Poem from my son:
Rain rain go away so me and my momma can enjoy this beautiful day.
Even through the rain, we see that this day that the Lord has given to us is a beautiful day. Live every day as if it will be your last. Laugh, love, live.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Policy Improvement Recommendation Plan
Policy Improvement Recommendation Plan
Transition outcomes for youth with learning disabilities who are served by special education are poor. In comparison, their same-aged peers are more likely to be employed and less likely to struggle with poverty and homelessness following graduation. The learning disabled student is less likely to be enrolled in postsecondary education or training (Courtney & Dworsky, 2005; Johnson, Stodden, Emmanuel, Luecking, & Mack, 2002). Because of these consistently poor outcomes, policymakers have increasingly have focused on creating policies to address these differences.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) into law. This law reauthorized and amended the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). On August 3, 2006, the United States Department of Education issued the regulations implementing the IDEIA 2004. These changes, added to the mandates of the IDEA, require that special education teachers and administrators know and understand their duties and obligations under the law. This paper will provide readers with an overview of the requirements of IDEA and recommendations for policy improvements to be presented to our State Senator following the agreement and endorsement of colleges.
In assessing this policy we consider the policy life cycle provided by Fowler, (2009) that includes planning, implementation process, and evaluation process. During the evaluation process, goals are determined; indicators and data collection instruments are selected; data is collected, analyzed, and summarized. The evaluation process culminates in a written evaluation report (Fowler, 2009).
Existing Policy
IDEA 2004 is the most recent reauthorization of the IDEA, the federal law that mandates special education services for children with disabilities, from birth to age 21. IDEA provides specific direction to state education agencies and other public agencies in the provision of these services. Part C of IDEA addresses early intervention services for children under the age of 3. Part B of IDEA governs special education services for children ages three – twenty one, providing them with their right to a free public education. IDEA addresses a broad array of services, ranging from teacher qualification to state to federal data reporting. IDEA requires that children receiving special education services through public schools have an IEP, which is a detailed plan for the child’s yearly educational goals completed by his or her teacher, family, and other concerned individuals, such as social workers or vocational counselors. Once a child reaches the age of 16, IDEA mandates that transition be part of the IEP plan (Hill, 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 continues the federal commitment to support for youth with disabilities through special education services. The rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and students, can be identified in the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). One of the main purposes of the Act is to guarantee that a free and appropriate education is available for all Learning Disabled students.
With the implementation of the policy of inclusion for learning disabled students in accordance with IDEA, a community of inclusion concept must be considered. For this concept of "community" to be successful ensuring that the needs of the Learning Disabled students are met within the regular education environment, all talents, gifts, and strengths found within the student(s) abilities must be recognized, encouraged, and utilized to the fullest extent possible (Carter, Ditchman & Sun, 2010).
Recommendations for consideration of policy improvement would include the enhancement of accountability measures and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders in the development and provision of services. IDEA includes strict accountability measures that states must adhere to remain eligible to receive funding their services, including the collection of data and performance measures on the outcomes of their funded services. One way to improve the accountability measures would be including language calling for the creation of state level interagency databases, which would allow more accurate data sharing among the multiple service providers. This could take the form of state interagency electronic data sharing, so that records would be able to seamlessly to follow youth from one location or service system to another (Van Wingerden et al., 2002).
IDEA is explicit in its expectation that states will involve key stakeholders in their state planning process for the services mandated by the law (Wright & Wright, 2006). There are also other opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of services for youth. For example, IDEA funds discretionary grants and personnel improvement grants for states beyond the mandated formula grants (Wright & Wright, 2006). IDEA does not specifically mandate that these stakeholder groups include people from special education or child welfare, respectively. Federal policy could address this issue by mandating the involvement of key stakeholders in the development of policy improvements, if they were in the area of personnel training (e.g., Title IV-E Child Welfare funding) or state service improvement.
Conclusion
It is clear that, despite a substantial federal commitment to transition, outcomes for youth transitioning from special education are quite poor. Transition is a complex process, involving many systems and levels of agency, which can make it difficult to point to a single intervention, or even level of intervention that will bring about the changes that are necessary.
The federal policies that mandate transition services to youth with disabilities could be amended to more completely address the needs of youth. Recommendations in changes to the accountability measures, and the requirement for the involvement of stakeholders and service providers in the development and provision of services are two areas that positive changes will enhance the effectiveness of the policy.
