Paint Branch High Fights

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my daughter goes to paint branch and dreads it every single morning. she is the quiet, studious type and absolutely hates the environment at paint branch. I tried to get her a cosa to a school with a better reputation and was shot down despite presenting video evidence of fights and kids acting up in class. She tried to escape by taking AP classes hoping the kids would be better behaved, but since they allow almost anyone to register, nothing changed, except now she is paired up with kids who challenge her on race (she is white) and dont contribute to the projects. she comes home in tears frequently. Hate MCPS. Can afford private or to move to a better school area. Hate MCPS. I guarantee not a single BOE member or central office staff has done an unannounced visit to the schools on the east. They would be in shock but would brush it off. Some schools could use an SRO in every class.

That's awful. I'm sorry. I went to a rough HS where there were fights *everyday*, but at least I could escape it by taking AP classes that not just anyone could take.

I don't like that type of restriction for AP classes because I think if you want to be challenged, then you should be able to have that opportunity, but it's awful to then have to be partnered with someone who doesn't pull their weight on projects. And the whole race thing is awful, too. Some people make everything about race such that it's lost its meaning.

Your DD should demand the admin there do restorative justice with the the POC person because clearly that POC person has some issues with your white DD -- I say this a bit tongue in cheek, sort of. But isn't this what RJ is about? What would MCPS say to that, I wonder? I know.. if your DD brought it up, she'd probably get jumped. Sad situation.

Not an ideal situation but can you rent in a different area?

ITA about SROs.

I agree with you that there should be an open access policy for anyone to TRY AP classes, but I think it should be conditioned on you meeting certain standards. If you get a D two marking periods in an AP class, you should be moved back down to the honors or on-level version of the course.

I'm all for equal opportunity, but those opportunities have to be met with meaningful engagement and effort on the student's part as well.

Also, I don't think the real troublemakers in school are going to sign themselves up for AP anything. The honors classes unfortunately suffer from this since many schools are adopting an "honors-for-all" approach, but in my experience the kids are somewhat motivated to learn if they're registering for an AP class. They might not have the necessary work ethic and rigor, but they're not the worst of the bunch so that filtering effect somewhat still exists with AP/IB classes.

If kids are assaulting others, there already is a special place for them. We have laws that cover this already.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Punching someone is a misdemeanor and you aren’t going to prison especially as a minor. We need real solutions not feel good posturing.

Except this would be classified as felony assault..

[Anonymous]

Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

Because zero tolerance policies tend to not work out the way people who want zero tolerance policies want them to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

Because zero tolerance policies tend to not work out the way people who want zero tolerance policies want them to.

It doesn't remove violent students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

Because zero tolerance policies tend to not work out the way people who want zero tolerance policies want them to.

It doesn't remove violent students?

There is no place to put them. The board of education closed those schools years ago because they had low test scores and tarnished the brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am black and there is no way on earth I would let my high schooler attend any of the NEC schools. We are zoned for paint branch. The place is a joke. My quiet and studious child would be utterly miserable. I don't entirely blame the principal and MCPS. These parents need to step up and do a better job of parenting. If my child ever does something as stupid as being involved in a fight, that child would have to face me at home and the consequences won't be pretty. There is no way, children should be acting like a bunch of animals and hoodlums in a school setting. Smh! Pathetic to say the least.

We’re in the NEC. Home school is Blake. Our family consists of different races. We’ve been really happy. There are fights everywhere. The schools are great. Mine haven’t found it difficult to stay away from trouble.

No, there aren't fights everywhere. Many public schools have administrators who wouldn't allow them.

As if.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

I don't a zero tolerance policy is viable because it's to be expected that kids will lose emotional control and resort to physical altercations to solve conflicts. I'm a fan of the three strikes rule though.

1st Strike: Restorative Justice methods and resolution appropriate
2nd Strike: In or out of school suspension depending on how bad the fight was
3rd Strike: You're out. Expulsion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

I don't a zero tolerance policy is viable because it's to be expected that kids will lose emotional control and resort to physical altercations to solve conflicts. I'm a fan of the three strikes rule though.

1st Strike: Restorative Justice methods and resolution appropriate
2nd Strike: In or out of school suspension depending on how bad the fight was
3rd Strike: You're out. Expulsion

The three strikes rule works out exactly like the zero tolerance rule (namely, with unintended consequences that people actively don't want), except it takes a bit longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kids are not okay. SMH.

They are not. As a former MCPS middle school teacher (resigned last year) this is one of the reasons why I left. Nothing is being done to help them. Lots of incentives on paper but no follow through. MCPS has made it a point to make it seem like there are all of these programs to help students with any social and emotional needs however that is not the case. Those programs are put into short periods (Advisory if the school has it) to check a box. Students are literally crying for help and nothing is being done. The increase in fights and drug use all stems from it. We are unfortunately going to continue to see a rise of this issues until parents are fully aware of what’s going on in schools.

