Student Discipline and Due Process

The public school program is meant to aid the learners to become successful in their education. In relation to the above statement, this system operates under strict rules and regulation, which guides the behaviors or actions of the apprentices (Gambrill, 2013). At this point, the New York’s District 26 in Queens provides a thorough explanation about the expectations, code of conducts and disciplinary measures for monitoring all students within the public school (NYC Department of Education, 2019). Indeed, this paper focus on summarizing, contrasting and comparing prerequisites of District 26 through considering short-term and long-term suspension criterion. 

To illustrate, the Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) case denotes that learners are sometimes suspended without being provided with necessary hearing. Conversely, the students normally corrode with the school officials because of demanding the unconstitutional suspension to be eliminated since it breaks up the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Otherwise, following the application of such rules the students have been received their rights not be mistreated in all schools across the New York (Mossman, 2011). Moreover, the entire federal government in the United States also ascertains that students have identical rights in similar instances. 

As a matter of fact, the suspension guidelines applicable in the Queens County district school are consistent with ruling about the above-mentioned case. The review of the Code of Conduct indicates that public learning institutions are using valid disciplinary actions and expectation guidelines (Mossman, 2011). To illustrate, the above legal document starts by explaining various infraction level and their implementation in public school. In particular, it denotes that guardians or parents the officials in learning institutions can communicate with parents either verbally or in written form when the student is disciplined for confirmed mistakes (Simons, 2016). Moreover, the above ruing states that during the infringement of Code of Student Conduct, the apprentices’ explanations should be tackled by the designee or principal prior to determination violation (Gambrill, 2013). In addition, the above rule also offers a comprehensive description of three levels of infractions and their impacts, hence, providing suitable measures of punishing students who commit varied offenses. 

There is confidential information showing that short-term and long-term suspensions are tackled in the same manner. For instance, one suspension sections highlight that students should be notified about their charges as well as provided with opportunities to present themselves before any legal action is taken (Gambrill, 2013). In such scenarios, the guardians or parents should receive notification about the ongoing case within the 24 hours and thereafter a consultation and notice must precede the students expelled from the learning institution (Simons, 2016). Otherwise, if the immediate student’s suspension is justified, then the mailed warning is also sent to relevant individuals. In connection to the above information, the parents or guardians may quest for a conference with the designee or principal on suspension matters (Mossman, 2011). Indeed, the above legal measures are applicable in all forms of suspensions. 

To conclude, there is clear evidence that legal measures and disciplinary actions highlighted in the Queen’s School Code of Conduct play a role of ascertaining that students are behaving in an ethical manner while being in the school. However, the officials in the learning institutions cannot apply the above rules without notifying the parents or guardians about the students’ misbehavior. Otherwise, the comprehensive explanation about the above regulation aids the students, teachers, and parents to obtain a better understanding of the necessary practices for enhancing successful learning. 

References

Gambrill, C. (2013). A review of court cases involving out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries, 1-189.

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/fundamental-fights-under-due-process-and-equal-protection/goss-v-lopez

Mossman, E. L. (2011). Navigating a legal dilemma: A student’s right to legal counsel in disciplinary hearings for criminal misbehavior. U. Pa. L. Rev., 160, 585, 1-47. 

NYC Department of Education (2019, January 30). The New York city department of education. Retrieved from district26.org: http://www.district26.org/

Simons, M. S. (2016). Giving vulnerable students their due: Implementing due process protections for students referred from schools to the justice system. Duke LJ, 66, 943-977.