When can a child be expelled for being too much of a disruption

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principals are pressured by central administration to refrain from referring children for higher levels of service, which can include placing the child at other MCPS schools, or even private special education schools at taxpayer expense.
Some principals value their career and chances for promotion over doing what's right for the child with an emotional disability, the classroom teacher, and the child's parents. It's a shame.

Absolutely true...and it's really the dirty little secret with providing any type of discipline.Teachers are encouraged to handle all things within the class, and there are all types of subtle coercion to keep the paperwork generally at bay. Kids can be really out of control - completely disruptive and even dangerous with almost no consequences. Schools and principals are rewarded for low disciplinary rates- and it's really easy to make it appear as if there few issues when, in fact, there are huge problems. And here's the biggest secret. If the child has an IEP or is not white- forget it- no disciplinary paperwork will be processed.

+100
I no longer have a dog in this fight, but in MCPS, parents and children ARE not the customers. IEP or no, SN or no, good luck getting the MCPS to meet your childs' needs. Whether those needs are to get your NT or SN kid FAPE or decent teachers, or help with an issue, MCPS doesn't care. Maybe things will change now that Starr is gone, but my family spent countless hours and dollars trying to work within the system (downcounty, so no W school cache) to get all three of our kids appropriately educated. Two have mild SN, one is NT. All three are now thriving in private. We gave up. It's a massive financial sacrifice, but trying to get the county to follow their own guidelines and rules was a sisyphean task. And not to stray, but our DS's former MS, Col. E. Brooke Lee, just lost one of it's 7th graders to suicide. On campus, in the middle of the day. A kid in my DS's class, a school that routinely turned a blind eye to bullying and gang violence.

[Anonymous]

PP here again
To the OP: from my experience (different schools, so maybe different levels of engagement by admins) you can either lawyer up and get FAPE for your DD, or you can pull her and send her to private. Not much you can do about the other student. Sorry, but welcome to MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Kid spent time with principal again today. Apparently making sexual comments in class and being disruptive. Sigh. So tired of this. Get him OUT of the school!!!

I'd sure like to spend five minutes with this principal and know what the game plan is. I don't need my children's education being some charity case social experiment.

But that is public education. We have kids that are SN, ESOL, ADD, ADHD, OCD, SPD, all in one classroom. My daughter's K class still has 3 kids that STILL can't say more than 3-4 words in English. In the beginning of the year it was 6. There is a boy that never sits, is always at the principal, hits other kids. Spits a few times if he is really mad. A girl that pulls hair and hits herself VERY hard when things aren't going her way. It is a f'ing zoo in there. 26 kids to 1 teacher (who probably downs a bottle of wine before 6pm!)

If you want a better education you need to go to private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope, sorry, I'm the horrified pp and I'm still horrified. I am struggling to imagine you standing outside the school with your cell phone, calling 911. The police come, and you inform them that your daughter told you that a boy patted her on the butt. I think that is ludicrous and I think law enforcement would agree with me.

Don't you dare play the slippery slope argument and tell me that this is JUST like girls getting raped at college. It's not, the kids are 10 and in elementary school.

There doesn't have to be a slippery slope to rape to be offended by your acceptance of sexual assault of young girls. Young girls (and all females of any age) have a right not to have their sexual body parts touched. You minimize the action by calling it a "pat on the butt". Would you accept a "pat on the butt" from your work colleague on the way into a staff meeting? Would you accept a "pat on the butt" from a stranger on the bus? How about from the teenage in line behind you at the grocery store?

Of course not, it is not acceptable for other people to touch us on our buttocks, breasts or groin area without permission. Period.

It may be that young children do not yet understand that this behavior is unacceptable. Just like a young boy might not understand that punching someone when he's mad is not acceptable, or might not have the self-control to restrain himself. That he lacks understanding or self-control doesn't mean that what he did (punching someone) isn't a prosecutable offense like assault.

Now, the justice system may decide that jail time is not appropriate for a young man (or woman) who commits sexual assault by touching the private parts of another. Instead the justice system may decide that a plea to a lesser charge or probation combined with education of the offender may be a more appropriate outcome, but that doesn't mean that calling a pat on the butt assault and demanding that it be treated appropriately is "ludicrous".

BTW, I hope law enforcement wouldn't agree with you, i.e. that they wouldn't view a charge of sexual touching as "ludicrous". Women (and girls) have a right to protection by the law. Our country has a long history of law enforcement viewing assault against women as "ludicrous" and refusing to prosecute -- date rape, marital rape, domestic violence, etc. -- all are crimes which if committed against men, would be prosecuted, but when committed against women were viewed as a man's right. Fortunately, women have been able to pressure the law enforcement system to be more responsive and to better protect them (women).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PP is obviously not a lawyer and is 100% wrong about intent. The standard is whether an objective person/child in similar circumstances would feel that the environment was hostile, and whether the harassed child subjectively did feel so. The harassers intent is irrelevant.

If it is as bad as you are making out, then to should follow the harassment policy and then sue under title ix. Google Davis v Monroe county. But everyone should stop acting like the only options are to let girls be sexually harassed or put a little boy in the juvenile justice system.

+1. This PP is correct. Intent is irrelevant to the crime of sexual harassment or sexual assault. The standard is more objective than that.

Davis v. Monroe is the Title IX Supreme Court case which places a duty on the school system to STOP student-on-student sexual harassment or assault.

Good resources for sexual harassment problems in schools are the National Women's Law Center and the MCPS Title IX coordinator.

Dr. Gregory E. Bell is the Deputy Superintendent of School Support and Supervisor, Diversity Initiatives. I think he is also the MCPS Countywide Title IX coordinator, a position which is required under federal Title IX law. Please contact him in writing if your child is experiencing touching on sexual areas or sexual harassment and you feel that the school has been unresponsive.

MCPS has a duty to stop this kind of behavior and failure to do so places the county (and taxpayers) at increased liability.