SCHOOL SUSPENSION 4
Theguidelines for student suspension at the Los Angeles Unified schooldistrict are stipulated in a policy bulletin issued by the seniordeputy superintendent of the institution. The overall plan observesthat a student is subject to suspension from school only after thefailure of other forms of correction. As a strategy to address andcorrect the student’s wrongdoing, the bulletin guides theadministrators on how to implement a strategy of active support andstrategic interventions in regards to the age of the student (King &Perkins,2013).
Thepolicy demands the principal to communicate the behavior expectationsof the students to parents or guardians at the beginning of eachacademic year. The bulletin also addresses and stipulates onsiteremedial measures, interventions, and resources to be taken byadministration before appending a student. Further, the policy offersthe student’s right to appeal a principal’s initiated suspensionat an out of the school level through the Educational Service Center(ESC). Teacher-related suspensions are subject to appeal through theprincipal, with the results reflected in the student’s records. Thepolicy also caps the number of suspension days at 10 in any schoolyear (King & Perkins,2013).
Theprocedure for suspension requires the principal to hold an informalconference with the student before a suspension. The head shouldinform a learner about the transgression and the resultantdisciplinary action. The student has the right to respond to thecharges in written form and provide facts to defend his/her position.Once the principal determines that a suspension is necessary, thepolicy requires appropriate notification to the concerned student.Later, the parent or the guardian is requested to attend a conferencewith the school officials. The guidelines in the policy alsoauthorize the principal to suspend a student without an informalconference in the event of an emergency (King & Perkins,2013).
Disciplinaryaction by an institution on a student can lead to either short-termor long-term suspension. The latter involves denial of schoolattendance for a period lasting more than 10 days in a school year.Often, it may arise if a student has committed grave wrongdoings,with no signs of correcting the misbehavior. Short-term suspensionlasts less than 10 days in a school’s calendar year. The nature ofsuspension is dependent on the student’s charges and educationallaws (King & Perkins,2013).
Theschool’s requirements are consistent with the decision made in thecase: Gossv. Lopez.It is noteworthy that the school undertook fundamental safeguardsagainst biased or incorrect findings of the student’s misconduct.The rules provide that suspension serves as a last resort measureafter the failure of various interventions to changing the behaviorof the apprentice. Besides, it advises the administrators to adoptstrategic approaches sensitive to the age of the children. The aim isto enhance the effectiveness of intervention programs in changing thebehavior of the scholar (Goss v. Lopez, 1975).
Additionally,the guidelines of the institution allow a student to hold an informalmeeting with the principal. During the meeting, the principalnotifies the apprentice about the misconduct and gives the scholar achance to defend him or herself. Afterward, the institution requiresthe principal to inform the parent of the student through a writtendocument, and hold an informal meeting before a suspension. Unlessotherwise, the policy stipulates that a temporary suspension lastsfor a maximum of ten school days. Similar to the stipulations in thecase of Gossv Lopez,the laws of the school provide the principal with the powers to offeran immediate suspension when the student is determined to pose a riskto other children or the running of the institution (Goss v. Lopez,1975). School guidelines allow a student to appeal the judgment basedon facts and nature of the misconduct. A class suspension offered bya teacher is subject to an appeal to the school`s principal or theadministrator (Goss v. Lopez, 1975).
Gossv. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1975). Retrieved on 12July 2016 fromhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/case.html
King,M. & Perkins. E.R. (2013, Aug. 19). Guidelines for studentsuspensions. LosAngeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin.Web. Retrieved on July 19 2016 fromhttp://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/FLDR_OFFICE_OF_SUPE/BUL-5655.2%20(8-19-13).PDF