Anonymous wrote:What is wrong when a principle wants to protect the most students in the school? What if your child was hurt by the uncontrolable student? What if your kid's teacher had to take care classroom order every day instead of teaching? Sending that student out of classroom ensures the rest of students having an oppotunity.

But can't you take the child out of the classroom without expelling him or her?

What is wrong when a principle wants to protect the most students in the school? What if your child was hurt by the uncontrolable student? What if your kid's teacher had to take care classroom order every day instead of teaching? Sending that student out of classroom ensures the rest of students having an oppotunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

This is correct in DC. And if a child needs a special ed placement outside of the charter school, the charter school places the child directly into the private special ed school (and pays the tuition). The charter can't bounce the kid back to DCPS because the charter is its own LEA.

They can't "send" a kid to any other school but they can certainly expel them which means they do default back to DCPS. With regard to special ed placement in DC families would be far better off with a DCPS school because they don't allocate anywhere near as much budget to charters for SN placements as they do for DCPS SN placements.

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

This is correct in DC. And if a child needs a special ed placement outside of the charter school, the charter school places the child directly into the private special ed school (and pays the tuition). The charter can't bounce the kid back to DCPS because the charter is its own LEA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

If so, I think that's a problem, because any school funded by public money should afford its students due process. Or, at the very least, it's another way that public charter schools are just not comparable to regular public schools, because they have much more freedom to get rid of students they don't want.

Due process?

Schools, whether charters or otherwise rarely throw students out on a first offense. They typically give kids plenty of opportunities and try to work with the parents. From just looking at the sheer number of incidents that occurred with this student it sure seems to me like they tried and tried and tried and gave this kid second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth chances. And I'm sure each time that came with plenty of interaction with the family. That's PLENTY of "due process" in my book. And at some point enough is enough.

Again, why are you defending this violent behavior?

Nobody is defending violent behavior. Why do you keep saying that they are?

Why? Because the posters who are attacking the school consistently keep dodging any discussion let alone acknowledgement of the student's violence and instead keep making the school out to be the offender, and now demanding "due process" despite a long laundry list of instances of violence. At best that speaks to misguided priorities, making the school's actions out to be worse than those of the violent student, at worst it is defending violence - and either way it's just plain wrong on their part.

Hear hear

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To your analogy, in this case, A and B are part of the same situation and same conversation, and in fact B is a consequence of A, and as such I'm talking about both A and B, but the other posters don't want to acknowledge A let alone admit B was a consequence of it. That's pretty disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

When your position is, "We should talk about the things I want to talk about, because my priorities are the correct ones, and if you don't agree, you're disingenuous and intellectually dishonest" -- that doesn't leave much room for further discussion.

You have that backwards. I'm the one talking about the full story - the student AND the school. You are the one who only wants to talk about the school, who like the disingenuous reporters didn't want to acknowledge, let alone talk about the problems with the student.

There isn't much room for discussion when you only want to talk about half of the story rather than talking about the whole story. How can you even begin to weigh, let alone talk priorities when you are only looking at half of the story, and when there is only one thing to weigh in pretense that it lives in a vacuum, as opposed to the rest of the things that should be weighed in context? How is that not disingenuous?

Sorry if that inconveniences you but that is reality, life is complex whether you like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

To your analogy, in this case, A and B are part of the same situation and same conversation, and in fact B is a consequence of A, and as such I'm talking about both A and B, but the other posters don't want to acknowledge A let alone admit B was a consequence of it. That's pretty disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

When your position is, "We should talk about the things I want to talk about, because my priorities are the correct ones, and if you don't agree, you're disingenuous and intellectually dishonest" -- that doesn't leave much room for further discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is defending violent behavior. Why do you keep saying that they are?

Why? Because the posters who are attacking the school consistently keep dodging any discussion let alone acknowledgement of the student's violence and instead keep making the school out to be the offender, and now demanding "due process" despite a long laundry list of instances of violence. At best that speaks to misguided priorities, making the school's actions out to be worse than those of the violent student, at worst it is defending violence - and either way it's just plain wrong on their part.

You want to talk about A. Other posters want to talk about B. If you don't want to talk about B, does that mean that you are defending B?

To your analogy, in this case, A and B are part of the same situation and same conversation, and in fact B is a consequence of A, and as such I'm talking about both A and B, but the other posters don't want to acknowledge A let alone admit B was a consequence of it. That's pretty disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is defending violent behavior. Why do you keep saying that they are?

Why? Because the posters who are attacking the school consistently keep dodging any discussion let alone acknowledgement of the student's violence and instead keep making the school out to be the offender, and now demanding "due process" despite a long laundry list of instances of violence. At best that speaks to misguided priorities, making the school's actions out to be worse than those of the violent student, at worst it is defending violence - and either way it's just plain wrong on their part.

You want to talk about A. Other posters want to talk about B. If you don't want to talk about B, does that mean that you are defending B?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

If so, I think that's a problem, because any school funded by public money should afford its students due process. Or, at the very least, it's another way that public charter schools are just not comparable to regular public schools, because they have much more freedom to get rid of students they don't want.

Due process?

Schools, whether charters or otherwise rarely throw students out on a first offense. They typically give kids plenty of opportunities and try to work with the parents. From just looking at the sheer number of incidents that occurred with this student it sure seems to me like they tried and tried and tried and gave this kid second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth chances. And I'm sure each time that came with plenty of interaction with the family. That's PLENTY of "due process" in my book. And at some point enough is enough.

Again, why are you defending this violent behavior?

Nobody is defending violent behavior. Why do you keep saying that they are?

Why? Because the posters who are attacking the school consistently keep dodging any discussion let alone acknowledgement of the student's violence and instead keep making the school out to be the offender, and now demanding "due process" despite a long laundry list of instances of violence. At best that speaks to misguided priorities, making the school's actions out to be worse than those of the violent student, at worst it is defending violence - and either way it's just plain wrong on their part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

If so, I think that's a problem, because any school funded by public money should afford its students due process. Or, at the very least, it's another way that public charter schools are just not comparable to regular public schools, because they have much more freedom to get rid of students they don't want.

Due process?

Schools, whether charters or otherwise rarely throw students out on a first offense. They typically give kids plenty of opportunities and try to work with the parents. From just looking at the sheer number of incidents that occurred with this student it sure seems to me like they tried and tried and tried and gave this kid second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth chances. And I'm sure each time that came with plenty of interaction with the family. That's PLENTY of "due process" in my book. And at some point enough is enough.

Again, why are you defending this violent behavior?

Nobody is defending violent behavior. Why do you keep saying that they are?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe disciplinary proceedings are typically is handled at the LEA/district level. So it may well be true that an individual MCPS principal cannot make that decision, and that it has to be made at a district level but in the case of a charter, the charter IS the LEA and IS the district, and therefore the head of school may well have that authority, to where that IS the disciplinary proceeding.

If so, I think that's a problem, because any school funded by public money should afford its students due process. Or, at the very least, it's another way that public charter schools are just not comparable to regular public schools, because they have much more freedom to get rid of students they don't want.

Due process?

Schools, whether charters or otherwise rarely throw students out on a first offense. They typically give kids plenty of opportunities and try to work with the parents. From just looking at the sheer number of incidents that occurred with this student it sure seems to me like they tried and tried and tried and gave this kid second and third and fourth and fifth and sixth chances. And I'm sure each time that came with plenty of interaction with the family. That's PLENTY of "due process" in my book. And at some point enough is enough.

Again, why are you defending this violent behavior?