At a time when school diversity seems to be dividing the community and Wake County school board, it looks like reducing student suspensions is one thing that people can agree upon.
As noted in today's article, the school board's economically disadvantaged student performance task force was receptive to most of the recommendations on Thursday for reducing the number and length of suspensions. Things such as reducing the length of long-term suspensions and finding more alternatives to suspensions got a favorable response.
“I think as a community we need to find the ties that bind us instead of those that separate us,” said school board member John Tedesco, chairman of the ED task force. “This is one of the ties that binds us.”
Jason Langberg, an attorney for Advocates for Children’s Services, a project of Legal Aid of North Carolina, presented a wide range of recommendations that he said would reduce the school-to-prison pipeline.
One of the biggest things Langberg wants changed is Wake's definition of a long-term suspension.
The state defines a long-term suspension as anything longer than 10 days and up to the rest of the school year. Wake makes it a suspension for the rest of the school year with no ability to reduce the time.
Except in the case where it’s mandated by state or federal law, Langberg said they’re also recommending eliminating zero-tolerance policies that require suspension for certain offenses.
For instance, Langberg said Wake shouldn’t automatically suspend a student for the rest of the school year for a two-on-one fight. He said this policy impacts students who are trying to break up fights.
Langberg is recommending Wake develop policies that would allow principals to consider mitigating factors before deciding what kind of punishment to issue. He cited factors such as age, intent, whether the child has a mental illness, is homeless, has a prior disciplinary record or has had a recent death in the family.
Tedesco said he sees the needs for mitigating factors, pointing to how zero tolerance policies resulted in one of his younger sisters getting in trouble for acting out in school after their mother died.
Other recommendations include:
* Providing more alternatives to suspension such as community service and Saturday school.
* Providing more alternative school seats for students who receive long-term suspensions.
* Providing more training to school resource officers on how to deal with students.
* Creating school-based oversight committees to review how discipline issues are handled at each school.
Tedesco said thing such as giving community service in lieu of a suspension and requiring school resource officers to have cultural sensitivity training are good ideas.
One recommendation that didn’t get as much support was barring school resource officers from having guns or tasers on campus.
The issue has got people such as Tedesco, who opposes the old diversity policy and Langberg, who backs the old policy, on the same page.
“This is an area where we can all find common ground,” said Langberg, who was a panelist at the recent N.C. HEAT forum. “We all believe it’s important to keep kids in school.”
UPDATE
Click here to view the presentation Langberg made to the task force. Click here to view the full report from Langberg.
Comments
I have to say I love how we
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 15:06 — aquaman4life68I have to say I love how we have individuals who will not hear of or allow the poor home environment and the lack of quality decent parental involvement to be used as any kind of indicator in the academic work of the students. Teachers all know this is a HUGE factor in a child's success in school. If a child fails..then it is the teacher's fault along with the school system's fault.
Then you can turn around and the same people I mentioned above will turn on a dime and make it an issue to ALLOW a student's poor home environment and lack of quality decent parental involvement as a factor to "justify" why they behave the way they do, and somehow us it for the "pity-party" on the child and in a way "excuse" them for their "justifiable" behavior.
You can't have your cake an eat it too!!!!
The poor home environment and the lack of quality decent parental involvement is a HUGE HUGE factor in a child's academic success and behavior development.
Either...apply these factors in EVERY situation or NEVER apply these factors in these situations.
I understand the home
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 17:53 — HJ2ss2I understand the home environment---behavior, academic performance connection so well that I would take your comments a step further and say that without intervention on this level, just about everything else tried will be futile. No matter how much the child is helped in school, he/ she returns to the same environment every day.
"At a time when school
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 11:57 — user12345"At a time when school diversity seems to be dividing the community and Wake County school board, it looks like reducing student suspensions is one thing that people can agree upon."
I wish removing the two
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 13:41 — red_balloonI wish removing the two troublemakers and their like was made a priority. They need to be dispatched to an alternative school and let teachers educate the remaining students.
I find the recommendations
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 10:21 — red_balloonI find the recommendations by Legal Aid of NC interesting. While I agree that we should aim to keep more students in regular school, I don't believe we should achieve this at the expense of endangering staff and other students or by diminishing the quality of the educational experience for other students.
A zero tolerance policy is too harsh when the defendant is a child and when the punishment can have life long consequences. There have to be better refined guidelines on when the zero tolerance policy should apply. Secondly, where the punishment can have life long consequences for the student, the principal and the SRO should not be the sole deciding authorities.
