|
David
Blount, Editor
While students, parents, educators, policymakers and communities
in general long have been concerned about the safety of students
while at school, the issue of crime and violence occurring
at school, and intolerance of it, has reached new heights
in recent years in the wake of highly publicized incidents
of violence at schools. While school divisions in Virginia
long have had the right to discipline students according to
school board policy, the Joint Subcommittee Studying the Prevention
of School Crime and Violence recommended legislation in the
early 1990s designed to give schools more tools and flexibility
to ensure safe teaching and learning environments. While legislation
has frequently addressed student suspensions and expulsions,
provisions also have been approved concerning alternative
education placements for suspended or expelled students. In
1993, the General Assembly established four, pilot regional
alternative programs for long-term suspended and expelled
students, then expanded the program in 1994 through HB
724.
In compliance with the 1994 federal Gun Free Schools Act,
the General Assembly approved HB
1614and SB
874 in 1995 to require school boards to expel from school
attendance for one year, any student determined to have brought
a firearm onto school property or to a school-sponsored activity.
School boards may determine that special circumstances exist
and another disciplinary action is appropriate.
Responding to concerns from teachers about classroom discipline
problems, the General Assembly, in 1997, approved HB
1877, which gave statutory authority for teachers to initially
remove disruptive students from class. Also approved that
year, HB
2169 and SB
1161 allowed school boards to permit the superintendent’s
decision to be final on suspensions of 10 days or less.
In 1998, HB
1342 established a Drug Free Schools Act in Virginia,
essentially mirroring language in the Gun Free Schools Act,
to require school boards to expel from school attendance any
student determined to have brought drugs onto school property
or to a school-sponsored activity. School boards may determine
that special circumstances exist and another disciplinary
action is appropriate. SB
667 required school boards to provide parents of suspended
students with information about community-based alternative
programs. HJ
242 directed the Board of Education to develop guidelines
for middle and high school alternative education settings.
One of the most controversial measures considered that year
was SB
610 , the so-called Advil bill, which spoke directly to
the notion of flexibility and discretion within the zero tolerance
issue. The unsuccessful bill, debated for the better part
of two years, would have prohibited the suspension or expulsion
of a high school student for mere possession of a legal, nonprescription
drug for self-use. It was spurned by an incident in which
a student riding on a school bus was disciplined for having
Advil in her possession.
In 1999, HB
2144 and SB
1135 modified the Drug Free Schools Act to permit school
boards to designate the superintendent to determine disciplinary
action in student drug cases, while SB
1136 made similar modifications to the Gun Free Schools
Act. Similarly, HB
2405 allows superintendents to make alternative education
placement decisions. HB
2426 creates a 1,000 foot drug-free zone around school
bus stops. SB
1128 established, but did not fund, a community-based
program for suspended and expelled students.
In 2000, HB
588 allowed school boards to require “abuse”
evaluations for students found to be in possession or under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. SB
197 prohibits anyone convicted of an “offense prohibiting
proximity to children” from loitering within 100 feet
of a school.
In 2001, the legislature considered and approved a variety
of measures dealing with zero tolerance. Among there were
HB
197 and SB
847, which provide new penalties for making threats on
school property. HB
1575 and SB
789 delay driving privileges for one year for a juvenile
making a bomb threat. HB
1706 allows school boards to exclude a student expelled
by another division, regardless of the offense for which the
disciplinary action was imposed, upon a finding that the student
presents a danger to other students or staff. Following a
year of study by the Commission on Youth, with assistance
from various education organizations, the legislature approved
bills that overhauled the student discipline statutes.
HB 2512 and SB
1359 make several substantive changes, including the following:
various student disciplinary actions are defined; school boards
are allowed to exclude students from school upon a finding
that the student presents a danger to the other students or
staff; and schedules and conditions under which students may
apply/reapply for readmission to school are established. SB
1144 authorizes school boards to establish optional programs
for K–5 students who need special guidance, supervision, and
discipline in a structured learning environment.
The State Crime Commission has undertaken a study of the
role, responsibilities, training and authority of school security
officers and school safety specialists. It is hoped that this
examination will result in both clarification of the various
and distinctive roles these personnel have, and effective
coordination of their efforts in order to enhance the safety
of the teaching and learning environment. We can expect the
General Assembly each year to consider various bills that
would address zero tolerance issues and further enhance the
safety and security of the teaching and learning environment.
1994 – HB 628 (expulsion/destruction of school
property), HB 724
1995 – HB 1614, HB 2140, HB 2330 and SB 874 (Gun
Free Schools Act), HB 2150 (court ordered alternative placements),
HB 2579 (site specific suspensions)
1996 – HB 570 (365 days exclusion), HB 936 (reenrollment
plans), SJ 85 (study effect of suspensions/expulsions)
1997 – HB 1802 (expulsion for criminal drug violation),
HB 1877, HB 1936 and HB2151 (alternative education programs),
HB 2169 and SB 1161, HB 2378 (exclusion/suspension), HB 2526
(committee to decide expulsion), HJ 593 (school discipline
study), HJ 629 (study effect of suspensions/expulsions)
1998 – HB 477 (required alternative programs),
HB 893 (committee to decide long term suspension), HB 1182
(notification of suspension), HB 1343, SB 362 (adjudication/expulsion),
SB 610, SB 666 (no suspension/expulsion for K–3), SB 667,
SB 702 (community-based program for suspended and expelled
students), HJ 242
1999 – HB 1248 (grants for elementary alternative
programs), HB 1462 (exception for guns on school grounds),
HB 1489 (strip search guidelines) HB 1894 (regulation of laser
pointers), HB 2144 and SB 1135, HB 2405, HB 2426, SB 1128,
SB 1136, SB 1263 (Academic Opportunities Pilot Program)
2000 – HB 188 (elementary alternative programs),
HB 248 and SB 80 (expulsion for firearms possession), HB 464
(expulsion/school property definition), HB 588 and HB 1432
(drug tests), HB 1445 (student search policies), SB 197, SJ
240 (study of school surveillance equipment)
2001 – HB 197 and SB 847, HB 247 (guns near and
on school property), HB 1575 and SB 789, HB 1624 (knife possession),
HB 1706, HB 1996 (records report of any misdemeanors), HB
1997 (battery against persons having contact with students),
HB 2259 (threats), HB 2512 and SB 1359, HB 2521 (battery of
a sports official), HB 2588 (criminal records exchange), HB
2690 (battery against school resource officers or safety specialists),
SB 1144
It is noted in the School Safety Issues: Zero Tolerance issue
briefing that the overwhelming majority of schools have zero
tolerance policies for firearms and other weapons, and alcohol,
drugs and tobacco. Just as we’ve seen in Virginia,
many other states also have been fine-tuning their laws dealing
with zero tolerance, suspension, expulsion and alternative
education programs. In 2000, Florida implemented the recommendations
of a school safety task force by establishing the Partnership
for School Safety and Security. Among other things, this partnership
will share safety and security information; evaluate school-safety
programs; provide school districts with assistance and advice;
and encourage coordination with law enforcement personnel.
Though no final action was taken, Congress had on its table
in the 1999-2000session a number of measures dealing with
safe and secure schools. Specifically concerning zero tolerance,
H.Res. 399 commended states and localities in their efforts
to combat school-based violence, including qualified zero
tolerance policies for violent acts. H.R. 277 would require
that in order to receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, states must have a law that requires expulsion
of students convicted of a crime of violence.
Education Commission
of the States
Southern
Regional Education Board
cClick here for a policy issue briefing on “School
Safety Issues: Zero Tolerance.”
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
