Introduction
There are numerous procedural fairness obligations if a student is suspended for a short or lengthy period. A statutory requirement known as “due process” ensures that individuals have access to all their constitutional rights, including their life, freedom, and possessions. Each learner has the right to learn; if this fundamental right is violated for disciplinary reasons, the pupil has the right to a fair tribunal before being suspended or expelled for an extended period. Like adults, schoolchildren should be afforded procedural fairness (“14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil rights”, 2022). This essay will compare the Newton County School system’s suspension processes with Goss v. Lopez and comprehensively outline the due process designated for the learners’ long and short-term suspension.
Due Process Analysis and Comparison
Due Process Requirements Before a Short-Term and Long-Term Suspension at Newton County School District
The long-term suspension at Newton County School involves keeping the pupil out of class for more than ten days, but not longer than the current semester and any school-supported events, including participation. The short-term suspension comprises withdrawal from all school-supported programs, including attendance in class for a maximum of ten days at school. The principal makes all ultimate decisions about short-term suspension, which are binding.
Comparison of Due Process Procedures for Short-Term and Long-Term Suspensions
The short-term and long-term suspension rules of the Newton County School are pretty comparable. The Newton County School tries to contact the learner’s parents to arrange a conference after either short or long-term suspension (“System portion of the Elementary Handbook of the Newton County School”, 2020). The suspension span is less than ten days for short-term suspension and ten days or more for long-term suspension.
A conference is comparable to a tribunal but has a more casual, conversational tone. If attempts to reach the family are ineffective, the institution will issue a letter outlining the offenses the pupil perpetrated. The principal can continue even without the parent, whenever a note has been sent, and the parent makes no effort to attend the session.
Consistency of Suspension Procedures with Goss v. Lopez: A Legal Analysis with Supporting Examples
Nine learners were suspended for ten days in the Goss v. Lopez incident 1975. The legislation did not compel the pupils to have a tribunal (“U.S. reports: Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565”, 1975). The High Court ultimately found that the learner’s rights had been infringed upon after the lawsuit had reached that level. The ultimate verdict was 5-4, with the majority believing that the pupil’s interests had been breached.
The nine learners’ treatment was unlawful when considering the current judicial process. It violated the pupils’ rights whenever they were banned without being told why, and they could not justify themselves. The short-term and long-term suspension procedures in Goss v. Lopez and Newton County School differ.
To arrange a conference, Newton County School tries to contact the pupil’s parent (“Codes of conduct”, 2022). If efforts to reach the family are futile, the institution will send a note outlining the offenses the pupil incurred. Using the phrase conference, Newton County School exceeds freedom to a fair hearing, but Goss v. Lopez does not.
Conclusion
Every pupil should have access to education. However, they must adhere to the rules of the due process whenever their reprimands cause them to be expelled from school and impede their learning ability. There are minor changes between the processes for lengthy and short bans. Newton County School gives ten days or fewer for short-term bans and ten days or more for long-term bans, and therefore, it observes the due process rules.
Learners were not given the required procedural fairness processes in the Goss v. Lopez lawsuit. The institution had to hold a particular session whenever a student was banned for ten or more days. Due process is vital, and if institutions fail to provide learners with the fair learning they are entitled to, they risk legal proceedings.
References
14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil rights. (2022). National Archives and Records Administration. Web.
Codes of conduct. (2022). Newton County School District. Web.
System portion of the Elementary Handbook of the Newton County School. (2020). Sharp School. Web.
U.S. reports: Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565. (1975). The library of congress. Web.