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, Hain Publishers, Inc, 1980. The Nature, Extent and Cost of Violence and Vandalism in Our Nation's Schools. Juvenile Delinquency, Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 95th Congress, lst Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Nie, Norman H.; Hull, C. Hadlal; Jenkins, Jean G.; Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Phillips, E. Lakin, and Wiener, Daniel N. Discipline Achievement and Mental Health, 2nd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1972. Purvis, Johnny and Others. School Discipline Notebook. Sacramento, CA: Pepperdine University Press, 1986. Rich, John Martin. Innovative School Discipline. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, 1985. Rossow, Lawrence F. The Law of Student Expulsion and Suspensions. Topeka, KA: National Organization On Legal Problems of Education, 1989. Rutter, Michael. 15,000 Hours Secondary Schools and Their Effect on Children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, 1979. Segal, Julius, and Yahraes, Herbert. A Child's Journey - Forces That Shape the Lives of Our Youpg. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Spady, William G. "The Authority System of the School and Student Unrest: A Theoretical Exploration." Uses of the Sociology of Education NSSE 73rd Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. 223 Strahan, Richard D., and Turner, L. Charles. The Courts and the Schools, the School Administrator and Legal Risk Management Today. White Plains, NY: Longman Inc, 1987. "Terror in the Schools." U.S. News and World Report, 26 January 1976. Webb, William L. "A Study of the Desegregation of the Lansing, Michigan Elementary Schools and The Effects of That Desegregation on White and Non-White Enrollment." Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Williams, Junious. "Defining the Scope of Due Process in the Educational Setting." Student Rights and Discipline: Policies, Programs and Procedures. Moody et. al. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, Program for Educational Opportunity, 1978. Yudof, Mark G.; Kirp, David L.; Geel, Tyllvan; and Levin, Betsy. Kirp and Yudof's Educational Policy and The Law, Cases and Materials. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corp, 1982. ’Tilillflulllllfll