References
Carter, E.K., Ditchman, N., and Sun, Y., (2010). Summer employment and community
experiences of transition age youth with severe disabilities. Report Exceptional
Children, Winter Issue
Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. (2005). Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of
former foster youth: Outcomes at age 19. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for
Children.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hill, K. (2009) Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 and the John H. Chafee Foster
Care Independence Act of 1999: what are the policy implications for youth with
disabilities transitioning from foster care? CHILD WELFARE, 88(2): 5-
23 (23 ref)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C § 1400, et. seq.(2004).
Johnson, D., Stodden, R., Emmanuel, E., Luecking, R., & Mack, M. (2002). Current
challenges facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells
us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519–531.
Van Wingerden, C., Emerson, J., & Ichikawa D. (2002). Education issue brief:
Improving special education for children with disabilities in foster care. Casey
Family Programs: Seattle.
Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2006). Wrightslaw: IDEA 2004. Harbor House Law
Press:Hartfield, VA.
Policy Evaluation Analysis
Policy Evaluation Analysis
Policy evaluation is especially important in an era of educational accountability and the formation and implementation of educational policies. In understanding the educational policy, it is necessary to contemplation the influence and intention of policies relative to the four dimensions of policy theory. The four dimensions of policy theory including normative, structural, constituentive, and technical, which allow individuals to determine the significant dimensions of the policy (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004).
Policies are conducive for improving education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The zero tolerance policy refers to those policies or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior and discipline and imposes severe penalties for even the first offense (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007).
This analysis will provide a discussion of the zero tolerance policy and answer the following questions: when and how should this policy be evaluated, who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, who should control the process, what are the possible end results, who benefits from the evaluation, what are the ethical and social concerns that must be considered first and how has financial legislation affected the policy and its development?
Zero tolerance first received national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez (Miller, 2000). Zero tolerance emerged into a nationally spread policy when the Clinton Administration signed the Gun- Free Schools Act of 1994 into law (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). The law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a firearm, and referral of law-violating students to the criminal or juvenile justice systems. State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons, to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats or swearing (Skiba & Knesting, 2001).
Ethical and social concerns to consider
In recent years, due to an increase in school violence, there has been an increase in legislation and regulatory-policy regarding school violence in an attempt to establish consequences for inappropriate behavior by students. Zero tolerance, as it relates to behavior and discipline, has been defined as the policy or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior, such as violence or illegal drug use, with the automatic imposition of severe penalties even for first offenses (Walton, 2003).
This agenda has become increasingly important in this era of harassment and bullying being accomplished with the use of current technology. These issues being faced by educators and students alike will not go away, even if the most disruptive students are removed, if no policies are created to answer what are the penalties for engaging such behavior. In answer to this concern, educators may relinquish ethics in their problem-solving and decision-making in response to discipline problems (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Zero tolerance policies are under rising disapproval from parents, students, and teachers, as unjust, and arbitrary methods to administer punishment for inappropriate student conduct. These stakeholders question if the policy satisfies its intended purpose of providing safer school environments (Henault, 2001). Those who support zero tolerance policies agree that it does meet its intended purpose, however, individuals who do not support zero tolerance policies allude that the policy is producing critical and problematic results (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
When, how and by whom should zero tolerance policies be evaluated?
The evaluation of educational policies should be a joint initiative by all stakeholders to include educational leaders, parents, students, and the community. The effectiveness and fairness of zero tolerance policies premise must be assessed and evaluated demonstrating to the stakeholders their significance in the premise of this policy (Anonymous, 2004). Despite this need for by-in by the stakeholders, many school boards continue to toughen their zero tolerance and disciplinary policies as a result of recent school tragedies such as Columbine. Some school boards have begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions, expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). In 2001, there was a recommendation to end zero tolerance policies for school discipline by the American Bar Association who contended that policy has become an inappropriate solution to all problems that educational institution face and has unfortunate consequences for many students (Henault, 2001).
Fowler (2009) indicates that many policy evaluations are summative which assess the quality of a policy that has been in place for a period of time. Formative evaluations allow the implementers of educational policy the opportunity to make necessary changes to policy for improvement purposes (Fowler, 2009). Formative evaluations, like formative assessments, are ongoing processes in which data is collected and evaluated regularly.