The policy of putting a suspended student on the streets is asinine. It is harmful to the student and to society. It is imperative that such students be sent to a special school than be ejected onto the streets. However, before matters reach a critical point, I believe some of the at-risk students can receive better help by working more closely with parents. I think it very unlikely that all parents of at-risk students are unconcerned about their children. Communicating with the parents and keeping them involved should be a principal component of any revised plan of action.
Excellent comments and
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 18:04 — HJ2ss2Excellent comments and recommendations.
You are also correct about some parents of at risk students. There are those parents who are very concerned about their children. Problem is that these parents are uncomfortable talking with school staff. Many of these parents had negative experiences in school when they attended.
So...
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 07:54 — Bob_SconceHe cited factors such as age, intent, whether the child has a mental illness, is homeless, has a prior disciplinary record or has had a recent death in the family.
What does the fact that a child is homeless have to do with the punishment he should get? Should we accept lower standards of behavior as a result?
I also don't understand the "cultural sensitivity training" part -- that might be helpful in avoiding conflict, but school behavior standards shouldn't change depending on your race or culture.
A big reason for zero-tolerance policies is to prevent accusations of unfairness: if every time a student does X, Y happens, then the district is immune from claims that, for example, black students are suspended at higher rates than white students. Once administrators start having discretion, then the district is open to lawsuits when that happens.
It's a touch nut to crack.
I think that the cultural
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 09:36 — danofncI think that the cultural sensitivity training would (could?) be important because some acts are open to interpretation.
I think you said that "intent" should matter sometimes. The sensitivity training may help discern "intent" at times.
Of course, based on your defense of zero-tolerance policies in this post I have a hard time thinking it was you who said the kid with the boxcutter shouldn't have been suspended.
cultural sensitivity training
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 16:55 — turnerk1Kids from other countries or cultural backgrounds may interpret body language and hand signals very differently than a teacher might think they should. One of the most common reasons a kid gets in trouble is for not obeying a teacher. But a kid in a loud lunchroom who can't hear the teacher well and is trying to read body language to understand what he's being told to do might completely misinterpret the directions. In India, for example, nodding one's head up and down means "no" not "yes" as it does here. I'm sure there are many other examples.
So...
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 10:20 — Bob_SconcePlease don't mistake my statement of fact (or at least what I perceive to be fact) about the reasons behind zero-tolerance policies for my support of such policies. I'm just trying to point out that the current policies were developed for reasons which will still need to be considered as those policies are revised.
Can you give me an example of an act that is "open to interpretation"?
Speaking of open to interpretation
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 17:13 — lferreriI had just read your post and this story came in from my husband's ABA Journal on-line.
"A city attorney in a western Chicago suburb has a new research assignment, thanks to a woman’s ejection from a city council committee meeting last month based on allegations she was rolling her eyes and yawning disrespectfully.
The question for Elmhurst city attorney Don Storino: What are the legal definitions of disorderly conduct and disruptive behavior? A Chicago Tribune editorial says Storino got the assignment with the aim of drafting an ordinance to stop nonverbal outbursts."
It must be a little quieter in Elmhurst if they are worrying about someone rolling her eyes. I also kind of wondered how you "yawn disrespectfully".
A kid who works at a grocery
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 10:40 — danofncA kid who works at a grocery store with a boxcutter in his car???
According to policy, it's a weapon, right?
Personally, anything found/seen in a car should be "open to interpretation". If a HS kid has a shotgun hanging in his truck window that he simply forgot to take out after hunting on the weekend, that's different than if he has a handgun in his backpack walking the halls. According to policy, his punishment probably would be the same for either offense. I think there should be some discretion.
Based on some of the things that result in these suspensions (talking back?), I'd say that there should be quite a bit of interpretation at times.
So...
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 11:20 — Bob_SconceThere's still a level of intent if he "simply forgot" to take the shotgun out after going hunting, but I agree with the sentiment. Of course, I grew up in a part of the country where hunting was more common than it is here -- heck, my high school had (and still has) a rifle team (it was a school-sanctioned sport) with a rifle range in the basement and a couple dozen school-owned .22 rifles. But, some people are a lot more paranoid about guns.
I agree that there needs to be more discretion or, at least, a more finely tuned set of offenses and punishments.