In-school Suspension Practices and the Prison Hospital Experience

• NCJ Number: 80180
• Journal: NOLPE School Law Journal Volume: 7 Issue: 1 Dated: (1977) Pages: 65-75
• Author(s): D K Wiles; E Rockoff
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 11 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The legal implications of in-school suspension practices were examined through consideration of individual versus institutional right within the special punitive-rehabilitative setting of the prison hospital model.

Abstract

Recent attention to school suspensions has caused concern among educators about due process rights of students. Faced with seemingly stringent procedural guidelines and uncertainty of legal position vis-a-vis the constitutional and reputation rights of the individual, school personnel have sought alternatives to the traditional device of suspending students from school. One such alternative is 'in-school suspension,' in which the student offender is subject to the equivalent of exclusion punishment within the school setting. While this device may alleviate some of the procedural and technical issues of exclusion from school grounds, it focuses attention on a more fundamental issue: the institutional capacity of schools to provide a 'worthwhile educational opportunity' in a special setting designed to be 'rehabilitative.' The prison hospital model has special applicability for schools in that 'special environments' created in both organizations are comparable in the public sector nature of the institutions, the types of clients, and the internal governance arrangements. The legal precedent established for prison hospital environments suggests that the burden of proving a viable rehabilitative experience rests with the institution rather than with the client. Further, there appears to be no operational delineation of a 'proper special environment' which has withstood a legal examination. In terms of in-school suspension practices, future legal action may well focus on such broad areas of concern as the nature of the student clients, the nature of the special school environment, and the personnel charged with rehabilitation. Present school practices appear vulnerable in all these areas. A total of 52 footnotes are given. (Author summary modified)