Jared Wolf

December 23, 2009

“Education: Right or Privilege?”

In considering the basic rights our country proudly upholds, a few stand out as

especially crucial. The right to speak freely, assembly peaceably, and practice chosen

beliefs are foremost among these, and are protected in the Bill of Rights of the

Constitution of the United States. Notably absent from this list is a right often assumed to

be advocated by federal law: the right to an education. As states are left to develop their

own laws regarding this issue, and individual schools may create policies further

governing who may be educated, and to what extent, vital questions are raised as to

whether anyone can be fully entitled to an education. To what degree is this implied right

actually a privilege, subject to usurpation on the basis of "zero-tolerance" policies, or

desire to establish an ideal, undisrupted learning environment for "deserving" students?

At what point, if any, does a student's risk to this "optimization" of school setting give

schools the right to exclude him? How should schools react to students who pose a clear

threat to others? In short, are students truly entitled to an education?

The answer to this question is not as black-and-white as it would seem. Legally,

education is considered by many states to be a property, the right to which is protected by

the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment “forbids the State to deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property” (GOSS v. LOPEZ 2). This statement in the United States

Constitution has been interpreted in several state constitutions to be inclusive toward

education. Ohio state law, for example, upholds the notion that the state is to provide “for

free education to all children between the ages of six and 21” (GOSS v. LOPEZ 1). This
clause is representative of laws that exist in many states, though not at the federal level.

This discrepancy has caused some level of debate as to whether “right to education” truly

exists on a purely legal level.

This discussion reached a turning point in the Supreme Court case GOSS v.

LOPEZ in 1975. The case was a decision on whether the constitutional rights of six high

school students had been violated when they were suspended from school without a

proper hearing (GOSS v. LOPEZ 1). Essentially, the issue of this case was not one of

right to an education, but one of due process. However, it has become notable in that it is

often pointed to as proof that United States law protects the inalienable right to an

education. This take on the impact of the case is evident in educational research

consultant Susan Black's assertion that the “Court ruled that a student's entitlement to a

public education is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the 14th

amendment” (Black 1). It would seem as though the strength of the word “entitlement,”

(a word used in the same context in the actual Supreme Court decision), rather than such

weaker quasi-synonyms as ‘opportunity,’ or even ‘right,’ would make it explicit that a

student's education may not be taken away.

However, it is important to note that the law allows for circumstances in which an

individual's education may be rescinded. In GOSS v. LOPEZ, a school's right to suspend

or expel students was upheld as well, insofar as a legitimate basis for this disciplinary

action was present, as determined by a public hearing (GOSS v. LOPEZ 1). The Court

supported the rights of both sides of the right versus privilege debate: a student’s

education cannot be simply taken away, but a school is not required to give an education

to a student whose behavior constitutes a direct threat. In fact, certain situations legally
warrant a requirement of such expulsions: the 1994 federal Gun-Free Schools Act

declared that all states are to remove from their school system “any student who brings a

handgun, shotgun, rifle, or exploding weapon” (Black 1). This most severe punishment is

doled out on a “zero-tolerance” basis, with no consideration of individual cases.

Proponents of this type of policy claim that it is essential to ensuring school

safety. Their purpose initially lay in preventing the repeating of tragedies such as the

Columbine school shooting. Even those most staunchly opposed to zero-tolerance (ZT)

policies concede that they were formed with “well-intentioned efforts” (Hess 1). Aimed

toward the control of weapons and drugs within a school, zero-tolerance policies were

created with student and faculty safety in mind. In light of the violent events occurring in

schools at this time, it seemed fair that situations in which lives were at risk should be

avoided at all cost, and that individuals who caused this sort of risk were forfeiting their

right to an education. Zero-tolerance policies are considered to be the only alternative in

schools “with few resources, overcrowded classrooms, and volatile populations” (Hess

2). It seems difficult to deny that someone capable of severely endangering their own life

or the lives of others has no place in a school setting.

On the other hand, many fear that zero-tolerance policies are a violation of civil

rights. Is it fair that someone may be automatically disqualified from an education,

arguably the most vital resource to a successful life, based solely on a single act? Even

for those who think so, the question arises as to where the line is to be drawn of which

behaviors will be tolerated, and which will not. Those against zero-tolerance policies

point to cases such as that of a student named Alex who was suspended when his satiric

writing on his school's stance tardiness was ruled “verbal assault” (Hess 1). The fairness
of this label’s severity is dubious, proof that, as a Civil Rights Project of Harvard

University study claims, ZT policies have “spun totally out of control” (Hess 1). That an

exercise in free speech could result in such a harsh punishment indicates that the domain

is ZT policies need to be more firmly established. Alex’s suspension was punishment for

punishment’s sake: the intent of his parody was purely for entertainment and passive self-

expression, and it did not threaten behavioral sterility of his environment, besides perhaps

making public an already-discussed school issue. Therefore, the disciplinary action taken

against him shows a clear discrepancy in stances on ZT policies within the education

system. Whereas the Gun-Free Schools Act is a use of ZT policies to achieve a safer

school situation, Alex's case is one of the policy being utilized simply to “teach a lesson.”

