Reply to Maryland bill to exempt student punishment for threatening teachers and staff moves forward

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Maryland bill to exempt student punishment for threatening teachers and staff moves forward "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]This bill doesn't exempt students from punishment for threatening teachers. It doesn't having anything to do with punishment in school, only with a single criminal charge that exists under the education code for willfully disturbing orderly conduct of school activities or molesting or threatening those present at the school (26-101 in the Maryland Education Code)

It also doesn't exempt them from criminal charges for threatening or assaulting staff or other students. Those are separate crimes that are (rightly) handled in the criminal code, not this part of the education code.

What this bill does do, is eliminate, for actions that happen in a student's own school, from the education code charge for disrupting school activities. If a student threatens a classmate or a teacher that's still a crime, just not THIS crime.

Given the very broad language of the statute, I think that's very reasonable. Willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the classes can cover a huge range of behavior, most of which is properly the target of school discipline not criminal charges. The behavior that should be targeted by the criminal justice system (assault, harassment, threats) already is through other offenses.

An example of what is covered by 26-101  that made it to the Court of Special Appeals was for a student who refused to go to the principal's office and used profanity in the hallways, disrupting classes. That's absolutely something that should be punished by school discipline, but making it a criminal offense is ridiculous. [/quote]
Your post seems very reasonable, but how are high schools supposed to resolve a situation where an adult sized student continues to be disruptive and will not go to the principal’s office?[/quote]

A 26-101 charge isn't a tool in that situation either. [/quote]

Of course it is. It removes the child from the school to the juvenile justice system so the staff members who had to deal with them can actually get back to educating kids.   [/quote]

+1 I also want to pull out these two absolutely space brained quotes from the bill's sponsor:

"This bill is being introduced because we understand that students are being overly suspended for non-violent offenses and [b]purely accidental disruptions of the classroom[/b],” Sen. Washington said. “Therefore, this legislation is being introduced so that students are not being arrested for subjective disruption claims.”

and

"[W]hen a child is arrested in class, it not only impacts that child, but the other children in the class. It creates shared trauma and it makes it more difficult for the other students to learn after that incident, as well,"

Each of these quotes demonstrates that the sponsors have zero experience with how school discipline is handled and the impact of violent kids on their classmates.

To start, I dare him to identify a "purely accidental" disruption that led to a suspension. Second, kids are almost never "arrested" in the classroom. It is vanishingly rare, and to act like the status quo is cops busting down the doors and hauling kids out of their seats after they "accidentally" disrupt learning is the most reality-averse thing I've heard this month.

The truth is that violent kids are rarely removed, and when they are the overwhelming feeling from their peers is pure relief. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics