CONFRONTED WITH ESCALATING MISCONDUCT, DISOBEDIENCE, DISRUPTION, AND VIOLENCE BY STUDENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SCHOOL OFFICIALS AND OTHERS FIND IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE CAUSES AND FIND EFFECTIVE, LEGAL SOLUTIONS. IN SOME INSTANCES THE SCHOOLS THEMSELVES ARE BLAMED UNDULY FOR STUDENT MISCONDUCT. LEGISLATURES, TOO, ARE ACCUSED FREQUENTLY OF BEING AT FAULT FOR FAILING TO PASS LAWS AUTHORIZING AND COMPELLING SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO APPLY EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES. MORE RECENTLY, THE COURTS HAVE BEEN THE MAIN TARGET OF BLAME FOR THEIR DECISIONS RESTRICTING SCHOOL OFFICIALS IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING CONDUCT. THE PROBLEM OF DEALING WITH UNRULY STUDENTS REQUIRES COOPERATIVE EFFORT, ESPECIALLY AMONG SCHOOL PERSONNEL. GENERALLY THE TERM DISCIPLINE REFERS TO ACTION TAKEN BY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AGAINST A STUDENT BECAUSE THE STUDENT'S CONDUCT, AS DISTINCT FROM ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE, FALLS SHORT OF CERTAIN SCHOOL STANDARDS. THE SCOPE OF DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES CONSIDERED IN THE TEXT GOES BEYOND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, SUSPENSION, AND EXPULSION, TO INCLUDE PUNISHMENT BY DEPRIVATION OF SCHOOL PRIVILEGES FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO SCHOOL BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS. SPECIFICALLY, THE TEXT ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: THE IN LOCO PARENTIS DOCTRINE; DUE PROCESS AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE; ADMINISTRATION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT; EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES; AND UNORTHODOX PRACTICES OF DISCIPLINING. THE COURT CASES REFERRED TO IN THE TEXT REPRESENT A SAMPLING OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS DEALING WITH DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES. (LKM)