His high school attempted to discourage a specific behavior by using its power to

temporarily take away his right to an education.

Even in situations where expulsions and suspensions are administered for security

purposes, questions and disagreements abound. Namely, to what extent should outside

factors on an individual’s behavior be considering in determining their academic fate? A

new and startling situation demonstrating the opposing sides of this discussion is

becoming increasingly prevalent throughout the nation: Expulsion of students has

become common practice in United States preschools. “Biting, destruction of property,

and temper tantrums” have been cited as behaviors triggering this once unheard-of

response by schools dealing with very young students (Teicher 1). At this important age

in a young child's social and mental development, disruption or influence by these manic

tendencies is obviously seen as a detriment to learning. Therefore, students exhibiting

such behaviors are often ruled ineligible for school, and expelled.
 Even so, some educators and administrators have found success in a vastly

different approach. “Teachers need more support when it comes to handling behavior

problems,” concludes Christian Science Monitor writer Stacy A. Teicher on the findings

of a Yale University study. A related survey revealed that “the more access they

[teachers] had to help from mental-health consultants, the less likely they were to have

expelled a child” (Teicher 1). Jamie Ruppmann, and advocate for special education,

believes that “schools can’t wait until children are in Kindergarten to work with families”

whose situations may lead children to behave badly (Toppo 3). It is evident that by

attending to the psychological cause of child unruliness rather than punishing it,

preschools may avoid subjecting their students to the decrease in morale and loss of

invaluable educational opportunity that come with expulsion.

The pro-active concept of helping troubled students rather than punishing them is

a topic of discussion on a high school level as well, as there is an active debate as to

whether the relatively passive practice of suspended and expelling students is the proper

way to deal with difficult cases. The Georgia Department of Education (DOE) reported

that “students lost more than 1.8 million days of instruction [in 2007] because of

suspensions” (Staples 1). Many educators find it difficult to believe that none of the cases

of the 370,000 students suspended that year were approachable in a more productive

manner. As Walter Haney, a professor of education at Boston College, stated, “What a

waste” (Staples 1). Those on this side of the discussion feel that the academic strain of

losing this much school time becomes an even greater punishment than intended. David

Richart, a writer in a study focused on juvenile justice, finds that though suspension is a

“quick fix,” it “contributes to the achievement gap and... leads to kids dropping out”
(Hess 1). Kathleen Boundy, co-director of the Center for Law and Education on Boston,

agrees: “It just seems to me a warped logic when we deny children education and then

wonder why they don’t succeed” (Toppo 3).

Matt Cardoza, a Georgia DOE spokesperson, is among the educators who feel that

there is often no other alternative: “If a student’s behavior stops the learning process... for

the rest of the class, something has to be done. It wouldn’t be fair to the rest of the

students to leave them there” (Staples 1). When maintaining one student’s right to public

schooling interferes with the rights of others, action must be taken. Cardoza argues that

the assertion that suspension is a “waste” of educational opportunity is based on the false

assumption that students are left unable to maintain their schoolwork, and says “Districts

are encouraged to make sure students in ISS [in-school suspension] and OSS [out-of-

school suspension] are getting the standards and instructions that the state requires”

(Staples 2). Regardless of this encouragement, however, there are inevitably students who

fall through the cracks. Yvonne Ponder, a mother of a student in the Georgia school

system, reflects on her son’s frequent suspensions, “He was so far behind he was never

able to catch up.” For students like Ponder’s son, whose repeat offenses left him almost

completely barred from an education, there is a need for an alternative to a “disciplinary

holding cell” (Staples 1).

Such an option exists in fittingly-named “alternative high schools” (King 1).

Exclusively for students whose criminal activity makes them inappropriate candidates for

public education, these schools are “highly structured” institutions where students are

assessed on “not just academics” but on “appearance, attitude, and participation” (King

1). The schools design their programs to keep students highly motivated to learn, and
most deal with those individuals who are at the highest risk of expulsion or dropping out.

Concerns that pooling these students together is harmful ("The worst thing you can do for

these kids is bring them together," says one child and family researcher) have proven

unwarranted as students who were formerly disruptive, dangerous to themselves, and

uninterested in their educations are now excelling in alternative schools (King 2).

Seventy-five percent of students graduating from one such school never re-offend. Steve

Young, a principal at this school, feels that the programs are not just beneficial, but

necessary: “If I don't take them, where are they going to go?” (King 2). The specialized

attention students receive at alternative schools would not be possible at traditional

schools that lack the resources, time, and trained personnel to deal with these cases.

