This is a research essay and it is a minimum of 9 pages long, it will be checked for plagiarism by turnitin,com. i will be providing the prompt and essay instruction as long as criteria. i will need a good citation, work cited page and outline please.
English 124 Synthesis Analysis Essay 4 Prompt
For your first paper you will be required to write an essay at least nine pages long using in depth research to craft a persuasive argument. Choose a topic to research to gain a clear understanding of its history, and how the topic has changed over time. Use your outside evidence drawn from articles, news reports, internet sources, documentaries, interview, etc. to education your readers about the subject. Your main objective for this essay is to explain how your range of evidence works to prove a specific point about your subject. How can you interpret and analyze the logical, ethical, and emotional evidence you have to make readers agree with your thesis? How do you want readers to think, discuss, or act differently regarding your topic?
Your essay needs to be clear and unified under your thesis. Make sure to include specific evidence from your outside sources you read, to show how and why your sources support your thesis. Use your own original ideas about your topic in conjunction with your outside evidence to support your thesis. Make sure to review the section in your textbook on proper MLA citation for any quotes or paraphrases you use from your outside source.
A second copy of your final draft must be uploaded and run through the Turnitin program set up within the course blackboard page. If a student doesn’t submit their essay through the system, their essay will not be graded until the professor can first check the turnitin reports. The Turnitin copy must be uploaded the SAME DAY as the final draft is due; otherwise the whole essay will be considered late, and lose points.
Grading Criteria
Successful papers will have:
- A developed introductory paragraph, with a clear thesis. Explain what your topic is, and what you will try and prove about your topic. Why is it important to accept your argument? (70 points)
- Well-supported, unified body paragraphs with specific examples that reinforce your thesis. Express your original ideas and insight you’ve gained about your topic, to show how and why readers should be persuaded by your argument. (80 points)
- Smoothly integrated quotes from at least three outside sources. At least two of your sources must be print sources (articles or books that originated in print form.)
(50 points)
- A conclusion that summarizes your main point, and offers a final thought about the value of your argument. What should readers do with the information you’ve given them?
(30 points)
- Your paper will also be thoroughly edited for sentence-level errors. If you have any questions on sentence structure or grammar, visit the Writing Center, or see me in my office. (20 points)
Total points: 250
Is there need to revise the zero-tolerance policies used in schools?
The zero tolerance polices that are applied in almost every school within the United States as a whole can basically be defined as preset, nondiscretionary, disciplinary consequences for certain actions. Although it can be argued that policies for that nature have been in use for a relatively long time, reviewing the greater evolution of such harsh disciplinary measures greatly assists in comprehending the prevalence disciplinary issues in schools. It should be known that disciplinary issues in the learning institutions do not simply exist in what can be considered as a vacuum, but actually form part of the continuously evolving sociological landscape (Skiba 29). In spite of the continued emergence of multiple violence cases with learning institutions, the learning institution’s administrators in collaboration with the state policymakers still consider it as wise to continue putting into use the zero tolerance policies as a result of a number of infractions. All the same, various parties have made known their doubts about the effectiveness of the said policies. Multiple research studies have been undertaken that indicate that harsh punishments have multiple negative repercussions that at the very end act as an obstacle to the affected children’s ability to realize success. Typically, the learners that are send on suspension or expelled from schools in the execution of the zero tolerance policies not only lose educational opportunities but also get subjected in substantial psychological torture. Besides, in some worse scenarios, they find themselves been handed over to criminal justice institutions because of trivial infractions that occurred within school. Given that it is outright that the zero tolerance policies have proved to be highly ineffective, it will be of great essence to reevaluate them.
It is a fact that the high number of reported cases of violence within schools have contributed to the making of school discipline to be part of the mostly debated issues within various public platforms. Despite the spirited efforts made in putting into use the zero tolerance procedures by the involved parties, no notable contribution such policies have made in the improvement of safety in the schools or even in realization of better student behavior. It is the time that parents/guardians, educations together the policy makers reconsidered the essence of having zero tolerance policies while their effectiveness in the realization of the intended objectives remains to be highly suspect.
Furthermore, the various stakeholders are full aware of the long-term repercussions of denying masses of children the chance to complete their studies as a result of depending on unfair, as well as, ineffective policies. For purposes of justifying the essence of reevaluating the policies under review, it is necessary to reveal the way they impact negatively on the education programs (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force 853).
Without doubt, one of the cons of sending students on suspension or expelling them from the learning institutions is that they end up missing important class work, which upon combing with the typical natural alienation thoughts, seems to increase the chances of the victim to prematurely stop his or her studies. Moreover, psychologists argue that the said policies affect the development of the school going children in a negative manner due to the fact that they make children to be subjected to severe punishment, while offering limited positive options, if any, for instruction or even rehabilitation (Teske 88).
