Wow, posting up to the bitter end. I'm impressed (if a little sad). To keep in form, I'll play my part and comment as well.

Not knowing anything about these specific cases, it's hard to imagine a kid being able to get into this level of trouble without exhibiting behavior problems earlier that were probably not so egregious. If that's the case, I think that the school system has a responsibility to develop and implement BIPs (Behavior Improvement Plans) for troubled students to prevent things from getting out of hand. These plans need to get signed off by parents, and should be centered around the idea of keeping everybody in the school safe.

I suppose the alternative is that you have a full-blown sociopath as opposed to a troubled kid. If that's the case, as a city resident I'm not too happy with the idea of forcing them onto the streets to try to hone their destructive tendencies. Shouldn't they be put in the juvenile justice system?

Good luck Sara

While I do not delight in violence or the bad behavior of students that results in permanent expulsion, I think that this jump is a GOOD thing. To me, it signifies a willingness (or the seeds of one) to absolutely and unequivocally deal with safety and behavioral issues that endanger all of us in these schools.

And I frankly believe that the onus to deal with alternatives for placement falls onto the parents, in (limited) conjunction with the great folks at North Ave. When a student, irrespective of age, endangers the safety and well-being of other students/staff, they lose a lot of their applicable due process rights. While I agree the process should be transparent to the parents/guardians as to how to proceed from here, the zero tolerance policy is well worth it in the long run. The message it sends (and most importantly, the one it does NOT send) is that your behavior has real consequences. When that message starts to trickle down, we are all going to be better off.

As for the drop-out comparison, I think it apples and oranges. Getting drop-outs back is a good thing for the community and system as a whole. It sends the message we care and we will put measures into place to help you succeed. The EXACT same message is sent when we expel students. It says we care about all the others that may have been affected by your irresponsible actions, and if you are someone considering such a dastardly act, remember how it might affect you, your peers, and your family in the long run.

As for the lawsuits...please! Ten and/or five days is plenty of time to deal with an issue with your soon-to-be-expelled child. You are probably the same parent who ignores pleas for face time when it comes to discipline, progress reports and back-to-school night.

Sympathy for plights are all too common in this city. Good job on finally throwing down the hammer. We ALL benefit in the long run!!!

Mr. Ortiz, a hasty expulsion of a student in a judgment-free "zero-tolerance" process, followed by an arbitrary 10/5 day ticking clock to appeal a decision that will impact someone for a lifetime isn't "unequivocally [dealing] with safety and behavioral issues" - it's sweeping them under the rug.

You act as if the school administration always makes the correct call, gets the right student, knows the facts surrounding the case... and we all know that's not even possible. Even if they were as perfect as you make them out to be, automatic lifetime expulsion is a cowardly response, it's ignoring the issues and making things worse for kids who already have serious problems.

You applaud unthinking bureaucracy while condemning parents who fight for their child's education... you speak of sending a message - and your message is loud and clear - you care nothing about people, nothing about students, you only stand here to judge those worthy and unworthy of an education.

Permanent expulsion is a serious matter. It should be handled carefully, applied only in cases were it makes sense, and should never be a one-sided bureaucratic process.

If only the school administration had a zero tolerance, "one-strike and your out" policy for teachers who don't meet standards, those that endanger the education or safety of students, maybe you would look at this a different way. No more PIPs, just a lifetime ban from teaching for anyone the administration deems sub-standard - and no pesky appeals or lawsuits allowed.
Now THAT would send a great trickle-down message throughout the school system !

Dave, as a city schools teacher, I can tell you that there are many parents who couldn't care less about their child's education. For instance, BCPSS recently started fining parents for not sending their students to school for long periods of time. I had one parent call all upset because she got a letter saying to pay up a couple hundred dollars or face jail time. She started making excuse after excuse why her son wasn't in school (he's in kindergarten and gets bus transportation) and so I set up two meetings with her to try and straighten things out. She didn't show up to either of them, even though for the second one I had verbal confirmation via a phone call that she would be to the meeting scheduled for later that morning.