While most are in agreement that expulsion and suspension are only sometimes

appropriate, and often avoidable, many feel that certain aspects of the situation are often

overlooked. For example, in examining a broad-based ethnographic study, Anna Carlile

was able to draw conclusions about gender in the context of expulsion from school

(Carlile 1). A professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the University of

London, Carlile determined that “assumptions about gender-identity and sexuality can

have [an effect] on effective support planning for young people at risk of or subject to

permanent exclusion” (Carlile 31). Basically, schools are expelling and suspending

students on the basis of their deviations from normalized “gender roles” (Carlile 31). In

one case, a fourteen-year-old student named Vicky was suspended from her typical

school situation and placed in an off-campus program after kissing a classmate and

shouting “We’re lesbians!” “Vicky was not given the chance to discuss her sexuality,”

Carlile insists, and her behavior was written off as “disturbing” by administration (Carlile
33). Another boy, Michael, was put in jeopardy of expulsion as a direct result of “risk-

taking” behaviors (including climbing to the school’s roof) that led his school to label

him as a “thug.” Michael’s actions, which included climbing onto a roof, were labeled by

Carlile as acting out due to his confusion over his budding homosexuality (Carlile 34).

Her stance is clear: if Michael and Vicky’s sexual identities had been acknowledged in a

more open-minded way, the risk of their expulsion could have been avoided.

On the other hand, is it in fact within the rights of a school to exclude a student on

the basis of their sexual identity in cases where expression of this identity is a disruption

of the school environment? Many religious schools say yes. Their status as a religious

organization makes many parochial private schools exempt from sexual-orientation

discrimination laws, and many schools have taken advantage of this right to disallow

admission to gay students, or students raised by gay parents. Even when faced with

public outcry from gay-rights advocacy groups, many schools stand by the practice,

citing concerns over discrepancies between a family’s values and those being taught in

the school (Zehr 2). These schools do not want to “send a signal that such students and

parents are welcome,” and have become increasingly open on their policies against

homosexuality (Zehr 1). There is clearly a sense of discord between the rights of gay

students, and the religious rights of schools. Rabbi Daniel Lehmann, headmaster of an

Orthodox Jewish school, has commented that he wishes to avoid creating “an

environment in which there is a sort of pressure to accept the position that homosexuality

is OK” (Zehr 7). This stance seems acceptable from a religious standpoint, but seems

unjust in light of the expulsion of two Christian school students who were removed from

the school after coming out as gay (Zehr 2). Giving religious schools the legal right to
discriminate against homosexuals implies that they are not equally entitled to an

education. If these policies continue to be honored, then what’s to stop districts across the

nation for choosing to expel ethnic minorities, or disabled students on the grounds that

they don’t fit it in?

The best way to resolve this incongruence may be to require schools to explicitly

clarify their stances on homosexuality, so as to not leave students “blind-sided” by their

expulsions. Otherwise, the situation is analogous to a school allowing a male student to

complete the application process for an all-girls’ high school only to deny him admission

based on gender. As frustrating as it may be to have sexual-orientation-based

discrimination accepted in this regard, religious rights should be upheld on an equal level

as those of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. One may point out that any

student may attend almost any public high school he chooses. In terms of right to an

education, parochial schools may set their own standards on admission, but must be held

accountable for maintaining that these standards are explicit, and followed with

consistency. This way, private schools may exercise their right to accept or deny students

to create the educational environment to which they aspire without infringing upon the

rights of students.

It's clear that the debate over right to education is a multi-faceted one. The

conflicting interests of educators, administrations, and students make it seemingly

impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. For this reason, it is important that schools

are equipped to deal with a wide range of behavioral scenarios and student needs. When

the resources necessary are not available, schools must be willing to seek outside help in

order to ensure that no student loses his right to an education due to a school's
unwillingness to deal with them. On the other hand, no one whose presence in school is a

threat or detriment to others should be kept in that setting. While outside factors and

preconceived notions have an inevitable influence, any student who proves he is are

willing to take part in the United States educational system has a right to do so.
 Works Cited

Black, Susan. "Locked Out." American School Board Journal Jan. 1999: 34-37. SIRS
Researcher. Web. 07 December 2009.

Carlile, Anna. "'Bitchy Girls and Silly Boys': Gender and Exclusion from School."
International Journal on School Disaffection (2009): 30-38. Education Resources
Information Center. Web. 6 December 2009.

"GOSS v. LOPEZ." n.pag. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 07 December 2009.

Hess, Mary Anne. "The Untolerated." NEA Today April 2003: 24-25. SIRS Researcher.
Web. 07 December 2009.

King, Ledyard. "For Schools Dealing with Troublemakers, There Is an Alternative."

Gannett News Service 06 Mar 2007: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 07 December
2009.

Staples, Gracie Bonds. "Lost Lessons Gain Notice." Atlanta Journal-Constitution

(Atlanta, GA) 30 Sep 2009: A.1. SIRS Researcher. Web. 08 December 2009.

Teicher, Stacy A. "Pre-K Expulsions: A Sign Teachers Need More Help?." Christian
Science Monitor 18 May 2005: n.p. SIRS Researcher. Web. 07 December 2009.

Toppo, Greg. "School Violence Hits Lower Grades." USA Today Jan. 12 2003: n.p. SIRS
Researcher. Web. 07 December 2009.

Zehr, Mary Anne. "A Clear Stand." Education Week Vol. 25, No. 37 17 May 2006: 27-
30. SIRS Researcher. Web. 07 December 2009.