Zero tolerance policies should undergo both summative and formative evaluations throughout the life of the policy both short term and long term evaluations. The school district and school boards responsible for the formation and implementation of the policy should also presume the responsible for the establishment of the evaluation process at the forefront of the development of the policy to ensure that its implementation is fair and unbiased and does not unduly harm students or violate their rights. Because of the nature and opposition of this policy, educational leaders must demonstrate ethical decision-making in circumstances regarding zero tolerance policies and in the evaluation process consider alternatives to inflexible policies within educational institutions. Misconduct policies definitely belong in educational institutions just not the strict zero tolerance policies that now exist (Denig, & Quinn, 2001). The evaluation process should be controlled by the school board as the ultimate responsible entity for the development, implementation, and evaluation of all policies affecting the school district.
Possible End Results
Several researchers contemplate that zero tolerance policies are developing a void between students and the educators who are allegedly using these policies to protect students. Educators who implement zero tolerance policies without consideration of circumstances, motivations, or a student's history are signifying that the concept of innocent until proven guilty does not exist in educational institutions. Consequently, one student may bring a knife to school with the objective of hurting another individual, and another may bring a plastic knife to school with the purpose of spreading peanut butter on a sandwich; however, under zero tolerance policies, the treatment and discipline of both students is the same (Henault, 2001).
In addition, zero tolerance policy is criminalizing students. Educational institutions frequently file criminal charges against students for misconduct even if there no danger to the safety of others exists (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). When students are disciplined with suspension or police involvement for apparent innocent actions, their trust and revere for authority is in jeopardy. Students will likely come to have misgivings about a justice system with so little flexibility, and indeed some students will try to find a way around the system to evade getting in trouble.
Nonetheless, there are a few benefits to zero tolerance policies, a safe school free of danger, fear, and disruptive students, a policy with unambiguous and clearly stated rules; a student discipline code with consequences stated in advance and reliable application of those consequences (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Who benefits from the evaluation?
Overwhelmingly assessments of zero tolerance policies in contemporary education lack common sense in their implementation. The misconduct that warrants suspensions today due to zero tolerance policies once was attributed to children acting age appropriate. The consequences to various student misconduct does not fit the crime and jeopardizes the development of confidence and trust with adults, especially those at school, and the development of a positive stance toward justice and equality in society (Henault, 2001).
Unfortunately, despite the long history of information available since the emergence of this policy in schools, virtually no data supports the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy. There are no research data showing that zero tolerance can ensure safer schools nor improve student behavior. The weight of the evidence suggests that zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions are applied too inconsistently to have a positive effect on overall student behavior. Research also suggests that the inconsistency in the application of the policy creates racial disparities, is associated with negative outcomes in student behavior, negatively impacts dropout rates, and academic achievement (Henault, 2001).
It is reasonable then to conclude that based on the evaluation of this policy its intervention might threaten student educational opportunity and the risk of the implementation of the policy outweighs its benefits. Therefore, this analysis taken into consideration, the student will ultimately benefit from the evaluation of the policy if the evaluation results in measures to address these identified risks.
Financial Legislation
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) which was later repealed and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 (Kajs, 2006). Funding for the GFSA was tied to the NCLB provision as a means of enforcement. The GFSA requires school districts to comply with its restrictions in order to receive the federal funding by expelling a student for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school (Kajs, 2006).
Through this funding control mechanism, the GFSA did not directly mandate a zero tolerance policy, however, Congress tied federal funding of the GFSA with all of the funding for schools provided by the federal government under the ESEA. This funding measure resulted in schools implementing zero tolerance policies which included; suspending and expelling students for any violent infractions, as a method to ensure that federal funding was not revoked.
Conclusion
As this paper has presented, students, parents and educators are increasingly disapproving of the established zero tolerance policies and their negative effects on student education. Improved regulations and policy development are needed to continue to ensure the safety in the schools without the fundamentally unfair implications of the policy. To prevent students from being subject to the unfair consequences of the policy when implemented, educational institutions must evaluate their zero tolerance policies for discretionary procedures that will offer protection to the students as well. Failure to do so will subject students to the discouraging vision of equal, as opposed to equitable, discipline for misconduct (Henault, 2001). A policy which is evaluated and the result mirror disparate actions where comparable results are shown, than that policy can be considered as unfair and will ultimately fail. In policy implementation and evaluation, educators must consider the ethical and societal stance on the policy and it overall effect on student outcomes.
References
Anonymous (2004). How to adopt a zero tolerance policy that makes sense. Curriculum
Review, 43. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools:
Theories and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.
Denig, S.J. & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High
School Journal, 84. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness:
Viewpoints from the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 36. Retrieved
May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gorman, K. & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(1), 24. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from the Selected Readings
Page, University of Phoenix, EDD 723.
Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30.
Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An
alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29.