I applaud city schools for keeping the students and the employees safe. The city has sent the message for too long that it is OK for students to abuse the staff and other students and for parents to not do anything about it, but its a new day in our public schools, and Dr. Alonso is setting the standard for all parties involved that nothing less than your best is going to be tolerated.

To both Daves,

Zero tolerance goes on both sides. You are correct in saying that parents are the ultimate people responsible for the conduct of their children. Having dealt with the misbehavior (in all forms) of students in the city, I find it compelling that these same parents can't find time to take off work to meet over minor infractions--not even a phone call. Many, many students do not have working phone numbers that they will share. And, while I appreciate that parents have jobs, if their children are that important to them, parents need to put the effort in before a situation arises where expulsion occurs.

On the flip side, being able to get rid of poorly performing teachers easily would also be nice. However, in most large urban districts, teachers are not a plentiful commodity and those who do stay should be nurtured. I know that there are teachers who don't measure up to the highest standards but that is also true in the "real" world and those people still keep jobs. The real issue is that teachers, as a group, are not valued by society. If you graduate with a degree in math/science and have a choice of where to go, why would you go into a profession where the base pay is low and the perks are virtually non-existent? In this economy, yes, we will get some higher quality teachers over the next few years but how many of them will stay when the economy bounces back and they are still making a very average wage? Not many and I have seen this cycle on several occasions.

Final comment, students/parents/society in general do not appreciate the value of a "free" education. Maybe paying for education for a year or two would make people realize what other countries discovered years ago--education has value and should be treated as a privilege not a right.

The punishment fits the crime. If these kids cannot attend school and behave then they don't deserve to go to school. I think more kids need to be expelled for assaults, fires, weapons, etc. One needs to ask what type of parenting this kid has to set a fire because he doesn't feel like being at school on a given day. I'm sure if this kid was injured by a fire set by someone else then these parents would argue to expel the other kid.

@ Dave T

There is a big difference between being a sub-standard teacher and being a student that endangers the lives of everyone in a school building. If you consider the possible outcomes of a student setting a fire in a school building, it makes complete sense to remove that one student for the safety of hundreds, if not thousands, of other people. Like David Ortiz said, this sends a very strong message and students will be much less likely to commit these serious crimes in schools.

@Dave

Your assumptions about Ortiz clearly show you haven't read his previous writings. He's proven time and time again that he works for the benefit of kids and community.

As to the topic at hand: I think a jump in permanent expulsion could mean any number of things, and it certainly should be treated differently with each situation. Personally I've been punched, pushed, and threatened by students who promised to bring in a firearm and shoot me in the head. Despite reporting all of these instances clearly and without Bias, not one of these students ever was removed from the building *at all*. They were in school *the next day*.

Two of the students who took swings at me then went on to push/hit several other teachers again without impunity.

Which is more of a disservice to children: removing them for crimes committed or teaching them that they can act as they wish without impunity? Just a thought.

The easier option here is to permanently expel these students. The harder option is to figure out a way to provide them an education without endangering others. As per usual, the harder choice is the better choice. This is not about due process or parents taking responsibility, it's about educating kids who have made devastatingly bad choices. The city has no choice but to educate these kids. Claiming that the parents can provide alternative education or claiming that the parents could have appealed the decision doesn't hold water. The parents likely have few resources and many obstacles, both self-created and systemic, and the burden, the very difficult burden, falls on the school system to educate these kids. When the school system fails to bear this burden the students will lose and the impact on the community will be unbearable.

It must be the teachers' and administrators' fault, right Dave T? Maybe we should just continue patting the problem kids on the back and engage in a group signing of Kumbaya. That will solve the problem and send the right message.

As a teacher in a suburban school system, I applaud the efforts of the Baltimore school system to rid itself of people who create a dangerous environment. Everyone has a right to a free and appropriate public education. However, if you become a danger to other students then you should lose that right. My biggest frustration in my school is with the inability to get students out of school who have clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in being in school. Even after a board suspension they get placed in alt-ed, and if they get kicked out of alt-ed they get to go to alt-ed night school. Ridiculous.

It's my fault, I invented fire.

