THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL IN DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
Numerous organizations and groups
have called for reforming the educational system to make it more responsive to
the needs of students. Educational leaders now recognise that children undergo
enormous pressures while in school that can lead to emotional and social
problems. At one extreme are the pressures to succeed academically; at the
other are the crime and substance abuse students face on school grounds. It is
difficult to talk about achieving academic excellence in a deteriorated school
dominated by gang members.
One way of improving schools and
reducing delinquency is through sponsored educational reform. The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) (Public Law 107-110) authorizes federal programs aimed
improving America's primary and secondary schools by increasing the
accountability for states, school districts, and schools and also providing
parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend.
The NCLB increases focus on reading and relies on outcome-based education or
the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success
for all students. The NCLB has proven quite controversial.
SCHOOL - BASED PREVENTION PROGRAMS
Education officials have
instituted numerous programs to make schools more effective instruments of
delinquency prevention. Some of the most prevalent strategies are as follows:
Cognitive- Increase students'
awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and delinquency.
Affective-Improve students'
psychological assets and self-image to give them are resources to resist
antisocial behavior.
Behavioral-Train students in
techniques to resist peer pressure.
Environmental-Establish school
management and disciplinary programs that deter crime, such as locker searches.
Therapeutic- Treat youths who
have already manifested problems.
More specific suggestions include
creating special classes or schools with individualized programs that foster
success for nonadjusting students. Efforts can be made to help students deal
contructively with academic failure when it does occur.
More personalized student-teacher
relationships have been recommended. This effort to provide young people with a
caring, accepting adult role model will, it is hoped , strengthen the controls
against delinquency. Counselors acting as liaisons between the family and the
school might also be effective in preventing delinquency. These counselors try
to ensure cooperation betweenm the parents and the school and to secure needed
services for troubled students. Some programs that help families and schools develop conflict-avoidance skills
have proven effective in reducing violence levels and disciplinary measures,
such as suspensions and expulsions.
Experiments have been proposed to
integrate job training and experience with classroom instruction, allowing
students to see education as a relevant prelude to their careers. Job training
programs emphasize public service, encouraging students to gain a sense of
attachment to their communities.
Because three out of four mothers
with school-age children are employed ,and two-thirds of them work full time,
three is a growing need for af-school programs. Todays , after-school options
include child-care centers,tutoring programs at school,dance groups, basketball
leagues, and drop-in clubs. State and federal budgets for education, public safety,
crime prevention, and child care provide some funding for after-school
programs. Research shows that younger children (ages 5-9) and those in
low-income neighborhoods gain the most from after-schools programs, showing
improved work habits, behavior with peers and adults, and performance in
school. Young teens who attend after-school activities achieve higher grades in
school and engage in less risky behavior. These findings must be interpreted
with caution. Because after-school programs are voluntary, participants may be
the more motivated youngsters in a given population and the least likely to
engange in antisocial behavior.
Schools may not be able to reduce
delinquency single-handedly, but a number of alternative to their present operations could aid a community-wide
effort to lesson juvenile crime. And reviews of some of the more successful
programs show that the savings in terms of reduced delinquency, school costs,
and so on far outweight the amount of money spent on prevention.
LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE SCHOOLL
The actions of education
officials often run into opposition from the courts,which are concerned with
maintaining the legal rights of minors. The U.S. Supreme Court has sought to balance the civil
liberties of students with the school's mandate to provide a safe environment.
Three of the main issues involved are privacy issues, free speech in school ,
and school discipline.
The right to personal privacy
One major issue is the right of
school officials to search students and their possessions on school grounds.
Drug abuse,theft,assault and battery, and racial conflicts in schools have
increased the need to take action against troublemakers. School administrators
have questioned students about their illegal
activities, conducted searches of students' persons and possessions, and
reported suspicious behavior to the the police.
In 1984, in new jersey v.T.L.O., the Supreme Court
helped clarify a vexing problem: whether the fourth amendment's prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to school officials as well
as to police officers. In this case, the court found that students are in fact
constitutionally protected from illegal searches, but that school officials are
not bound by the same restrictions as law enforcement agents. police need
"probable cause" before they can conducts a search, but educators can
legally search students when there are reasonable grounds to believe the
students have violated the law or broken school rules. In creating this
distinction , the court recognized the needs of school officials to preserve an
environment conducive to education and to secure the safety of students.
Drug testing the supreme court
has allowed school authorities to conduct random drug tests on the grounds that
they are less intrusive than a search of a student's body. in the 1995 case
vernonia school district 47J v. Acton,
the court allowed the testing of student athletes who were going off campus to
engage in events. Underlying this decision is the recognition that drug use is
a serious threat to public safety that interferes with the right of children to
receive a decent and safe education. While drug tests are intrusive,
maintaining school safety was viewed as outweighing the minor inconvenience and loss of personal
privacy. in a subsequent case, board of education of independent school
district no.92 of pottawatomie country
et al .v. earls et al., the court
extended the right to test for drugs without probable cause to all students as
long as the drug-testing policies were "reasonable".in this instance,
the need for maintaining swift and informal disciplinary procedures to maintain
order in a public school outweighs the rightto personal privacy. because the
school's responsibility for children cannot be disregarded , it would not be
unreasonable to search student for drug usage even if no single student was
suspected of abusing drugs.
The court also ruled that,within
this context, Students have a limited expectations of privacy. In their
complaint, the studenyts argued that children participating in nonathletic
extracurricular activities have a stronger expectation of privacy than athletes
who regularly undergo physicals as part of their participation in sports.
However,the court disagreed, maintaining that students who participate in
competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject themselves to many
of the same instrusions on their privacy as do athletes.
School discipline
About 20 states have statutes
permitting teachers to use corporal punishment in public school systems. Under
the concept of in loco parentis, discipline is one of the parental duties given
to the school system. In the 1977case ingraham v. wright, the court held that
neither the eighth nor the fourteenth amendment was violated by a teacher's use
of corporal punishment to discipline students. The court established the
standed that only reasonable discipline is allowed in school systems. Despite
the ingraham decision, the use of corporal punishment remains controversial.
according to a recent study conducted by the american civil liberties union and
human rights watch, almost a quarter of a million U.S. public school children
are now being subjected to corporal punishment each school year, and a
disproportionate number of them are students with mental or physical
disabilities. The research found that students with disabilities made up about
19 percent of students who suffered corporal punishment at school, althought
they constituted just 14 percent of the total nationwide student population.
More than 40,000 students with disabilities are subjected to corporal
punishment in U.S.
schools each year , and this tally probably undercounts the actual rate of
physical discipline since not all instances are reported or recorded. The
report found that some students were punished for conduct related to their
disabilities: students with tourette syndrome were paddled for exhibiting
involuntary tics, and students with autism were punished for repetitive
behaviors such as rocking. Opponents charge that corporal punishment may harm
kids with disabilities, leading to a worsening of their conditions. For
instance, some parents reported that students with autism became violent toward
thenselves or others following corporal punishment. with regard to suspension
and expulsion, in 1976 , in the case of goss v. lopez, the supreme court ruled
that any time a student is to be suspended for up to 10 days , he or she is
entitled to a hearing. in summary, schools have the right to discipline
students, but students are protected from unreasonable , excessive , and
arbitrary discipline.
No comments:
Post a Comment