1. Did the security guard act with disproportional force?

My initial gut reaction is to say yes, the security guard acted with disproportional force, especially after
the second jolt that was given. The student did not physically hurt anyone and was not combative with
the staff. However, he also was purposefully creating a disruption which affected multiple staff and
students and could be seen as traumatic for some. As I think about the question a little deeper, I have to
wonder what the protocol is for a disruptive student and assume that the administration is aware that
the security guards carry Tasers for use. According to the facts of the case study, the student resisted
apprehension and did not respond to the multiple security guards and administrators trying to catch
him, nor their requests to stop. In addition, I wonder if his attempt to get up could have been seen as an
attempt to run again. I think that more information would be needed to make a decision about
disproportional force, including looking at the current protocol and speaking to faculty and student
witnesses.

**Update: After responding to question 4, I now feel that if this case study took place in New Jersey, the
security guard did act with disproportional force. The student was not physically injuring others, did not
possess a weapon or other dangerous object, and there was no need for the security guard to defend
himself, nor was he protecting persons or property.

2. Is it good policy for the school to permit employees to have Tasers?

I think that is can be a good policy for the school to permit employees to have Taser if there is explicit
protocol for the use of Tasers. The school would have to create a team of stakeholders (administrators,
teachers, security guards, local police, parents and students) to meet and create such a policy. In this
case study, a Taser may have been excessive force, but in another scenario, such as an intruder with a
weapon, a Taser could save the lives of many students and staff.

**Update: After responding to question 4, the New Jersey law clearly states the policy for physical force
and this law must be followed when creating the suggested policy above.

3. Does the principal have authority to direct the security guard?

It sounds like the security guard is an employee of the school, which would mean that the principal does
have authority to direct the security guard. There is a hierarchy within the school structure and that
hierarchy is there for a reason.

4. What is the limit of constraint of a student?

If we assume this case study took place in New Jersey, the New Jersey law (18A:6-1. Corporal
punishment of pupils) clearly states: school staff may not use physical force to discipline a student
unless it is reasonable and necessary to prevent physical injury to others, to obtain possession of
weapons or other dangerous objects, to defend oneself, or to protect persons or property.
However, the laws vary by state, which supports the position that school administrators need to be
appropriately educated and remain up to date on state laws regarding education.

5. What should the relationship be between the school and the local police?

The local police are part of the community in which the school resides. Therefore, there should be open
communication and an established relationship between the local police and the school. Community
organizations, such as the police and school, are an important part of the education process. An
example is the DARE program that is implemented in schools.

6. Can and should the school protect a student against criminal action?

The school should act in a manner that presents factual information about an evet. If an event is
considered criminal action, then the action should be reported to the appropriate authorities. In 1988,
the New Jersey Departments of Law & Public Safety and Education issued a memorandum for use by
local law enforcement and education officials.This memorandum spells out when schools are required to
contact the police. Based on the memorandum, if a student commits a criminal act, the school is
required to report in to the local policy.

http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/security/regs/agree.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/education/students/safety/behavior/law/moa/

7. Is it time for a more explicit school policy? What should it be?

Due to the drastic different viewpoints between the principal and security guard, it is time for a more
explicit school policy. I believe that the policy should be created by following the steps mentioned in
question 2. According to Mary Parker Follet, conflict was not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of
incompatibilities but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for
enrichment of all concerned. Therefore, it can be concluded that the conflict between the principal and
the security guard resulted in a more explicit school policy, which is change that will improve policy and
regulations for staff and students.