Parents need to start parenting. That is the bottom line. It is not the school's job to raise decent, thoughtful, polite kids. THAT is the job of the parent. The school's job is to reinforce and nurture those positive ideals that should be taught at home, such as respect, integrity, and of course the one which everyone seems to forget: accountability. Stop having kids you don't spend time with, and stop having kids with an absent father. Stop expecting everyone else to do your job. While of course teachers and administrators should focus on behavior, if kids would arrive at school and already know how to behave, they might actually learn something. Parents: take some responsibilty for raising your kids, and be accountable. Setting fire to school property?!?! Has this become "normal" behavior for expressing dissatisfaction with the world? Come on! Get a grip, turn off the TV, get off your cell phones, and pay attention to your kids! How could it possibly surprise anyone - especially the parent/guardian of a kid who sets fires in school - that kids are not learning in city schools. How can you teach history or algebra if some kid is hitting another one or setting fires or whatever else they do? I say Good Job, Mr. Alonzo. Make these parents - and the students - accountable for their behavior. And thank you for getting them out of schools so that the other kids can learn. My only concern is how these student citizens will occupy themselves if they are not allowed to go to school...

Brian has it right.As I lightly suggested in on this blog months ago,(different story,same topic) the alternate setting needs to be a military setting. Military schools have worked for years as has the "real" military.Structure,routine, authentic learning(trades etc) stability,and removal from the community.This placement should be implemented sooner than later. I have even seen Jr. ROTC turn kids around. for the record, I am an original peace person but the structure of the military is not replicated anywhere else that I am aware of.

Dave T-

Some thoughts. First off, I highly, highly doubt that the process of expulsion is arbitrary in any way. Dr. Alonso has made it very clear that students belong in school and he has taken great pains to make that happen-from reducing suspensions for non-violent offenses to bringing drop-outs back. I believe that there is a great deal of investigation, documentation, prudence and brevity given to the permanent expulsion of a minor.

As for the charge that school administrators act without neither proof nor full knowledge of an incident and with a subjective vantage point, I would need some actual proof. Its not like administrators commiserate to destroy the lives of children. (Teachers might be another story :)) But I am also confident that schools and North Ave. are doing due diligence when it comes to permanent expulsion.

If the children's parents were in fact fighting for their education as hard as you claim, they would be more than able to meet the 5/10 day deadlines. Let me ask this: Who is fighting for the OTHER children in the building whose lives could have been altered by the callous actions of a few? We must balance and weigh the safety and interests of the many over the recklessness of the few.

As for it being a cowardly response, I would argue the opposite. It is the necessary response to a child and a permissive culture in our schools that has been told for too long that there are allowed to behave in such a way without real consequences. Cowardly would be to make excuses for a child's behavior and then have other people permanently injured or harmed as a result of someone else getting the indirect message that serious and dangerous offenses are not penalized.

Finally, I only judge those worthy and unworthy of their right to an education if they infringe upon the safety of others to get their education. But Im only a teacher really....so its a moot point.

And thanks Brandon for representing me in my HSA absence this morning. Im not sure how to respond to charges that I care nothing of the community, people, or students so I will just leave it alone.

This is a terribly complicated issue which should be dealt with an a case by case basis. Probably not sensible for many obvious reasons and yet the broad sweep of the brush hurts everyone.

On another note; parents with kids in daycare, BEWARE. Your child could be spending his/her days in the home of a person who sets fires in schools!!! Very scary! Should be illegal.Where is child protective services in this story? Oh, I forgot, the boy is really a good kid who put the lives of a school full of kids in danger. I taught in a hospital full of kids with burns. Hell on earth!

@Mike - I'm not sure how your elementary student story relates - are you suggesting that zero-tolerance is revenge on students because some other parents are bad ?

@Vincent - If a zero-tolerance policy makes sense, then it should make sense for all parties involved. Revoke the child's chance at an education for an infraction, without wasting time on hearings and lawsuits. Revoke a teacher's job if they fail to perform perfectly, also without wasting time on hearings and lawsuits and annoying union rules. If zero-tolerance is fair, then it's fair to use it on everyone.