Retrieved May 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Miller, A. (2000). Zero tolerance: Fair or not? Junior Scholastic, 13. Retrieved May 3,
2007 from ProQuest database.
Stader, D.L. (2004). Zero tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The
Clearing House, 78. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Skiba, R.J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth
development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools
safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Policies are conducive for improving education for all students (Cooper, Fusarelli & Randall, 2004). The zero tolerance policy refers to those policies or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior and discipline and imposes severe penalties for even the first offense (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007).
This analysis will provide a discussion of the zero tolerance policy and answer the following questions: when and how should this policy be evaluated, who should be responsible for carrying out the studies, who should control the process, what are the possible end results, who benefits from the evaluation, what are the ethical and social concerns that must be considered first and how has financial legislation affected the policy and its development?
Zero tolerance first received national attention as the title of a program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez (Miller, 2000). Zero tolerance emerged into a nationally spread policy when the Clinton Administration signed the Gun- Free Schools Act of 1994 into law (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). The law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a firearm, and referral of law-violating students to the criminal or juvenile justice systems. State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons, to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats or swearing (Skiba & Knesting, 2001).
Ethical and social concerns to consider
In recent years, due to an increase in school violence, there has been an increase in legislation and regulatory-policy regarding school violence in an attempt to establish consequences for inappropriate behavior by students. Zero tolerance, as it relates to behavior and discipline, has been defined as the policy or practice of not tolerating undesirable behavior, such as violence or illegal drug use, with the automatic imposition of severe penalties even for first offenses (Walton, 2003).
This agenda has become increasingly important in this era of harassment and bullying being accomplished with the use of current technology. These issues being faced by educators and students alike will not go away, even if the most disruptive students are removed, if no policies are created to answer what are the penalties for engaging such behavior. In answer to this concern, educators may relinquish ethics in their problem-solving and decision-making in response to discipline problems (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Zero tolerance policies are under rising disapproval from parents, students, and teachers, as unjust, and arbitrary methods to administer punishment for inappropriate student conduct. These stakeholders question if the policy satisfies its intended purpose of providing safer school environments (Henault, 2001). Those who support zero tolerance policies agree that it does meet its intended purpose, however, individuals who do not support zero tolerance policies allude that the policy is producing critical and problematic results (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
When, how and by whom should zero tolerance policies be evaluated?
The evaluation of educational policies should be a joint initiative by all stakeholders to include educational leaders, parents, students, and the community. The effectiveness and fairness of zero tolerance policies premise must be assessed and evaluated demonstrating to the stakeholders their significance in the premise of this policy (Anonymous, 2004). Despite this need for by-in by the stakeholders, many school boards continue to toughen their zero tolerance and disciplinary policies as a result of recent school tragedies such as Columbine. Some school boards have begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions, expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). In 2001, there was a recommendation to end zero tolerance policies for school discipline by the American Bar Association who contended that policy has become an inappropriate solution to all problems that educational institution face and has unfortunate consequences for many students (Henault, 2001).
Fowler (2009) indicates that many policy evaluations are summative which assess the quality of a policy that has been in place for a period of time. Formative evaluations allow the implementers of educational policy the opportunity to make necessary changes to policy for improvement purposes (Fowler, 2009). Formative evaluations, like formative assessments, are ongoing processes in which data is collected and evaluated regularly.
Zero tolerance policies should undergo both summative and formative evaluations throughout the life of the policy both short term and long term evaluations. The school district and school boards responsible for the formation and implementation of the policy should also presume the responsible for the establishment of the evaluation process at the forefront of the development of the policy to ensure that its implementation is fair and unbiased and does not unduly harm students or violate their rights. Because of the nature and opposition of this policy, educational leaders must demonstrate ethical decision-making in circumstances regarding zero tolerance policies and in the evaluation process consider alternatives to inflexible policies within educational institutions. Misconduct policies definitely belong in educational institutions just not the strict zero tolerance policies that now exist (Denig, & Quinn, 2001). The evaluation process should be controlled by the school board as the ultimate responsible entity for the development, implementation, and evaluation of all policies affecting the school district.
Possible End Results
Several researchers contemplate that zero tolerance policies are developing a void between students and the educators who are allegedly using these policies to protect students. Educators who implement zero tolerance policies without consideration of circumstances, motivations, or a student's history are signifying that the concept of innocent until proven guilty does not exist in educational institutions. Consequently, one student may bring a knife to school with the objective of hurting another individual, and another may bring a plastic knife to school with the purpose of spreading peanut butter on a sandwich; however, under zero tolerance policies, the treatment and discipline of both students is the same (Henault, 2001).