Agreed. Advisory short periods are where MCPS initiatives go to die. They become check-off items for central office/admin. Everyone knows this. Staff dont have enough training to do emotional support for 30 random kids in a room. These are often not the same teachers kids have daily. The lessons are often terrible and kids wont participate.

My kids tells me that no one pays attention to the social emotional learning stuff. It's just another check box.

Do these administrators who come up with this stuff even know any teens? Teens don't share how they are feeling in a classroom setting with a bunch of random teens. My teen DC told me that if they did, they'd get made fun of and probably bullied.

Jawando and Elrich are completely clueless and out of touch. They took funding away from SROs and instead told MCPS to hire 50 healthcare professionals. But MCPS has barely hired 2. But they seem to think there are 20.
And now Jawando is being sued by the Macgruder's shooting victim's family.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/mother-of-magruder-shooting-victim-sues-school-county

A few days after the Magruder High School shooting, Councilmember Will Jawando, who is named in the lawsuit for his support in removing the SROs, told FOX 5 he believed around 20 of those positions had been filled up to that point. FOX 5 checked with MCPS on that figure. MCPS Spokesperson Chris Cram confirmed that was not true – that MCPS only had about two positions filled at the time.

In April, FOX 5 asked MCPS about the vacancies again and was told the 50 figure was scaled back to include more supervisors. MCPS informed FOX 5 they now had around 66 vacancies for mental health positions that now included psychologists, social workers, and part-time vs. full-time school counselors.

These people are clueless. Do you know how hard it is to find mental health professionals who deal with kids, let alone those who are willing to deal with violent kids? My niece interned at a program that deals with young violent kids. She was horrified, and after her internship was over, she said she never wanted to work with those kinds of kids again.

Why don't Jawando and Elrich and all you other progressive liberals work with these teens even for six months like my niece did for a full year? I challenge them to do this. Otherwise, they really should shut up and let the Principals who deal with these kids everyday manage it, and these Principals all wanted to keep SROs. There's a reason why they want them in the school. It's because they know how much violence there can be in the schools and SROs can help.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a world of difference between a "bad kid" and a "mentally ill" kid. One can mature and grow out of bad behaviors. The other needs a lifetime of support.

I am thinking of some bad kids from my high school and where they are now. Some went to jail as expected. Others got themselves killed. But the majority of them have gone on to completely normal lives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

I don't a zero tolerance policy is viable because it's to be expected that kids will lose emotional control and resort to physical altercations to solve conflicts. I'm a fan of the three strikes rule though.

1st Strike: Restorative Justice methods and resolution appropriate
2nd Strike: In or out of school suspension depending on how bad the fight was
3rd Strike: You're out. Expulsion

The three strikes rule works out exactly like the zero tolerance rule (namely, with unintended consequences that people actively don't want), except it takes a bit longer.

I would make the 3x rule for all egregious behavior - fights, drugs, physically threatening bullying. You do any of those three 3x within a year, and you are out.

These violent kids are allowed to be unleashed on minors in school. If they strike out 3x, then they can be unleashed on the public outside of school, and the progressive liberal county can deal with it. Why should our kids who want to learn be subjected to such violence in schools, but progressive liberals not have to deal with it during the school day? We should house these violent kids in a program in the same office buildings where the council and county executive work. Let them deal with fights all day in the building. That's what they voted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there is a world of difference between a "bad kid" and a "mentally ill" kid. One can mature and grow out of bad behaviors. The other needs a lifetime of support.

I am thinking of some bad kids from my high school and where they are now. Some went to jail as expected. Others got themselves killed. But the majority of them have gone on to completely normal lives

Why should minor kids have to deal with violence in schools? Why do we accept such a horrible work environment for our kids? Would you like to be in a workplace that expects you to be around violence all day? You, an adult, don't think it's right, but you think it's fine for kids to be around that all day?

WTF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not have a zero tolerance policy? If you behave like a monster physically attacking students unprovoked, you are expelled. Students should not have to be in fear of their person attending school.

I don't a zero tolerance policy is viable because it's to be expected that kids will lose emotional control and resort to physical altercations to solve conflicts. I'm a fan of the three strikes rule though.

1st Strike: Restorative Justice methods and resolution appropriate
2nd Strike: In or out of school suspension depending on how bad the fight was
3rd Strike: You're out. Expulsion

The three strikes rule works out exactly like the zero tolerance rule (namely, with unintended consequences that people actively don't want), except it takes a bit longer.

So what's the alternative to ensure a safe and stable learning environment if you take zero-tolerance and three strikes discipline off the table for students with consistent disruptive and potentially dangerous behavioral issues?

[Anonymous]

I'm just going to point out that Elrich taught 4th and 5th grade for 17 years at Rolling Terrace E.S., which is probably far more experience with teaching in MCPS than most of the randoms posting anonymously here on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just going to point out that Elrich taught 4th and 5th grade for 17 years at Rolling Terrace E.S., which is probably far more experience with teaching in MCPS than most of the randoms posting anonymously here on DCUM.

Isn't this forum called "DC Urban Moms and Dads"? Of course the majority of folks on a parenting forum would be parents rather than teachers. What's your point?