@Brandon - You are presenting a false dichotomy, there are not just two choice there... to allow teacher to be assaulted or to banish students at the whim of the administration. It's because of band-aid policies like this that nobody will addressing the real issues. You bring up a serious issue, and the school needs to address it.
Maybe if the administration spent more time dealing with the problems early, instead of falling back on this mindless zero-tolerance policy, you would see some progress towards preventing the sort of situations you descrived. Now that the policy is in place, do you really expect that anyone will take your reports of violence more seriously ? Or perhaps they'll be more likely to ignore them for fear of the harsh penalty they may have to hand down (based solely on a teacher's word).

@Brian - You got it right. The policy is just a way to pass the buck. It's quick, easy to implement, and grabs headlines... but ultimately it will be ineffective.

@Caveman - You didn't invent fire, you discovered it.

@Wise Educator - Interesting idea, and it makes more sense then tossing them out on the street with no chance at an education.

@Mr. Ortiz - I'm all for expulsion where it makes sense, and where we have a process that's fair to both the school, the parents, and the student.
No matter what internal criteria is used by the administration, it's not going to be perfect. Doing something as serious as ending a child's chance at an education should require an open process that involves the parents and the school. I'm suggesting that a decision handed out by North Avenue followed by a 5 day deadline isn't sufficient. If the child is already suspended (I assume they are) then why only 5 days to read and response to a paper letter ? If a parent doesn't check their mail for a couple days they lose their rights ? What's the big rush ? Why 5 days and not 7 ? Arbitrary is the word that comes to mind. Arbitrary (unwritten even?) decision processes are followed by arbitrary deadlines.

Instead, I would suggest a mandatory conference... at least explain the seriousness of the issue and the options (or lack of) that the parents and students have. Make the appeals hearing a part of the process - automatic. What concerned parent isn't going to try to appeal if they get the letter in time ? Just assume they will, have the hearing, then move on. Even in cases where you feel the kids aren't worth the trouble, you can be consoled by the fact that it will likely be the *last* conference anyone every has for/with that student.

Your blind faith in a perfect administration is surprising to me, especially given that you are teacher. If you really do care about the parents, students, and the community, then you should support a process that involves the parents, students, and the community.

@DO - Saw a new poster taking the low blow approach with you and had an immediate urge to jump in! Regulars are only allowed to go after regulars... But, seriously, to Dave T, your statement about David O's dedication to schools and children couldn't be more misguided. Inappropriate here. Regardless of your beliefs about their opinions, David and many other posters here care intensely about children in Baltimore.

Just saw that you responded, DO, great points.

A Dave T - teachers can be removed for gross misconduct. For example, there are no PIPs for teachers who endanger children. They are immediately removed from the classroom and sent elsewhere (the mailroom at North Ave.) while a hearing is conducted. If they are found guilty, they are fired. This would be on par with what is being done with the students who endanger others by setting fires or using incendiary devices.

Very insightful responses. Lets address the issue of the removal of teachers. If a teacher endangers the lives of students, they will be removed! I have first hand knowledge of students who "claim" a teacher assaulted them, and they were removed. In all 3 cases, the teachers were cleared by protective services then moved to new schools. If a teacher "claims" assault, why shouldnt they same thing happen? And if a teacher is found guilty, they will be fired (removed)! Seems to me that is what this policy does. And had they done this 10 or 15 years ago (or more) we still wouldnt be fighting the same fight. Just my $.02.

I must be missing something. Aren't kids below a certain age required by law to go to school? So if you permanently expel a kid and the kid is not picked up by juvenile services, isn't that kind of weird? Like, it is illegal for you to not be in school, but oh by the way we are not letting you come in?

@Avalon and @concerned teacher - so teachers that commit gross misconduct are given an option to keep job elsewhere, after what I'm sure is a fair and extensive hearing process. How is this the same as a zero-tolerance policy ? If a ZT policy was in place, that teacher would be banned from teaching in MD after a summary decision by the administration, end of story.

