The “Be a Buddy not a Bully” program will operate as a bullying prevention program in order to reduce bullying in schools, and reduce the overall effects of bullying in the community, such as school violence and truancy. The program would 1. Identify at risk students and intervene. 2. Teach students skills and knowledge that promote social and emotional competence and provide a foundation for reflective learning and non-violent problem solving.
The article provides pros and cons of the zero tolerance policy. With the policy, there are controversial views in regards if the policy is effective in schools. Some of the pros were that the strict policies can ensure that the school environment is safe for students and provide offenders with a firm consequence. This can prepare students for real-life situations, e.g. when a person is breaking a law.
(McInerney, P. (2004). In her summary McInerney specifically refers to the work of Raewyn Connell, who investigated the concept of dominant cultural hegemony. Connell advocated for curricular justice and made a case for curriculum reform based on a redistributive approach to social justice. (Connell, R. (1993). McInerney stated that whole of school reform, reviews of curriculum and pedagogy, and responses to government policies were the most prevalent social justice strategies in the education-based social justice literature.
Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches. Historically speaking, student searches came about in response to schools such as Columbine, Jonesboro, West Paducah, Pearl, Littleton, and Springfield 's sudden acts of violence at these schools. Schools and communities use these methods typically use the best search policies are developed by school boards who work collaboratively with local law enforcement officials, local judges, attorneys, school staff, community members to keep the school safe and maintaining the survival of the school. In the article by Kate R. Ehlenberger, Assistant Executive Director, Commonwealth Educational policy institute
I applaud the American Evaluation Association (AEA) in taking a strong stance on the deleterious effects of high stakes testing, especially going so far as to promulgate their reasons and concerns. It is obvious from the statement that the AEA supports the importance of testing and accountability in improving education, but finds the current testing manipulation environment to be harmful for any positive improvements in education. Specifically, how the monolithic testing focus has increased dropout rates, created cultural insensitivity, turned the community against teachers and administrators, and driven curriculum writing with a myopic focus, of teaching to the test. In addition, the AEA highlights other adverse effects of narrowing the focus
In 2010, Russlyn Ali wrote a letter to their colleagues about reducing bullying in schools (Doc. G). The purpose of the letter was to warn administrators that they must take harassment and discrimination incidents seriously (Doc. G). In the letter, it included an important statement which listed important information on harassment and what it includes.
Undoubtedly, after reading the article School Safety: Real or Imagined Fear? by Jane Clark Lindle (2008) the two issues that impacted me were the fear and conflicting images of schooling and childhood safety. The author examines the factors by examining school policies in regards to safety and the perception of fear among various age groups. In addition, the author provides suggestions to improve on school safety that has been suggested by scholars in the criminal justice and education field. The majority of findings from the article were based on the author’s own research and some were from various researchers in order to develop a well empirically researched topic.
They supported the school district with a six to three decision. This case shows us that it is understood that drugs have a negative effect on students and their performance in school and in athletics; and so it is reasonable for school districts to make and enforce policies that have the potential of preventing students and student-athletes from abusing
The article also points out the long-term damage that can be done to children, stemming directly from the pollutants as well as considering the indirect negative impact that can occur, such as decreased school attendance. They reason that these pollutants can be significantly reduced through the implementation of policies that reduce pollution and, by proxy, health problems in children. I can use this source to present further evidence of the dangers of pollutants to children and their livelihoods. This can resonate within my audience as, not long ago, they themselves were children. Larr has completed a master of public health degree from Columbia University, while Neidell is an associate professor at the Department of Health Policy at Columbia University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
As explored through the lens of school culture and change theory related to anti-gay bias, enacting appropriate protective policy serves as a primary agent of school culture change. One means to closely examine and address the issue of the ongoing victimization of LGBT students and the adults obliged to provide an equitable learning environment is through comprehensive public school policy that explicitly addresses bullying and harassment related to anti-gay bias. Research shows that comprehensive public school and district policies that define language to protect sexual minorities, sexual orientation, and gender identity can be effective in combating anti-gay bias, especially bullying and harassment (Cianciotto & Cahill, 2003). Despite all the supporting data that state that LGBT students are harassed, victimized and face challenges in their learning environment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; Fetner & Kush, 2008; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 2008; National GLBTQ Youth Foundation, 2010; Mayo, 2006; Ripski & Gregory, 2009), and despite evidence to support that a school with adult advocates and clear policy that embraces LGBT students is impactful (Biegel & Kuehl, 2010; Cianciotto & Cahill, 2003; Griffin
I feel that the consequence policy had appropriate consequences for different violations, I thought that having different consequences for different levels of offenses was a good idea for the elementary school. Consequences are extremely important for students to learn how to behave and what is and is not appropriate for them to do in school. The curriculum enforcement policy ties directly into my group (the curriculum committee). The curriculum enforcement policy had different parts that were incorporated into it that all passed, most of the policy focused directly on having the teachers collaborate with one another. As a future educator I agreed with the policy immensely, I feel that in order to have a successful teaching staff collaboration is key.
The disciplinary practices currently used in our school systems present a major issue on the quality of education in this country. Our education system should strive to implement disciplinary policies that foster a safe and supportive environment for every learner. Unfortunately the current zero tolerance policies have led to widespread disciplinary actions of school exclusion, which have not only been proven to be ineffective , but also have been correlated with increased negative academic and social consequences, especially for those of disadvantaged populations (Skiba & Losen, 2016). This paper will demonstrate the evidence showing the negative effects of the zero tolerance philosophy and suggest a new approach that social workers in the education field can implement to create a more inclusive environment for children from every population. The Problem Following the implementation of similar policies in state and federal drug legislation, zero tolerance policies were introduced into school