The structural approach to address the question of safety in schools stem from the realization that schools must make the issue of safe environment where students feel secure in their personal belonging and person becomes a collective responsibility. As a result, it is evident that the role of parents, staff, students and the community at large must engage in functional approaches that enhance confidence among the stakeholders.
According to Sindhi (2013), it is evident that the underlying principles of the Fourth Amendments manifest a legal consideration on which the rights of students to be free from unreasonable searches is considered in the implementation of search and seizure measures. As a school, it is imperative that the administration of the school must develop effective rules and regulations associated with a particular law passed by Congress.
The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for the development of policy along with rules and regulations which affect the public schools. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O, it is evident that when the teacher discovered the delinquency behavior in a student, which contravened the rules of the school, the teacher raised the matter with school authorities which led to the search and seizure of the said student.
The U.S. Department of Education is responsible for the development of policy along with rules and regulations which affect the public schools. These rules and regulations must be approved by Congress and be within the scope and intent of acts passed by Congress. For example, the myriad of regulations promulgated by the DOE constitutes a large body of administrative law to which states and local boards of education must comply with in order to receive federal funds.
Based on the evidence that was found, the establishment of the rights of the school management, administrator and official to maintain safe environment through search highlights measures that not only recognizes the right to privacy of the student but also the balance against the needs of the school and those of the student. Essentially, it emerges that from the circumstances of the New Jersey case, the ability of the school to offer safe learning environment remains a suitable point of references in as far as legal concerns of school safety is concerned.
In a bid to keep the school free of weapon and drugs, strict law enforcement policy considerations must be made. According to Irby & Clough (2015), it is evident that law enforcement officers must be assigned to schools in the capacity of school resource officers so that interventions into probable cause to suspect and search students in school in realized. This is because, while problems, occurs when school officials lack the legal mandate to intervenes, the use of law enforcement officers to search the students on behalf of the school address the issues of standardization of law enforcement.
In the case of State of Florida v. N.G.B, 2002, the appellate court applied the principle of reasonable suspicion to authorize the search of students in school because the administrator of the school imitated the process. Accordingly, Patterson (2013) underscores that state educational agencies, usually headed by a state school superintendent or commissioner of education, are agencies that form, implement, and adjudicate matters of administrative law for the public schools.
This continues to the local level where elected boards of education and a local school superintendent formulate policy and rules to operate the local school system. Searches and seizure on the basis of probably suspicion resonate the need for legal integration because searches carried out by officials of the school as agents of law enforcement reflects the integration of high standards of constitutionality.
The suitability of safe environment is a manifest response by school administration. A historical perspective imply that In legal theory, public schools exist not only to confer benefits on the individual but just as importantly they are necessary, indeed essential, to the advancement of civil society. Of such importance is the public education function that the state can, under certain conditions, limit parental control in order to advance the common wealth (Irby & Clough, 2015).
While it is difficult to balance between the safe school environment and the climate where students feel secure, the focus will be enshrined in law to foster academic achievement, maintain high standards for learning and promote the positive relationships between school staff and students. In addition, it is plausible enough the whole role of community involvement and parental interest is a sharp line on which the balance of safe school environment and students’ privacy is created.
Planning school safety characterize a comprehensive process which is not only ongoing but also include the entire society. The behavioral as well as property aspects of behavior management, crime prevention and safety strategies must structure procedures that comply with the existing laws (Sindhi, 2013). As a result, general school laws in older states led the progression of public education, requiring maintenance of schools by towns for a definite term each year, imposing taxation, and generally statutorily sanctioning the public school movement that had evolved over a century and a half.
The rationale for the creation of a system of free public schools has been reiterated many times by the courts, expounding the importance of an educated citizenry for the general welfare of the people and for the protection of the state. Recognition of the role and importance of public schools to the well-being of the people and the state can be expressly anchored in the law. It is evident that the need for safe learning and school environment is imperative.
With regard to this, the significant aspect of such dynamics include identifying and addressing the social and behavioral problems. According to Irby & Clough (2015), it emerges that the aggressive and antisocial behavior such as drug abuse and use of weapons characterize strong indicators unsafe environment. The implication is early intervention to wade of future problems.
Policy measures and legal principles, rules and laws must be formulated and implemented towards building a secure learning environments for schools. Beyond constitutional provisions that protect the interests of the student’s relationship with the school, federal, states statutory provisions are present. The reasonableness of a school rule in the control of students has at least two aspects – the jurisdictional reach of the school’s authority beyond the school grounds and the nature and degree of the discipline visited upon the student. Students’ interests in attending public schools are protected by common law, the Constitution, along with both federal and state law. These sources of law define the relationship of the student with the State.
References
Irby, D., & Clough, C. (2015). Consistency rules: a critical exploration of a universal principle of school discipline. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23(2), 153-173
Patterson, C. J. (2013). Schooling, Sexual Orientation, Law, and Policy: Making Schools Safe for All Students. Theory Into Practice,52(3), 190-195.
Sindhi, S. A. (2013). Creating Safe School Environment: Role of School Principals. Tibet Journal, 38(1/2), 77-89
