This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

One Strike and You're Out? Constitutional Constraints on Zero Tolerance in Public Education

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Eric Blumenson (Suffolk University Law School)
Eva Nilsen (none)
Abstract

Following a spate of school shootings in the 90s and academic concerns about increasing juvenile violence, school districts throughout the country have adopted what is commonly known as a "zero-tolerance" policy. Reversing long-standing campaigns aimed at keeping children at risk in school, the new policy seeks to identify troublesome students and get them out of school. Zero tolerance imposes expulsion or suspension for a wide range of misconduct that previously would have been dealt with through lesser sanctions such as detention, or remedial efforts such as counseling. The most recent available national totals show that in 1998 more than 3.1 million children were suspended from school.The article assesses both the consequences of zero tolerance discipline in public schools and its constitutionality. After examining the as-yet unresolved status of educational rights in the federal constitution , we explore a number of reasons why expulsions from the public school system mat be constitutionally impermissible. We conclude that "expulsions to nowhere" are particularly vulnerable to legal challenges based on federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection, as well as enumerated rights to education that exist in state constitutions.This article is the second in a project we have undertaken examining the use of educational deprivation as a form of punishment. The first article, How to Create an Underclass, or How the War on Drugs Became a War on Education, 6 UNIV. OF IOWA JOURNAL OF GENDER, RACE AND JUSTICE 61 (2002), inventories the increasing of educational deprivation sanctions at all levels of education, with particular emphasis on the consequences and legality of the federal law that denies college loans to drug offenders.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=suffolk/fp
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Suffolk University Law School in its series Suffolk University Law School Faculty Publications with number suffolk_fp-1009.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bep:suffac:suffolk_fp-1009

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.law.suffolk.edu/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: criminal law; zero tolerance; public education; education deprivation;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? The yearly budget of IDEAS is exactly $0: it relies entirely on volunteer work.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.