Saving the Nation's Expendable Children: Amending State Education Laws to Encourage Keeping Students in School

• Author: Courtney Marie Rodriguez
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12044
• Published date: 01 July 2013
• Date: 01 July 2013

STUDENT NOTE FOR THE SPECIAL ISSUE

SAVING THE NATION’S EXPENDABLE CHILDREN:

AMENDING STATE EDUCATION LAWS TO ENCOURAGE KEEPING

STUDENTS IN SCHOOL*

Courtney Marie Rodriguez

Disciplinary codes are designed to govern the behavior of millions of students attending U.S. public schools. As currently

implemented, a great majority of these codes afford school personnel expansive, if not full, discretion to impose anysanction

they deem appropriate in response to a student’s alleged misconduct. Suspension and expulsion are two frequently used

exclusionary sanctions that result in a large group of students who are pushed out of their learning environments around the

nation on a daily basis. These detrimental exclusionary punishments havebeen increasingly used to address minor misbehavior

rather than be reserved solely for serious offenses. This Note will describe the harmful implications currently associated with

suspending and expelling children as a means to address misbehavior in school. This Note will then propose that all states

amend their current education laws to limit infractions that may be punishable by suspension and/or expulsion exclusively to

felonies as well as discuss practical alternatives schools should consider as a response to student misconduct. Implementation

of this proposal would minimize the high rate of children being removedfrom their classrooms and would ultimately heighten

the opportunity for children to learn.

Keywords: School-to-prison pipeline;suspension;expulsion;discipline in public school;students with disabilities;and

students of color.

I. INTRODUCTION

“In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied

the opportunity of an education.”

—Chief Justice Earl Warren1

In May 2007, fourteen-year-old eighth grade honor student Lindsay Tanner was busy making

summer plans.2At the time, Lindsay was “a typical teenager whoenjoyed hanging out with friends and

shopping.”3Unfortunately, Lindsay’s life took a very dramatic turn after she offered an over-the-

counter Midol4pill to a fellow classmate.5At the time, Louisiana law “required principals to imme-

diately suspend a student found to be in possession . . . of any controlled substance.”6In accordance

with this law, the school district in which Lindsay was a student had a policy that prohibited the

possession of drugs on campus.7Lindsay’s act of providing her friend with non-prescription medi-

cation was a violation of the district’s policy and she was dismissed from school.8Lindsay’sdismissal

included being relocated to an alternative school for not only the remainder of her eighth grade year

but the first nine weeks of her freshman year of high school as well.9In addition, Lindsay was forced

to attend a six-week drug and alcohol awareness program and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.10

These penalties were strictly enforced although Lindsay reportedly “had never been a discipline

problem.”11 Lindsay recalls the incident stating, “I lost friends. I was picked on. Anything you can

Correspondence: courtneymrodriguez@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 51 No. 3, July 2013 469–484

© 2013 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts

imagine happening, happened.”12 Lindsay’s mom, Christi Tanner, said “you could see the change in

her, she went from this happy loud girl to a girl that kept to herself and didn’t really want to do

anything anymore.”13 Ms.Tanner tried to appeal her child’s punishment to the school board but was

unsuccessful. The Tanners eventually moved to Texas to give “Lindsay . . . a fresh start.”14

Lindsay’s experience is typical of thousands of students across the nation who are suspended and

expelled for minor infractions.15 During the last six decades, the United States has witnessed sweeping

reform in the field of education. Congress, state governments, and government agencies alike have

worked diligently to developsolutions and legislation in the noble pursuit to strengthen our education

system.16 Recently, primary emphasis in the field has been devoted to producing higher rates of

student achievement by setting high academic standards.17 Unfortunately, a great number of students

are not provided an equal opportunity to “race to the top18” toward academic goals because they are

being pushed out of their schools through suspension and expulsion.19 As such, these measures have

created a large expendable population of students nationwide.20 Consequently, there exists a pressing

need to address the school disciplinary policies that have contributed to the treatment of these

children.21

This Note urges states to amend or create education legislation that limits behavior that is

punishable by suspension and expulsion in schools strictly to felony offenses. This proposal provides

a solution to the prevalent and detrimental practice of suspending and expelling children for minor

infractions. Part II of this Note will provide a historical foundation for the current state of school

discipline in United States public schools, and explain how school codes of conduct are developed.

Part III will examine the various waysstates and their public schools enforce codes. It will also discuss

the negative impact that the uses of suspension and expulsion haveon students across the nation. Par t

IV will propose that states amend their education laws to limit what school infractions may be

punishable by suspension and expulsion. Part V will address potential counterarguments to this

proposal. Part VI will conclude by emphasizing the pressing need for reform in the area of school

discipline.

II. SCHOOL CODES OF CONDUCT

“Our school education ignores, in a thousand ways, the rules of healthy development”

—Elizabeth Blackwell22

A. THE BIRTH OFA ZERO TOLERANCE APPROACH IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

During the 1980’s, the United States underwent great transformation in the way that crime was

addressed.23 A trend to get tough on crime surfaced commensurate with strict federal drug policies that

encouraged severe punishment of all offenses, both serious and minor.24This attitude endured into the

1990’s and gained wide acceptance during a time when the national mindset fostered a perceived fear

of “hardened juvenile” waves of violence.25 In response, schools began to enforce strict disciplinary

sanctions for a vast array of infractions from possession of drugs to “school disruption.”26 During this

time juvenile justice laws were also radically altered by state legislatures.27 Most significantly, these

laws were adjusted to provideg reater opportunities for prosecutors to try juveniles as adult offenders,

as well as greatly expand the definitions of youth-related crimes.28

The federal government also became actively involved in structuring rules in public schools across

the country.29 In 1994, Congress incentivized the imposition of harsh sanctions on children with the

passage of the Gun Free Schools Act (GFSA).30 The GFSA provides public schools with federal

funding in return for an agreement to automatically expel, for at least one year, anystudent who brings

a weapon to campus, and to refer the student to the justice system.31 Subsequently, schools and school

districts not only adopted the minimum standards set forth in GFSA, but also expanded the types of

infractions that could result in children being removed from their schools.32 Since the GFSA was

470 FAMILY COURT REVIEW