@Bill - sorry to interrupt your mutual admiration society :) Maybe Mr. Ortiz was having a bad day, but that post is just offensive. These are people we are talking about, children, elementary school kids even!

It's a rant about how we need more arbitrary permanent expulsions, more "zero-tolerance", more of the administration's heavy hand and less of those pesky appeals and lawsuits. It's about how students deserve to be ignored and thrown out forever if their parent don't open a letter in 5 days, about how the treatment will "send a message" (intimidation) and about "throwing down the hammer," and about how this makes everything better for the survivors.

These aren't the words of a caring person who's looking for solutions to a very serious issue, these are the words of an angry man looking for blood.

From what else I've heard and from what I can deduce, I'm sure that Mr. Ortiz does care, or he wouldn't be angry, he wouldn't be standing up, he wouldn't be a teacher in the city. But there's a constructive was to go about it, and then there's the hammer. Let's not have anger and frustration be the basis for a policy that can so profoundly affect a child's life.

I am a high school teacher in BCPSS and, although I do feel that students that commit arson should be expelled, I want to know why there is no punishment for the offenses that lead up to arson. Kids cut class and there are no consequences. Kids then gamble, harass, fight, sell and do drugs, vandalize and there are no consequences. Why is it that Dr. Alonso decides to lay down the law for arson and nothing else? I feel that a lot of the arson cases could be prevented if there were clear rules and consequences in place. This is just the opinion of a teacher from a school that has a history of kids committing arson.

Dave T-

If you don't mind me asking, do you work in a city school? How about high school like Mr Ortiz (and myself for that matter)?

There are guidelines in place, a code of conduct , that show parents, teachers and students the consequence for each action. A student who gets expelled has to do something quite major, that endangers the lives of many others in the school, including the often forgotten about staff.

This year at my school, we had two students that were put out (unsure if they were officially expelled, as I was under the belief a student must be found guilty of the crime to be expelled)
One brought his gang member friends into the school and then stabbed another student once school let out. Are you telling me that this student, who endangered the life of everyone in that building, should be in school? As an adult, that was a scary moment-what do you think the students felt? How much learning do you think went on in the following days?

Another student set fire to a part of the school and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. Where is the line for you?
What does someone need to do to be expelled in your book?

Trust me, it takes A LOT for someone to be expelled, as I have seen over my 3 years in the system. Especially now that AAA is here. Fights (your everyday ones), drug dealing, even calling teachers names-they are not normally grounds to expel someone.

Good for David Ortiz-he is dedicating his life and well being to helping these students. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

Dave T-
Let me respond again to your writing.

1. I never argued that we needed more arbitrary expulsions. I argued that we needed to be clear and forceful while simultaneously judicious, prudent and consistent in our decision to expel children. It is absolutely a serious issue, but we have to weigh, as I said before, the safety of all the students and staff in any given building with the detrimental actions of a few. I hardly think that is being arbitrary.

2. I did argue for zero tolerance because it benefits those that have been aggrieved by someones unwise decision(s) the most. Messages to others are hugely important in our schools. We need to make it clear that certain behavior will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Lack of consistency is an enduring problem for our students and while each case needs to be weighed on the merits of circumstance, we need to make it clear there is a definitive line in the sand.

3. As for administrative heavy hands, I think its kind of a moot point. We all collectively need to have heavy hands in dealing with certain infractions. Long-term suspensions and expulsions are handled through the Office of Suspension Services in conjunction with the school, the aggrieved party and the student under proposal. My administration can have a heavy hand and one across town may not, but it simply does not matter. These serious matters are handled in a collaborative way and having been a part of the process a few times, if the paperwork is not in order and every "i" dotted and "t" crossed, the paperwork gets sent right back. The process is one that requires a lot of narratives and further documentation. That is hardly arbitrary.

4. As for those pesky lawsuits and appeals, I never suggested that those with legitimate legal complaints needn't apply. I merely suggested that I find it hard to believe that if a parent/guardian of a proposed student cannot take action in the prescribed amount of time, there is something more to the story. That smacks of negligence on the part of the parent/guardian. Plain and simple. I casually correlated my assumption that those same parents who are slow to respond to major disciplinary action against their child are also the ones who fail to take an active role in their child's education. I stand by that with no data in my pocket. That is not advocating that lawsuits go away. I was simply stating that legal action in a reactionary vacuum does nothing to address long-term systemic issues of discipline in our schools.

