1. California recently enacted a law that precludes willful defiance or disruption of school activities as a reason to expel students. Do you think it is appropriate for the state legislature to decide such an issue or should the issue be addressed by the governing board of a school district? Defend your answer.
In the perception of self, I tend to firmly believe that disruption of school activities by malicious students is an act that tends to hinder the majority of the school activities. The legislation that was enacted by the state of California to expel students who disrupt school activities is a strategy that will play a significant role in enhancing discipline in schools. Discipline is usually an essential element in schools and tends to play a substantial function in nurturing the behavior of students. Expelling of students from schools due to reasons that are related to disruption of school activities will instill in the students the significance of discipline in schools. It is appropriate for the state legislature to decide that the governing board of the school district handle the expelling of students due to cases related to disruption of school activities. The governing board of the school should be given the mandate as they are the ones who directly deal with the students directly and have the know-how of the actual behavior of students in schools. However, the state legislature should not be given the mandate to handle such issues the state legislature do not directly deal with the affairs with students and the decisions that they might make regarding a particular case might be biased as they might not be able to acquire the actual accounts of the events that might have triggered the school disruption activity.
1. Response 2
In response to the instructor’s post, I firmly support the argument of the instructor that the state legislators should not be allowed to have a say on the school affairs of students. The affairs of students should ensure that the discipline of students is handled at either the school level or the school level. The primary reason is that the state legislators are not present to either instill discipline in students or either know the actual behavior of students in the school (Wheldall, 2017). The point on allowing of the state legislators to handle matter relating to the discipline of students will render useless the school board in the unforeseeable future as state legislators will directly handle all issues. Allowing state legislators to handle matter relating to discipline will undermine the efforts of tutors in schools as state legislators will be interfering with the disciplinary measures that will be undertaken by the school.
2. Response 3
In regards to the post, I tend to firmly disagree with the post that supports the state legislators should be given the mandate of handling matter relating to the discipline of students. The point that teachers have gotten tired discipline students is a vague statement. The sole reason is that the post is undermining the role played by teachers and parents indicating that the teachers and parents have failed in disciplining children and thus state legislators should be given an upper hand to deal with discipline of children in California State.
3. Response 4
In regards to the post, I firmly agree with the post that supports the state legislators should be given the mandate of handling matter relating to the discipline of students (Frey, 2014). The post indicates confessions of a deputy principal of how punishments have failed to manage the behavior of students. In this case, state legislators will play a significant role in disciplining students as teachers have failed on their mandate.
References
Frey, S. 2014. New Law Limits Student Discipline Measure. Retrieved from:
http://edsource.org/2014/new-law-limits-student-discipline-measure/67836
Wheldall, K. (Ed.). (2017). Discipline in schools: Psychological perspectives on the Elton Report. Routledge.
