| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
By Sandra R. Brodnicki
Written for News & Views and OnWEAC
When schools throughout Wisconsin reopen next fall, teachers will have greater authority to remove disruptive students from their classes, thanks to a new law.
Wisconsin school boards have been grappling with the new law since July 16, 1998, when the Legislature passed – and the governor signed — a bill that created the new school safety and discipline procedure law. Basically, it provides teachers with greater authority in dealing with student disruption and inappropriate classroom behavior.
|
|
Teachers will be able to remove a student if the child becomes dangerous, unruly or disruptive or exhibits behavior that interferes with the ability of the teacher to teach effectively as spelled out by a locally produced code of conduct.
School districts have been actively working to meet new requirements, said Department of Public Instruction education consultant Beth Lewis.
“I would hope they’re about done at this point,” Lewis said. “Some of this is part and parcel of what (school districts) are already doing.”
The law was a key item in WEAC’s Legislative Agenda, and WEAC was instrumental in getting the bill introduced and passed. WEAC believes the new law will protect the rights of students who are deprived of a productive learning environment because of excessive demands made on teacher time, energy and attention by disruptive students.
Beginning August 1, 1999, a teacher may remove a pupil from the class if the pupil violates the school district’s code of conduct. School boards are required to adopt a code to govern classroom conduct beginning in the 1999-2000 school year.
“I’ve told principals that this is not your homework assignment,” Lewis said. “This should be a schoolwide and community effort.”
In essence, each school district may provide different standards of conduct and may provide additional placement options. Parents, pupils, school board members, administrators, pupil service professionals and other residents of the school district are working to develop their own codes of classroom conduct.
“What may be unruly in my classroom may not be unruly in yours,” Lewis said.
Although some school districts have asked about a model for establishing a classroom code of conduct, DPI has not offered that or sample policies, Lewis said.
“That would defeat the purpose of local districts going through the process of developing their own code,” she said. “This is an opportunity for schools to support the values of their community and to determine whether their code of conduct should focus on building good citizens or catching bad kids.”
However, the law gets a little murky when it comes to children in special education programs since any actions taken are subject to federal special education law. “
A district must make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to all resident children in the district with a disability,” said Jack Frye-Osier of DPI’s special education team. In doing so, the district meets its legal obligation, in part, by providing special education and related services to meet the unique needs of the child pursuant to an individualized education program (IEP). Special education is specialized instruction designed to meet the child’s unique needs. The child’s education program described in the IEP must be individualized to meet the needs of the child.
“For each child with a disability whose behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others, the team developing the child’s IEP must consider strategies and interventions and supports to address that behavior in order for the child to receive a free appropriate public education,” Frye-Osier added.
“When the team developing such a child’s IEP determines that an individualized behavior management plan is required in order for a child to receive FAPE, then the plan must be included in the child’s IEP. A district may not implement any districtwide policy, including a disciplinary policy, which prevents the individualization of a child’s IEP.
“For each child with a disability whose behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others, the IEP team must consider whether application of the district-wide disciplinary policy is appropriate for that child, or whether other interventions are more appropriate. For children with disabilities whose behavior does not impede learning, the team developing the child’s IEP is not required to consider the child’s behavior. Districtwide disciplinary policies may be applied to such children, subject to the disciplinary policies of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),” Frye-Osier said.
A Legislative Council committee was also formed to address the issues related to school discipline and alternative educational placements for unruly, disruptive and dangerous students. Headed by Sen. Alberta Darling, the School Discipline and Safety Committee started meeting in October.
Maria Wenzel, a teacher at Longfellow Middle School in LaCrosse and a member of the WEAC Board of Directors, said the committee has been getting up to speed on the safety and discipline issues facing teachers in the classroom. Wenzel is the only teacher on the committee. She said she hopes the committee will make recommendations on school safety and discipline to the Legislature by the end of May.
In addition to studying the procedures for placement of unruly, disruptive or dangerous pupils, the committee is also exploring educational placement options and recommendations for funding alternative education.
“A lot of it has to do with finding the right place for kids,” Wenzel said, referring to an option of placing unruly children in alternative school settings. “A lot of it has to do with money.”
The recommendations may include further training of school district staff to manage the behavior of pupils.
“My hope is that we can come up with something that will help teachers make a difference in the classroom,” Wenzel added. “I really worry about the 99% of the kids who don’t cause problems in the classroom. I want the best possible classroom for them.”
Responding to the new law has given school districts additional work to do, said Lewis.
“Hopefully it will benefit the kids in the school, but it’s created a lot more work for schools on top of the full plates school districts already have,” she said.
Posted May 5, 1999
