Case Study 5:  Preventing Illegal Activity

Standard 5:  Educational leaders have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in a legal and ethical manner based on knowledge and understanding of Georgia, and federal laws, regulations, and judicial decisions affecting education in Georgia.

(5.1)         Act with integrity by demonstrating behaviors that affirm and communicate the importance of integrity and ethics in all interpersonal contact.

(5.2)         Act fairly by modeling impartiality, sensitivity to student diversity, community norms and vales, and ethical considerations in interactions with others.

(5.3)         Act ethically by abiding by Georgia law, federal law, the Georgia Code of Ethics for Educators and the rules and regulations of the Georgia Department of Education and Professional Standards Commission.

(5.4)         Act legally by applying federal and Georgia statutes and regulations as required.

Questions:  How does an educational leader act with integrity during potential illegal activities of students?  What are key elements in dealing with federal and state law?

CASE STUDY:

In an ever growing student population, the assistant principal (Mr. A) at a suburban middle school close to Atlanta seems to be dealing with his fair share of growing issues as well. 

Over the past school year, there has been more evidence of tagging and marking up of the school building than in past years.  After consulting with the administrative team and the school resource office, he decided that he would work to minimize the damage and stop any potential gang activity within the school.  He began to work with other support staff (Counselors and the Graduation Coach) to discuss positive ways of dealing with this potential problem.  Whenever a student was seen tagging or drawing gang signs or if students were wearing the known gang colors or clothing (for the gangs in the community around the school) the student was to be brought directly to the resource officer or the assistant principal immediately.  During these discussions, students received the maximum consequences based on the severity of their drawings or insubordination (for wearing gang paraphernalia which is against dress code).  While this seemed to minimize the tagging throughout the school building, it did not seem to minimize certain student’s attitudes toward gangs.  After the winter holiday, a rash of tagging from several different gangs appeared throughout every male bathroom in the school.  Mr. A decided to convene a meeting of every known gang member (those that had had consequences impose previously for gang activity) in the cafeteria and invite the local Gang Task Force from the local police department to speak with the young men.  Two days later, the parents of these young men, were invited to come to a meeting to answer any questions and to help educate them about gang paraphernalia.

           
About a month later, there were rumors that some students were selling drugs in the school building.  Again, with the help of the resource officer and other support staff, an investigation was launched and several male students were brought in for questioning.  Each student was asked to write a statement about their involvement in the selling, seeing, or talking about drugs.  During this time, Mr. A allowed some of the gentlemen to go to the restroom unattended.  After statements had been gathered, the other assistant principal and Mr. A conducted searches of each boy’s locker and person.  While no actual drugs were found, statements corroborated to indicate three of the young men as having had, sold, and purchased drugs within the school building.  These young men’s parents were notified and a conference was held that day with them.  They were each sent to tribunal and removed from Mr. A’s school.  After these two major incidences, both activities diminished within the school building.

           
In looking at the questions of this case study, it would seem that in order for Mr. A, or any educational leader, to act with integrity they must act not on emotion but on sound principles of student safety and concern.  Mr. A seemed to do so in both instances understanding the severity of what could potential come from these meetings.  It was also important to focus on the facts (by just inviting students who had been in trouble for gang activity) as opposed to inviting students he thought might be in a gang.  To do that, my show partiality and could border on discrimination.  However, in this case it seems that Mr. A is working under a sincere effort to help students.  Though similarly, gathering young men to have police intercede without parental consent is also on shaky legal ground.  Likewise, Mr. A follows due process and the letter of the law in regards to search and seizures of students which indicates that he is “acting legally by applying federal and Georgia statutes”.  But in closer examination, it would seem that allowing students to go unattended to the restroom during a potential drug search would not be following policy directly in that students could discard evidence if they had it on them.  In this case, it is imperative that educational leaders know the steps and polices before proceeding down the investigative path.

Leadership Level:  Proficient

In regards to this standard, Mr. A. does seem to know and understand the Georgia and federal laws governing schools and asks with integrity and fairness to help promote student success for all students.  However, because there are several potential legal issues that could arise when the law is not followed exactly, he would be considered to be at a proficient level.