In addition, zero tolerance policy is criminalizing students. Educational institutions frequently file criminal charges against students for misconduct even if there no danger to the safety of others exists (Fries & DeMitchell, 2007). When students are disciplined with suspension or police involvement for apparent innocent actions, their trust and revere for authority is in jeopardy. Students will likely come to have misgivings about a justice system with so little flexibility, and indeed some students will try to find a way around the system to evade getting in trouble.
Nonetheless, there are a few benefits to zero tolerance policies, a safe school free of danger, fear, and disruptive students, a policy with unambiguous and clearly stated rules; a student discipline code with consequences stated in advance and reliable application of those consequences (Gorman & Pauken, 2003).
Who benefits from the evaluation?
Overwhelmingly assessments of zero tolerance policies in contemporary education lack common sense in their implementation. The misconduct that warrants suspensions today due to zero tolerance policies once was attributed to children acting age appropriate. The consequences to various student misconduct does not fit the crime and jeopardizes the development of confidence and trust with adults, especially those at school, and the development of a positive stance toward justice and equality in society (Henault, 2001).
Unfortunately, despite the long history of information available since the emergence of this policy in schools, virtually no data supports the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy. There are no research data showing that zero tolerance can ensure safer schools nor improve student behavior. The weight of the evidence suggests that zero tolerance suspensions and expulsions are applied too inconsistently to have a positive effect on overall student behavior. Research also suggests that the inconsistency in the application of the policy creates racial disparities, is associated with negative outcomes in student behavior, negatively impacts dropout rates, and academic achievement (Henault, 2001).
It is reasonable then to conclude that based on the evaluation of this policy its intervention might threaten student educational opportunity and the risk of the implementation of the policy outweighs its benefits. Therefore, this analysis taken into consideration, the student will ultimately benefit from the evaluation of the policy if the evaluation results in measures to address these identified risks.
Financial Legislation
In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA) which was later repealed and reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 (Kajs, 2006). Funding for the GFSA was tied to the NCLB provision as a means of enforcement. The GFSA requires school districts to comply with its restrictions in order to receive the federal funding by expelling a student for at least one year for bringing a firearm to school (Kajs, 2006).
Through this funding control mechanism, the GFSA did not directly mandate a zero tolerance policy, however, Congress tied federal funding of the GFSA with all of the funding for schools provided by the federal government under the ESEA. This funding measure resulted in schools implementing zero tolerance policies which included; suspending and expelling students for any violent infractions, as a method to ensure that federal funding was not revoked.
Conclusion
As this paper has presented, students, parents and educators are increasingly disapproving of the established zero tolerance policies and their negative effects on student education. Improved regulations and policy development are needed to continue to ensure the safety in the schools without the fundamentally unfair implications of the policy. To prevent students from being subject to the unfair consequences of the policy when implemented, educational institutions must evaluate their zero tolerance policies for discretionary procedures that will offer protection to the students as well. Failure to do so will subject students to the discouraging vision of equal, as opposed to equitable, discipline for misconduct (Henault, 2001). A policy which is evaluated and the result mirror disparate actions where comparable results are shown, than that policy can be considered as unfair and will ultimately fail. In policy implementation and evaluation, educators must consider the ethical and societal stance on the policy and it overall effect on student outcomes.
References
Anonymous (2004). How to adopt a zero tolerance policy that makes sense. Curriculum
Review, 43. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Cooper, B.S, Fusarelli, L.D., & Randall, E.V. (2004). Better policies, better schools:
Theories and applications. Pearson Education, Inc.
Denig, S.J. & Quinn, T. (2001). Ethical dilemmas for school administrators. The High
School Journal, 84. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Fries, K. & DeMitchell, T.A. (2007). Zero tolerance and the paradox of fairness:
Viewpoints from the classroom. Journal of Law and Education, 36. Retrieved
May 22, 2010 from ProQuest database.
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gorman, K. & Pauken, P. (2003). The ethics of zero tolerance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 41(1), 24. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from the Selected Readings
Page, University of Phoenix, EDD 723.
Henault, C. (2001). Zero tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and Education, 30.
Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An
alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29.
Retrieved May 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Miller, A. (2000). Zero tolerance: Fair or not? Junior Scholastic, 13. Retrieved May 3,
2007 from ProQuest database.
Stader, D.L. (2004). Zero tolerance as public policy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. The
Clearing House, 78. Retrieved May 3, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Skiba, R.J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for youth
development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep schools
safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