On top of that, although schools should operate on strict policies, there is formidable evidence that some learners will definitely get disconnected thereby losing their way. Furthermore, a greater percentage of those students that are send on suspension or even expulsion are naturally, low-earning, at-risk juveniles, thus it can be argued that denying them the chance to proceed with education acts as in impediment to their realization of a better life that is enjoyed by those that successfully complete their education.
Moreover, research indicates that the policies under review contribute in the alienation of children, as well as, the exacerbation of misbehavior, particularly affecting the vulnerable poor learners whose chances of being failures in school are high, and who should in the real sense be accorded extra support and counseling. In most cases, the failure in addition to the alienation feelings make the excluded learners to join gangs that indulge in criminal activities in the desperate attempt to overcome their unemployment woes (Skiba 30). It has been established that upon dropping out of the schools (as a result of constantly been severely punished), the young individuals propensity to indulge in alcohol use, as well as, drug abuse and law breaking is considerably high.
Additionally, the inconsiderate punishments in most cases intensify the children’s adversarial feelings towards the adults besides making them lose the motivation to learn. Due to the fear created within the learners through the zero tolerance punishments, they end up hesitating to confide in not only teachers but also in counselors or their guardians because they develop the perception that the adults will definitely punish them before according them the much needed assistance. Putting into consideration that the exclusionary punishments basically amplify the aforementioned conflict, the suspended or the expelled young learners in most cases resort to exhibit deviant behaviors. Therefore, due to the negative psychological impact with such policies, the involved parties should rethink the essence of continuing to have them implemented within the learning institutions while they tend to bring more harm than good.
In the meantime, groups of the likes of the Justice Police Institute propose that one of the most notable negativities associated with the said policies turns out to be the criminalization of juveniles on the basis of behaviors that in the previous times could be handled by the school management. The greatly publicized school shootings have also made most of the schools to advocate for the forwarding of all the offense cases, no matter their weight, to the law enforcers (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force 855). Moreover, although the Free Schools Act that was introduced as early as in 1994 requires the learners found to be in possession of guns or any other dangerous weapons be handed over to the law enforcement personnel; most of the referrals happen to be petty fighting incidents that do not put the school safety at risk, as it is mostly presented within the public media.
Although by forwarding the cases the teachers together with the school management may be demonstrating their commitment in averting violence in schools, their rush to involve the enforcement personnel, puts into question the responsibility of the educators, as well as, schools’ management in the discipline of the learners. When it occurs that the school administrations are quick to forward the learners’ misconduct cases to the law enforcers, the learners cultivate the perception that there is definitely a predetermined prejudice against them. In that perspective, such turnoff events should push both the adult, as well as, the youthful leaders to advocate for the reassessment of the said zero tolerance policies as there exists “no substantial evidence for the proposition that treating children in such a manner affects positively their behaviors or even futures” (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force 856).
More so, the most fundamental intervention effectiveness rule dictates that, for nay procedure to be classified as effect, its implementation should result to the actualization of the set intention. For instance, interventions such as conflict resolution advocate for the subjecting of not only the staff but also the learners to a high level training. It is predictable that the failure to conduct training of that nature will most likely result to the proposed procedure turning out to be highly ineffective. The available research reports about the use of suspensions or expulsions as punitive measures in learning institutions indicate high inconsistency rates. The suspension, as well as, expulsion rates are highly variable across schools as it is the case across school districts. Although a presumption can be made that, as a considerably serious punishment, the using of suspension is reserved for the relatively serious offenses, on the contrary, in respect to the available data, the outside-school suspension is applied even in relatively minor offenses such as insubordination or using abusive language. Amazingly, it occurs that simply a small number of suspensions are given in response to offenses that pose great threat to the safety or security of the other learners, as well as, the school in general.
Furthermore, in most cases it is presumed that expulsion, as well as, suspensions are typically directly responses to students’ misbehavior, therefore the learner’s likelihood to be expelled or send on suspension highly depends to the unique characteristics of that particular school (Teske 92). Besides, the school climate, as well as, governance system and demographics together with the educators’ attitude dictate the discipline levels within a certain school. It does not come as a surprise that the schools under the leadership of principals who adhere strictly to the zero tolerance principles have the great number of suspensions in addition to high expulsion rates.
In other words, it outright that a high inconsistency rate exists within the reliance on suspensions, as well as, suspensions as disciplinary measures. Moreover, the mode of its application is highly dependent on the school attributes instead of the student behavior. In that regard, it can be assumed that the failure to exhibit uniformity in application within a wide range of institutions puts the effectiveness of the zero tolerance policies into question.
Based on the various issues raised about the effectiveness of such policies, it is outright that they have to be reevaluated so that a all-inclusive preventative discipline model can be developed and thus “bring to an end the reliance on broken-window policies” (Smith, Christina and Helen 433). In the course of the recent years, it has been established that the all-inclusive preventive discipline model has the potential of offering lasting solution to the dealing of disciplinary issues at schools thereby contributing to the realization of peaceful learning environments. The approach is basically based on focusing on behavior planning, as well as, mental health thereby simultaneously concentrating on three intervention levels. In the first place, it should be noted that school-wide preventive measures, for instance, conflict resolution, guardian involvement or ideal classroom behavior management can contribute towards the establishment of a violence-free environment.
Secondly, the school administration has to review the prevalence of the violence threats and consequently offer the necessary support to the learners that are identified to be susceptible to violent behaviors through the use of interventions like mentoring, anger management screening, in addition to teaching pro-social skills. The other option is that schools should be encouraged to develop plans, as well as, procedures that can adequately address the violent together with the disruptive behaviors once they emerge within the shortest time possible. Plans together with procedures of that nature should include school-wide discipline action plans, as well as, cross-system collaboration, between the judicial juvenile system and the school management in particular.
Basically, the preventive school disciplining models tend to make the proposal that addressing of the disruption problems within schools requires multiple measures not just a single one. Most importantly, the development of safe, as well as, orderly learning environments within schools calls for intensive long-term planning (Smith, Christina and Helen 440). On top of that, it requires a wide variety of well-thought out strategies in addition to partnerships between the schools, families, communities, the juvenile justice system, as well as, the learners themselves. The effective components that have been proposed within the comprehensive program which ascertain safety within schools include:
§ School-wide Behavioral Plans & Improved Classroom Management:- this involves the establishment of behavior support teams and commissioning of positive behavior intervention programs, as well as, supports. It is also necessary to establish effective communication channels in order to avert school disruptions. Besides, by teaching the appropriate behaviors within the classrooms, the issue of minor misbehavior exacerbating to school crisis is mitigated (Mitchell 123).
§ Effective and Continuous Collaboration:- minimization of the cases forwarded to the juvenile justice system, as well as, school-based arrests calls for the collaboration of the school management with not only the law enforcers but also the juvenile justice system for the purposes of developing alternative measures such as restorative justice. Such measures ensure that the schools are safe while minimizing the risk of the learner being forwarded to law enforcers (Losen 54).
§ Social Emotional:- it is important to put into use the social instructional approaches as they help in developing non-violent climates within schools as learners are introduced to alternative procedures of resolving disputes other than using violence.
§ Early Screening for Mental Issues:- learners that exhibit anti-social behaviors or emotional disorders should be screened at the earliest time possible so that they can be offered the necessary support. Failure to deal with such behavioral problems in a timely manner makes them to become quite violent.
§ Parent/Community Involvement:- School managements together with the juvenile justice system have come to realize that it is unfair to simply blame the parents for the discipline problems exhibited by the children. On the contrary, the parents’, as well as, the community’s insights should be sought while in the process of development behavior intervention strategies.
As a matter of conclusion, during the 19th C, the dunce cap typically functioned as the predominant symbol of the wide belief that failing to learn was an eventuality no one would actually remediate. In the course of time, it has come to be established that with improved teaching in addition to perseverance, all students can successfully learn. People have also come to realize that is no longer economical to simply expel the learners that are found to have violated the set school regulations (Cornell and Matthew 12). This is mostly due to the aspect that exclusions of that nature do have disproportionate effect on the victims. The costs incurred by the state in catering for the prison population’s needs is getting out of hand yet they can be minimized by bring the school-drop out rates at control. The school-drop out rates can be reduced by reevaluating the highly ineffective zero tolerance policies and making use of other comprehensive policies as earlier outlined.
Works Cited
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. “Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations”. American Psychologist, 63.9 (2008): 852-862.
Cornell, Dewey G., and Matthew J. Mayer. “Why do school order and safety matter?.” Educational Researcher 39.1 (2010): 7-15.
Losen, Daniel. “Discipline policies, successful schools, and racial justice.” (2011).
Mitchell, S. David. “Zero Tolerance Policies: Criminalizing Childhood and Disenfranchising the Next Generation of Citizens.” Available at SSRN (2014).
Skiba, Russell J. “The Failure of Zero Tolerance.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 22.4 (2014): 27-33
Smith, Peter K., Christina Salmivalli, and Helen Cowie. “Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a commentary.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 8.4 (2012): 433-441.
Teske, Steven C. “A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi‐Integrated Systems Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents.” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 24.2 (2011): 88-97.