5.And I am neither looking for blood nor offering a solution. I think one has been found and I was stating my support for that program. While it needs to have more transparency as part of the initial process, I am stating that a viable solution with lasting results has been initiated.

As for a mutual admiration society, I thank Bill for his kind words. And for those regular readers, we rarely see eye to eye on most things, but have come to understand that the goal here is to make it better for us all-children and adults.

I leave with you with this question:

How do we best address the educational and social needs of a child who has committed an expellable offense while simultaneously protecting other students AND sending a clear and consistent message that actions have consequences?

@Dave T - The teacher would only be given a job "elsewhere" during the hearing. Just as the student would be getting schooled (by the system) at home during his/her hearing. After being found guilty, the teacher would lose their teaching certificate and not be able to teach again. Ever.

@Jesse - You make a great point. Zero-tolerance may get the attention, and it certainly seems to stir up some discussion, but what about addressing the real day-to-day issues ?

@LNear - No, shame on *you* for not reading my comments. I've never said that I was against expelling the students. I'm against expelling them via a mindless "zero-tolerance" policy with a rigged appeals process. And no, I'm not a school teacher in the city.

@Avalon - I understand, but thanks for the further explanation. My point was that they got a hearing and kept a job, if there was zero-tolerance, the administration would make a call and that would be it - banned for life with no hearing/appeal/etc. Would that be fair ? Why would a ZT process be fair to students ? In any case, I only mentioned it to illustrate my point, not as a recommendation.

@Mr. Ortiz - I appreciate the dialogue we have here. Don't get me wrong, I think that your heart is (mostly) in the right place - I wish everyone in the system was as enthusiastic and vocal. My argument against the zero-tolerance policy is that it's just some gimmicky solution that makes it seem like the schools are throwing down "the hammer" when in fact, it's just a way to pass the buck. They don't seem to want to put enough time into it to apply it fairly, and it may do more harm than good.

RE 1. It's not a matter of more zero-tolerance expulsions or less, it's a new policy that on the face of it, is designed to increase expulsions. It requires expulsion in cases where that otherwise may not have been used. Also, I suggest that elements of the process are arbitrary, not specifically the decision making of the administration. If it's a one-sided decision by the administration, where the guidelines used aren't transparent, and the chance at appeal is based on some ticking-clock and a paper letter, then it's rigged. I'm sorry, but I don't think we should blindly trust the administration with such a huge decision. Why not have a mandatory hearing before taking that final fateful step of permanently expelling some elementary school kid ?

RE 2. You say that, "each case needs to be weighed on the merits of circumstance" - but isn't this what I'm saying too ? Zero-tolerance doesn't allow for cases to be weighed based on the circumstances, the rule is the rule, break it and you are on your own (even if you are 7 years old apparently).

RE 3. The process you describe there is very much the opposite of a zero-tolerance policy, it sounds like the current/old process to me. I think that with a few changes to the new one-sided ZT process, we end up on the same page regarding expulsions. I know that you think those kids should be tossed aside at that point, and I think we would still disagree on what should happen next... but I agree that the serious problem kids have to removed from the schools. It's the ZT policy that doesn't make any sense to me.

RE 4. I don't get why there would be this game of letter-sending and ticking clocks. Given a fair amount of time to respond, wouldn't nearly every parent choose to have a hearing after a ZT expulsion ? Just schedule it. I would even suggest tasking someone to contact the parent directly to confirm it. This is the equivalent of an educational death penalty imposed on a child, take the time to be certain and to hear things out fairly.

RE 5. I'm not sure that you really do think that a solution, "has been found." I think that you see something that looks like change, and like a drowning man, you are happy to grab onto anything that you think will save the rest of the kids who you think are still worth fighting for, and I can't blame you there, after all, what else has the administration put forth? The discussion may have been initiated, but the solution is far from found. In the meantime, the application of these harsh policies may turn otherwise redeemable kids into street kids with no education. One mistake in 5th grade and you are out on your own… There are no second chances if the ZT policy is applied consistently.

