According to the NYC Department of Education regulations, there are two sorts of suspensions. First of all, the principal has the authority to suspend a student for a period of one to five school days if that student’s behavior endangers them (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). In the second case, the student may be suspended for more than five days for highly inappropriate behavior. The purpose of this paper is to examine both types of students’ suspension in relation to processes’ requirements and procedures and evaluate the system’s consistency with legislation. Based on the data presented below, it can be concluded that the NYC Department of Education school system is consistent with the ruling in Goss v. Lopez.
As the student’s parents should be informed prior to a short-term suspension, the principal has the right to speak with them. The schedule of their meeting should be planned within five days of the parent’s notification of the suspension (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). In turn, the student must stay in the classroom while awaiting the meeting unless the administrator thinks that the student’s presence in the school creates a chronic risk or a persistent threat of disruption to the educational process (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). During the meeting, the principal and parents should talk about what transpired and how the parents and school will react to the student’s conduct at the meeting, and the director must handle the council.
If the Discipline Code allows for more extreme behavior, the superintendent may suspend the student for longer than five school days, and the due process, in this case, will be different. Thus, this suspension for high school students must be authorized by the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Youth Safety and Development (OSYD) of the US Department of Energy (OSYD) or a designee (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). In addition, K–8 student suspensions must be approved by the CEO/designee, the local superintendent, or another Chancellor designee (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). Moreover, while a short-term suspension requires a meeting with parents, in the case of a long-term suspension, a student is involved in this process as well.
Thus, a student suspended by a superintendent must be allowed to appear at a hearing where they can present their case, cross-examine school officials, and receive representation from a lawyer. Only when needed by law may a superintendent suspend students for more than 20 days (NYC Department of Education, n.d.). Furthermore, it happens after a Level 5 infraction involving dangerous and aggressive behavior when the situation calls for a longer suspension.
The requirements of the NYC Department of Education school system may be regarded as relevant to and in line with the court’s Goss v. Lopez ruling. According to the case, in Columbus, Ohio, nine students were placed on administrative leave for ten days from two high schools and one junior high school (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Before issuing a suspension order, school principals did not convene hearings on the impacted kids, and Ohio law did not compel them (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Following an appeal over the directors’ actions, the federal court concluded that the student’s rights had been violated. The issue was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The court decided that while Ohio people choose to have the right to an education, it cannot be canceled based on misbehavior because there are no fair processes in place to ascertain whether the right to education has been violated.
To conclude, the NYC Department of Education school system is consistent with the ruling in Goss v. Lopez as it follows the decision of the Supreme Court. According to it, in the case of a long-term suspension, pupils who might be suspended at least need to be informed and given a chance to speak. The ignorance of this procedure may be regarded as the violation of students’ rights. Similarly, the system provides an opportunity to present their case, be protected by a lawyer, and cross-examine school officials for potentially suspended students.
References
NYC Department of Education. (n.d.). Suspensions. NYC Department of Education, Suspensions.
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975).