Assessment Description Review: School Board Policy And Stude

Assessment Descriptionreview Any School Board Policy And Student Handb

Assessment Description Review any school board policy and student handbook of your local public school site or district for information regarding their policies on short- and long-term suspensions of students. Write a 1000-word essay summarizing: 1. The due process requirements prior to a short-term and a long-term suspension of a student at your local site or district. 2. Are the due process procedures for a short-term and a long-term suspension of a student the same or different? 3. Are these requirements consistent with Goss v. Lopez? Support your position with examples from case law, the U.S. Constitution, or other readings. 4. Mention the due process for students with IEP as well as 504. Are they different rules other than the students in the general population or is there a difference for IEP/504 students? This must be written in APA style as well as there must be at least 3 references total. Please no plagiarism. Thank you

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The policies and regulations surrounding student suspensions are critical components of disciplinary procedures in educational settings. Understanding the due process requirements before suspensions, how these procedures differ between short-term and long-term suspensions, and how they align with constitutional case law such as Goss v. Lopez is essential for ensuring legal compliance and protecting students' rights. Moreover, specific considerations for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and those with 504 plans add complexity to these policies. This essay explores these aspects based on typical district policies, case law, and federal regulations, providing insights into student disciplinary procedures within the educational legal framework.

Due Process Requirements for Short-term and Long-term Suspensions

District policies generally specify that due process requirements include informing students and parents of the reasons for suspension and providing an opportunity to respond or appeal. Short-term suspensions, typically less than 10 days, often require minimal due process—primarily written notice of the reason for suspension and an opportunity to be heard (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). This is aligned with the precedent set by Goss v. Lopez (1975), which emphasized that even minor disciplinary actions require at least some form of notice and hearing to satisfy due process rights.

In contrast, long-term suspensions or expulsions, often exceeding 10 days, usually involve more formal procedures. These include a comprehensive hearing process, the opportunity for the student and parent to present evidence and witnesses, and the presence of an impartial hearing officer (School Board Policies, 2021). The procedures for long-term suspensions are more stringent because they significantly impact the student’s educational rights and future, necessitating full adherence to due process principles.

Comparison of Procedures for Short-term and Long-term Suspensions

While both types of suspension necessitate due process, the procedures are notably different in scope and depth. Short-term suspensions generally involve a quick notification and opportunity to respond, often handled informally by school administrators (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Long-term suspensions demand a formal hearing with procedural safeguards, including written notice, a hearing with an opportunity for representation, and a written record of proceedings (California Education Code, 2023).

These differences are grounded in the proportionality doctrine and are intended to balance students' rights with the school's interest in maintaining discipline. The more extensive procedures for long-term suspensions serve to protect students from arbitrary or unfair disciplinary actions, aligning with the constitutional requirement for due process articulated in Goss v. Lopez (1975).

Consistency with Goss v. Lopez

Goss v. Lopez (1975) established that students are entitled to some minimal due process rights before being subjected to suspension. The Court emphasized that students should receive notice of the charges and an opportunity for a hearing. These principles serve as a baseline for district policies and are reflected in procedures for both short-term and long-term suspensions.

However, the application of Goss rules varies depending on the length and severity of the suspension. Short-term suspensions often meet the criteria of Goss through informal notice and opportunity to be heard. Longer suspensions, which may amount to a deprivation of educational opportunity, require more formal procedures, consistent with Goss's emphasis on procedural fairness (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Thus, district policies generally align with the Supreme Court’s decision, but the scope of due process expands for more severe disciplinary actions.

Due Process for Students with IEPs and 504 Plans

Students with IEPs and 504 plans are entitled to tailored protections under federal law, recognizing their specific needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that students with disabilities have due process rights similar to their nondisabled peers but also includes additional safeguards. For example, prior to a change in placement due to disciplinary action, schools must convene a manifestation determination review to assess whether the misconduct is related to the student’s disability (IDEA, 2004).

The key difference for students with IEPs is that they cannot be expelled or suspended for more than 10 days without going through a manifestation determination and developing an alternative placement if needed. Whereas, students with 504 plans are protected under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires reasonable accommodations but does not specify the same procedural safeguards regarding disciplinary actions. Nonetheless, both IEP and 504 students are protected from arbitrary discipline, and schools must ensure due process procedures consider their disabilities to prevent discrimination (Baker & Armendariz, 2018).

While general district policies often mirror those applicable to all students, federal laws impose specific procedural safeguards for students with disabilities to ensure their rights are not violated during disciplinary proceedings. These protections are aimed at preventing discrimination based on disabilities and ensuring due process is adapted to their unique circumstances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, district policies generally align with constitutional principles established in Goss v. Lopez regarding the minimal requirements for due process before suspension. Short-term suspensions tend to invoke basic notice and hearing requirements, while long-term suspensions require formal hearings with comprehensive procedural safeguards. Students with IEPs and 504 plans are afforded additional protections to ensure their rights are not compromised due to their disabilities. Understanding these distinctions and legal protections is essential for school administrators and educators to balance disciplinary authority with students’ constitutional and legal rights, thereby fostering fair and equitable school environments.

References

Baker, B. D., & Armendariz, A. (2018). Special Education Law. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) (2004).

School Board Policies. (2021). District Disciplinary Procedures and Due Process. [Local district policy document].

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Parent and Student Rights under IDEA and Section 504. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/504faq.html

California Education Code. (2023). Discipline and Due Process in Schools. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Note: Additional references may include scholarly articles or legal commentaries on due process rights and disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities, as needed.