Regarding your question, "How do we best address the educational and social needs of a child who has committed an expellable offense while simultaneously protecting other students AND sending a clear and consistent message that actions have consequences?" - Asking the right question is the first step towards finding a solution, and I think you've posed an excellent one there. I can't give you a complete answer to all of it, but I know that some gimmicky "zero-tolerance" initiative isn't going to accomplish anything. It takes expertise, experience, and hard work to meet those challenges.

Admitting that their needs must be addressed is important, every kid you throw away is another failure that the administration (and the rest of us) have to live with.

Students who commit truly violent acts need to be taken out of the environment. Let's not banish every kid who lights a match, or some 8 year old who brings a pocket-knife to school, there are much more serious things going on in those schools that need to be dealt with. Get the gangsters and the dealers out first, the real threats, and that will protect students better than applying zero-tolerance to a kid caught standing near a burning trashcan.

As far as your "messages" go - you can't intimidate most of these kids. You can't threaten them with expulsion or anything else and have them respond the way you want. Kids adapt to their environment faster than any school board can change it. Increasingly harsh threats and actions from the administration won't decrease the violence, the kids may even increase their threats against teachers and other students who might turn them in. You simply can't win by escalation.

And forget trying to "send a message" with the policy, it's not productive. Send your messages in other ways. In my experience, positive re-enforcement achieves better results than threats. The school system needs to spent more time helping the kids who do well, the kids who work hard, so that the incentive to do your best is there.... I don't even want to get into the topic of what happens to the kids that follow the rules and those who excel, but I think it's enough for me to say that we need to do more for them than what's being offered now.

Thanks again, I enjoy talking about this with you.
Dave T

Ugh, I'm getting way too wrapped up in this. I realized that we don't even really know what the darn policy IS ! As far as I know, it's just a statement about "zero-tolerance" from North Avenue, stories about lawsuits and elementary school kids being expelled, and of course, news summaries. I'm being told now by some school contacts that kids are getting hearings, but then, I'm being told by others that they are not.

Sorry, but even with the Sun story and the comments from wonderfully informed and concerned folks here, I still don't know for sure what's going on with this.

Can anyone point us to anything official about the policy and how it's being implemented (online or otherwise) ???

Thanks...

Dave T-
Take a look at this. This is the document that we were given at the beginning of the year for behavior. It may not answer any questions, but its an interesting document nonetheless.

http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/news/pdf/2008_09codeofconduct.pdf

I enjoy the conversations as well. We really arent that far off from one another I suppose....

Thanks David, it certainly looks reasonable and well thought out to me.
Someone has a sense of humor though, the code for "cyber-bullying" is the infamous 404 :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404

"How do we best address the educational and social needs of a child who has committed an expellable offense while simultaneously protecting other students AND sending a clear and consistent message that actions have consequences?"

Isn't this the exact reason why we need more alternative programs/schools in the system?

Corey-

I would say yes and no to the question you pose.

Yes insofar that more alternative schools presents the environment for many children who may have committed expellable offenses to turn themselves around and prove themselves in a setting that is more conducive to having their educational and social challenges met.

No because it skirts the issue at the heart of this debate about real consequences for dangerous and destructive behavior. If kids know they will simply be placed elsewhere after committing an act, then the deterrent effect is minimal at best-ignored and dysfunctional at worst.

I think there needs to be a middle ground here. Certain offenses need to be an expellable offense with no option for alternative placements. I agree that this list of offenses should be small, but it needs to exist. Other offenses (and particularly those that involve elementary students) need to come with a option for alternative placement after a long-term suspension is served.

If we do expand those alternative school options, we need to make sure they arent chaotic though. They need to be small, intensive and staffed with people prepared to deal with the attendant issues. But now...that opens a whole new Pandora's Box, doesnt it?!?

@Coery et. al.- I guess that depends on what you think the mission of the public schools should be...
- to "teach them" or "to teach them a lesson"

:)

Perhaps we could model a new program based on the Irish catholic reform school system ?
(too early?)

Dave T-

I dont think the two are mutually exclusive missions. Its not that dichotomous. We are here to both teach them content in a strict educational sense, but we are also here to socialize them properly about the paradigms of successfully navigating society-whether we agree with those norms or not. We want them to be successful individuals in their lives, and both of those goals are really imperative.

To weave it back into the discussion of this thread, we must teach them about actions and consequences both in the context of the school environment as well as those that translate into "real-world" situations.

They could master the content of my class but fail to see how their destructive actions have real consequences and then really, I have failed as a teacher.

Big Papi,

I see the value in having kids know that there is a consequence beyond transfer to another school. I have a few thoughts about having a category of actions that mandate system-wide expulsion.

The alternative program they may be transferring to would not just be another school similar to the one they were expelled from. A hardcore military style school would certainly be considered a punishment and something to avoid rather than more of the same in a new building.

I believe that there are no innately bad kids, and kids who make poor decisions are all capable of turning it around. When we expel a kid from the entire system in Baltimore City we're essentially sending him/her to prison. You go to prison once and you're likely to return multiple times and have a pretty crappy life.

Acknowledging this reality (perhaps you'd challenge the inevitability of what I speak) I don't want any of our kids going that route. Perhaps the proper response is, well that means it's time for prison reform, we have to preserve the integrity of our system and others need to address the correctional system. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for prison reform.

I would look for any way possible to give kids one more chance at a very tough and structured small school environment prior to their permanent release.

Dave T.,

Of course we always want to teach them but I think the point that Big Papi is making is that when you offer a lack of consequences for certain behavior you're jeopardizing the ability to teach a host of others. One student can be quite insidious, and rob his/her peers of an education.

One thing I've noticed is that inconsistency in policy and policy enforcement can tear down a school's credibility. Kids are smart and kids talk to each other. Every time you handle an incident you are essentially setting a school-wide precedent.

Where would you draw the line? Would you allow a kid to return to school who set a fire that put lives in danger? What if someone brings a knife to school and attempts to use it? How do you handle those situations such that you don't give up on a kid without jeopardizing the entire community?

So, nobody likes the military school solution? See my first post way above. When I was in high school several tough boys were sent to Culver Military Academy. Turned their lives around.

Perhaps one solution to getting the bad kids out of the regular schools would be a bailout program. Just give them enough money that they never have to rely on an education (say, $10 million).

Isn't this what we've done with GM, AIG, BoA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch , Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, Chrysler, and numerous small banks ?

Don't we give our politicians a pass when they break the law, ignore the Constitution, authorize torture, lie to the American people, ignore Congressional subpoenas, and take lobby money for favors ? Do we allow our own city police department to throw out cases against allegedly "bad" cops because the internal affairs people were breaking so many laws that the cases can't go forward ?
Does giving a pass to a city court system that's been unable to protect witnesses, or in one case even sat a defendant next to a witness who was then attacked set a good example of consequences ?

Have you seen "Reality TV" or read about Bernie Madoff or Enron ? Bad behavior is actually rewarded highly in our society. Maybe the key to preparing them for the real world is by ignoring or even glorifying bad behavior - wouldn't that better prepare them for what they will actually experience ?
...
...
Or perhaps it's not primarily the school system rules that are teaching them about actions and consequences.

I see the value in a sane system of discipline, but extreme responses and pat solutions such as zero-tolerance expulsion only shows weakness. It shows that we can't find solutions without "bringing down the hammer" on elementary and high school kids. It shows that we as adults can't take the time to develop methods that are constructive, or at least constructive methods that are effective. It shows that expedient "solutions" and threats are the way to take control of a situation.

We lead by example. There are so many bad examples in the world, shouldn't we be working that much harder to show kids that there are better ways to prevent problems, that there are ways to reward good behavior and support the kids that are doing well (both in behavior AND academics). People will choose the path they feel offers them the most reward, and I don't see where the current system offers many.