the pupil does not have the ability to control his or her behaviour.However, the Act and Regulations do provide for mitigating factors, whereby the suspension or expulsion of a student is not mandatory if: ![]() The provincial Code of Conduct also mandates police involvement, in accordance with the police/school protocol, for most of the infractions. Suspension and expulsion are now mandatory for a wide range of infractions. Perhaps the most significant change in the new regime is the provision for mandatory suspension and expulsion and police involvement. There are now two kinds of expulsion: (1) a limited expulsion from the school the student was attending until the later of a) a date set by the principal or board (twenty-one days to one year) or b) the date on which the student meets requirements established by the board, and (2) a full expulsion from all (publicly funded) schools in the province until the student has attended and met the requirements of a strict discipline program. The authority to expel has also been expanded, with school boards and principals sharing that authority. ![]() A principal has the power to suspend for up to twenty school days, while a teacher has the power to either suspend for one day or refer the matter to the principal. The authority to suspend a student is provided to both principals and teachers. The new regime, which is now part of the Education Act, is more complex and, reflecting the zero tolerance philosophy of its proponents, takes a more hardline approach in dealing with behaviour, discipline and safety problems. The grounds for suspension were fairly limited and a student could only be expelled from all of the board’s schools if the pupil’s conduct was so “refractory” that the pupil’s presence was “injurious to other pupils or persons.” In both cases, the exercise of that authority was discretionary. The authority to suspend a student was limited to principals and the authority to expel was limited to school boards. Prior to the enactment of the Safe Schools Act, Section 23 of the Education Act regulated the suspension and expulsion of students. ![]() The Act was passed by the legislature in June 2000 and came into effect in September 2001. One month later, the Minister introduced the Safe Schools Act, which proposed amending the Education Act to give force to the Code of Conduct and provide principals and teachers with more authority to suspend and expel students. The promise began to take shape in April 2000 when Education Minister Janet Ecker released a Code of Conduct for Ontario schools. In the lead-up to the 1999 provincial election in Ontario, the Progressive Conservative Party platform promised a zero tolerance policy for bad behaviour in schools. In late 1993, the Scarborough Board of Education adopted a Safe Schools Policy on Violence and Weapons. In Ontario, the first serious steps towards taking a zero tolerance approach to discipline matters in schools began in the mid-1990s. This report finds that in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and other parts of Ontario there is a strong perception, which is supported by some independent evidence, that the Act and school board policies are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students, particularly Black students, and students with disabilities. Opponents point to other jurisdictions where there is data showing that suspensions and expulsions have a disproportionate impact on Black and other racial minority students and students with disabilities. ![]() Advocates of zero tolerance argue that the policies are colour blind and fair because all the students who commit the same offence will be treated the same. The main purpose of this report is to examine whether the Ontario Safe Schools Act and Regulations and the school board policies on discipline, known by some as “zero tolerance” policies, are having a disproportionate impact on racial minority students and students with disabilities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |