Student Discipline and Student Conduct

Robert Nadell, Ed.D. and Stephanie Bowlin, Ed.D.

Introduction

The residents of California have higher education opportunities in nearly every community in the state. The combined efforts of the California community colleges, the California State University, the University of California, and a host of private colleges and universities enable multiple options for academic instruction, career training, occupational preparation, technical and vocational edification, and other highly specialized options. Collectively, these educational opportunities lay the foundation for a highly educated population. The major responsibility of the California community colleges is to provide coursework for transition to 4-year colleges and universities, issue associate degrees, and deliver vocational certificates. Many community colleges enroll students who may not be fully prepared for college-level work. Vast amounts of students have received less-than-optimal secondary preparation for a variety of reasons. Others have few role models to emulate. It is not uncommon for students with poor educational backgrounds to matriculate into community colleges with behavior patterns that are confrontational and disruptive. These students challenge community college leaders to maintain an educational environment that promotes learning and student success.

The purpose of this research was to describe the frequency and type of student discipline and student conduct incidents, examine for uniformity the existing policies regarding the Student Code of Conduct (SCOC), and to uncover common resolution strategies utilized at California community colleges. Maintaining an environment that sustains learning is important to all educators. The Student Discipline Officer (SDO) who is charged with the primary responsibility of maintaining a safe and productive learning environment is often thrust into situations where students violate the SCOC. Through the investigative process, each SDO brings closure to each incident of student misconduct in a manner prescribed by the local policy and practice. These practices or resolution strategies offer a set of best practices that may be of value to other SDOs at the state's 108 community colleges (Community College League of California, 2002) as they grapple with resolving cases of student discipline and student conduct. The collective experience and wisdom of these officers and their individually developed and refined resolution tactics was the fundamental outcome of this study. Sharing these resolution techniques may help these officers resolve cases of student misconduct fairly, quickly, and consistently.

Research Questions

The following four research questions framed the purpose of the study. Each question identified a specific issue, and a questionnaire document was developed to address each research question.

• What type of student misconduct occurs most frequently on California community college campuses?
• What level of intervention is utilized most repetitively by the Student Discipline Officer to reconcile incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?
• What strategies are employed to prevent incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?
• What strategies are drawn on to resolve incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?

The research questions were developed from dialogue with other administrators employed at several colleges within Region 8 of the California community college system. These administrators held the responsibility of managing the SCOC and were often the first responders to incidents of student misconduct.

Methodology

Studying educational issues commonly means the use of a questionnaire or survey. In this study, several characteristics were examined concerning student discipline and student conduct. Each characteristic was germane to the actions, policies, and practices of resolving incidents of student misconduct in California community colleges.

The questionnaire employed in this study contained six sections. Section 1 identified 22 categories of potential misconduct and asked California community college administrators to reveal their level of understanding and the frequency of occurrence for each category. In a similar way, section 2 asked for a level of understanding and frequency, except the area of inspection dealt with intervention categories generally prescribed by the California Education Code (2002) and local policy. Section 3 identified 14 statements regarding student discipline and student conduct and asked for a scaled response according to a level of agreement. In section 4, administrators provided qualitative responses to identify strategies they employ to resolve incidents of student misconduct and to share any format utilized locally. Eighty-seven suggestions were identified, which were condensed to 27 unique techniques offered by the administrators. Section 5 of the questionnaire uncovered typical demographic data of the sample of 142 administrators, 48 of which responded to the request for information (34%). In the final section, section 6, optional comments were requested regarding the quality of the questionnaire or other relevant issues regarding student misconduct incidents.

The questionnaire was face validated and content validated through a panel of experts. The panel members were SDOs from colleges in Region 8 of the California community college system. Response to the face and content validation process was 100%. Further, the questionnaire was pilot tested in the North Orange County Community College District using a combination of 10 educational and classified administrators. Again, 100% of the documents were returned during the pilot phase. Several minor revisions were completed as the result of these validation processes.

Findings and Discussion

It is incumbent on California community colleges to promptly investigate each incident of student misconduct. Failure to complete a timely investigation potentially leads to liability and litigation. All findings and discussion centered on the four research questions.

Research Question One

What type of student misconduct occurs most frequently on California community college campuses?

Administrators identified disruptive behavior, cheating and plagiarism, attempting any act of misconduct, physical or verbal abuse, and theft as the categories of misconduct most often violated by students. Complete data are found in Table 1 of the appendices. Interestingly, the combination of marginal classroom behavior management skills of faculty and poor behavior mechanisms of students may play an important role in the disruption of the educational environment. Faculty may need to be better prepared to handle the behavior patterns of today's students. No longer can faculty rely on students to reproduce the expected classroom behavior models. They may need to take a more active role in managing classroom conduct. Staff development programs may also need to provide proactive training to enable faculty to be better prepared for students who violate the standards of acceptable decorum.

Most administrators held a clear understanding of the categories of student misconduct. In nearly all cases, the administrators rated their level of understanding as complete or moderate. Very few administrators (n=4) indicated a consistent level of limited or no understanding. Had the sample population been saturated with administrators with secondary responsibility for the management of the SCOC, the level of understanding may have been different, with a greater percentage of responses indicating little or no understanding. It is reasonable to presume that those administrators with primary responsibility for management of student misconduct would maintain a high level of understanding of the conduct categories.

Research Question Two

What level of intervention is utilized most repetitively by the student discipline officer (SDO) to reconcile incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?

Historically, student service or student affairs administrators were charged with the responsibility of managing the SCOC (Dannells, 1997). This study found similar data in that 81% of the administrators held line positions in student services. These student service administrators are frequently trained from a student development philosophy. Student development promotes the student first and focuses on the individual development of each student. Further, it places the well-being of the institution in the hands of students, for it is their enrollment and success that creates institutional success. Without student success each community college would continually grasp for institutional identity. Gladly, the intervention options used most frequently were informal and formal reprimands. These low-level options provided the most opportunity for students to alter their behavior and become more involved with attaining achievement, thus protecting the student development perspective of enabling student success. Complete data connected with intervention strategies are found in Table 2 of the appendices.

Again, administrators maintained a clear understanding of the meaning behind each intervention category. Administrators reported a high or moderate level of understanding in all cases. Combining the ratings indicate a range of understanding from 85 to 100%. These strong ratios were not surprising as the primary SDO formed the largest portion of the sample that completed the questionnaire.

Research Question 3

What strategies are employed to prevent incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?

California community college administrators offered many responses for preventing incidents of student misconduct. Those responses most notable are located in Table 3, Prevention Techniques of the appendices. Creating staff development training programs, repeatedly, plays a significant role in managing student misconduct. Similar to law enforcement agencies, community colleges need to contribute a strong effort toward prevention. It seems far wiser to strive to educate students and faculty than to allocate time, energy, and resources toward investigation, advocating for a particular resolution, and resolving or closing incidents of student misconduct. Distribution of information communiqué, utilization of conflict resolution methodologies, and addressing incidents at the lowest and least intrusive level are notable strategies suggested by community college administrators that facilitate the prevention of cases where students violate the SCOC.

Research Question Four

What strategies are drawn on to resolve incidents of student misconduct on California community college campuses?

Time, energy, and resources seem to be in short supply as community college administrators continue to deal with the issues of maintaining a safe learning environment. California community colleges are the port of entry for many students into the arena of higher education. These institutions are located in every corner of the state and offer a multitude of educational options. With over 2.6 million enrolled students, colleges will be challenged to continue to be "everything for everybody." College personnel are obligated to control student behavior so that learning is optimized and behavior outside the standard of normalcy minimized.

California administrators offered 27 recommendations (Table 4, Resolution Strategies) that have been proven beneficial at the state's community college institutions. Students rely on the appeals or hearing process when administrators fail to follow the guidelines established in the college policy governing student conduct. McEllistrem, S., Roth, J., & Walsh, P. (2002) indicate that colleges and universities create litigation opportunities when officials do not follow their own policies. Several responses confirmed this concept. Establishing a close working relationship with security personnel and following a pattern of investigation that is timely, fair, and consistent may also be beneficial techniques. Carefully examining the data in Table 4, Resolution Strategies, provides a clear picture that managing student conduct is not magical. It requires a pattern of administration that conforms to the culture of the institution and provides the greatest opportunity for closure. Clearly California community colleges will remain leaders in higher education. So, too, will they be challenged to maintain a productive learning environment. As students and faculty (as well as other college staff) continue to interact in the classroom and beyond, college officials will continue to be faced with students who are unable or unwilling to conform to civil standards of behavior. California community colleges would be wise to provide training, react quickly and decisively, and be prepared for students who will need guidance and direction in controlling their behavior.

Conclusions

California community college personnel who are responsible for management of the SCOC are often targets for complaints, appeals, questioning, and nonsupport by supervisors or other stakeholders. The task of managing student discipline and student conduct is difficult and unrewarding. Student misconduct incidents occur without warning and require immediate attention. Most SDOs hold positions in middle- or upper-level administration within the student service ranks. It is frequently problematic for these officers to impart the time, energy, and resources to investigating and resolving cases of student discipline and student conduct. The sanctions need to be aligned with the violation, and progressive action is the key to establishing credibility with the campus stakeholders. In no case are all sides of the incident satisfied with the final resolution, but when fairness and consistency are clearly demonstrated, the usual reaction is supportive and encouraging. These timely actions, many times, prevent further incidents or escalation of cases with a similar protocol. Each case creates a hardship for a student and may cause irreparable educational damage to the student. The student development model is well served through careful and deliberate thought and action.

This study centered on gathering the resolution strategies capable of being used for resolving incidents of student misconduct. A set of strategies was identified and listed in Table 4, Resolution Strategies. Additionally, a high level of confidence is placed in the base of knowledge of the administrator, as his or her understanding of the categories of misconduct and intervention is strong. It appears that most administrators who manage the SCOC do so with little or no formal training; rather, on-the-job training seems to be the "rule of thumb." Despite the lack of formal training, these administrators still do a first-rate job of managing the SCOC. Faculty remain key players in the initial implementation of local policies that define acceptable standards of student behavior. The training of faculty concerning all aspects of the SCOC, including due process rights of students and classroom management skills, is unmistakably important. Closure of mental health facilities and the enrollment of students with mental health issues have impacted some urban and city community colleges, but those in rural areas remain relatively untouched. Keeping focused on the behavior or pattern of behavior for students removes the limitations associated with a disability from the core of the misconduct issue. Clouding the resolution of student discipline issues with disability is imprudent. Documentation and charting of student misconduct incidents is suggested. The format for maintaining these records centers on who, what, when, where, and why. Specific forms may help to safeguard these records; however, these forms need to closely parallel the local SCOC and should be stored in a central location.

No predetermined set of strategies exists, and relatively few options are available to resolve issues of student misconduct. Good common sense dictates following the local college policy that defines and guides student discipline and student conduct. Consulting with campus colleagues may be advisable, but being decisive, persistent, and confident also has merit. As community colleges continue to grow, incidents of student misconduct are also likely to expand. Managing the SCOC by maintaining a positive and affirmative attitude, while not prejudging students prior to completing the investigation will serve administrators and students well.

Partial List of References

California education code. (2002). Eagan, MN: West Group.

Community College League of California. (2002). Retrieved April 10, 2002, from http://www.ccleague.org.

Dannells, M. (1997). From discipline to development—rethinking student conduct in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25(2). Washington, DC: George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

McEllistrem, S., Roth, J., & Walsh, P. (Eds.) (2002). Higher education law in America. Birminghan, AL: Oakstone Legal & Business Publishing.

Appendices

Table 1

Summary of Frequency Data

Note: Each tier represents a level of frequency of the student misconduct reported by the sample population.  The tier was selected based on an artificial division by the internal researcher.

Table 2

Summary of Intervention Categories

 Table 3

 Prevention Techniques

1. Develop and implement staff development training programs.
2. Provide informational memorandum outlining the student discipline issue to faculty and staff on a regular basis.
3. Provide for immediate intervention.
4. Begin resolution at the lowest possible level starting with the classroom instructor.
5. Encourage faculty to address student behavior expectations during the class orientation.
6. Utilize conflict resolution techniques at the informal level to prevent escalation.
7.  Hold preliminary meetings with student leaders to garner their support.
8. Consider behavioral contacts for special students.
9. Print college policies in languages other than English.  9. Print college policies in languages other than English.
10. Work from a student development perspective rather than a punitive perspective.
11. Establish a campus crisis prevention and intervention team.

 Table 4

Resolution Strategies

1. Follow the campus policy provisions and administrative guidelines.
2. Accept the reporting of a case of student misconduct only through written documentation. Reports received orally need to be documented by the reporting party.
3. Establish a close working relationship with campus security/police personnel, president, campus legal council, and other administrators.
4. Secure a copy of the report issued by the campus security/police office (if available) before initiating any investigation.
5. Summon students from class (consider the use of campus security personnel) to bring the student in for an interview. Other methods include: delivery of a note through an instructor/staff member, personal telephone call, written letter, and e-mail.
6. Interview the student perpetrator, reporting party (faculty, staff, student), and nearby witnesses.  Gather all relevant evidence.
7. Be respectful, direct, and prepared for all interviews. Remain fair and impartial.
8. Cite the specific violation and explain the parameters of the expected behavior.
9. Explain to students their due process rights and the consequences/ramifications of their actions.
10. Bring the conflicting parties together for mediation and resolution.
11. Take extensive case notes, annotated with date and time.
12. Request a recommended action/sanction from the reporting party.
13. Confer with administrative colleagues regarding the sanction.  Use collective decision-making.  
14. Practice progressive or proportionate discipline.  Make the sanction "fit" the violation.
15. Include the sanction and the duration of the sanction in a written letter to the student.
16. Send all letters of sanction by registered mail.  Use the telephone, mail, e-mail, and personal contact to convey to the disruptive student the necessity to convene. Include a copy of the campus policy and any administrative guidelines.
17. Complete or close the communication loop by notifying the reporting party the disposition of the case. Keep your supervisor informed of the status of the case.
18. Follow a standard protocol by resolving each case at the lowest possible administrative level.
19. Act affirmatively, be timely, and maintain confidentiality.
20. Maintain a safe environment for the perpetrator, victim, and the investigating administrator during the inquiry process.
21. Endorse the "human factor" by allowing for "second chances."
22. Keep accurate records and use consistent forms for reporting, investigating, and charting student discipline incidents in a chronological manner.
23. Post an electronic administrative hold on the student's record.
24. Maintain a centralized location for all discipline cases and reports.  Look for patterns of behavior or escalation of disruptive behavior in the records database.
25. Utilize the expertise of psychiatrists and counselors for behavior modification.
26. Provide for the option of an appeals hearing according the policy language. 
27. Establish and follow an academic honesty policy. Allow for instructional faculty and instructional deans to manage academic honesty. Maintain academic honesty records in a central office.

Robert Nadell, Ed.D.

Dean of Counseling and Student Development

Cypress College