In November, we reported on a Brookings conference, "Is law undermining public education?" (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=122#1533 for more details), where education reformers and researchers gathered to discuss ways that excessive litigation has tied school districts in knots. Following up on his presentation that day, Richard Arum argued in yesterday's Washington Post that the extension of some civil liberties to school-age children has served to handcuff teachers and administrators, preventing them from disciplining unruly students and creating effective learning environments. Specifically, Arum argues, after 1975, "rudimentary due process rights" were extended to students "facing even minor discipline" and students and parents "began to assert newfound legal rights when they were being disciplined for matters having little or nothing to do with free expression or protest." As a result, teachers and administrators are now wary of making even minimal efforts at punishment, "such as after-school 'double detention,' in class 'time outs,' lowered grades, and exclusion from weekend basketball or football games." Arum maintains that these restrictions ultimately hurt disadvantaged students because "minority students are often concentrated in urban public schools where poverty and behavioral problems are rife" and where strict discipline is necessary to maintain a decent learning environment.
"For their own good: limit students' rights," by Richard Arum, Washington Post, December 29, 2003