oberkommando
New member
Thanks for spirited threade Juliet.
See ya around, Ober.
See ya around, Ober.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Student expelled for pepperspray
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
OK, I'll weigh in for a minute. I have been teaching for over twenty years so I am familiar with various discipline policies and the problems they cause. First, schools are in a no win situation with discipline policies, period. It is impossible to write and enforce a policy that will keep everyone happy.
Next, schools are required by federal law to have, post, and enforce a weapons policy. If the district doesn’t follow the federal regulations they stand to lose federal funds. You know things like transportation, special education, lunch money, grants, etc. How the federal policy is implemented is a matter of local control.
For instance, our school has adopted a weapons policy based upon the definitions outlined in state statute. In our school, each case is weighed individually and I can say that unless there are factors we are unaware of, the girl would not have been expelled unless she either verbally and physically threatened to use the spray or actually did use it. In our school the disciplinarian and principal would have determined the kid’s fate in conjunction with the superintendent. She would have been back in class in a couple of days. I can also say with about 99 per cent certainty, that in our state’s largest school district she would have been expelled regardless of the circumstances.
If you go back and read the superintendent’s statement you will see that he seems to agree the penalty is too severe, but “the law is the law”. I don’t think he is referring to school rules either.
Many schools have taken the stance of implementing the federal weapons policy by adopting a no tolerance position. The language in the federal regulations is just vague enough to make school officials wonder if the penalty must be expulsion for a year or might be expulsion for a year. The way I read it, the penalty must be expulsion. Our school is hedging their bet the other way. I am guessing the gal is attending one of the many (and I mean many) schools across the country that have adopted the no tolerance policy with expulsion following due process. In this case what is due process?
First, did the kid know the spray is specifically forbidden? In our school we go over the handbook in class and the kid’s parents sign the cover. Yeah, she knew (and I’ll bet her parents did too) that the spray was forbidden.
Second, did the student understand the consequences for bringing a weapon to school? I’ll bet she did.
Next did the student knowingly violate the policy? Sounds like she did to me.
The last item is the kicker and the one the kid’s attorney will have fun with. Is the request (rule) reasonable? Well, in light of the federal requirement, it is.
There you go folks. Like it or not the kid is basically screwed whether you think she deserved the expulsion or not. Don’t blame the school officials and don’t blame the board. The policy was brought to you by none other than our friend and confidant, Bill Clinton.
Next, schools are required by federal law to have, post, and enforce a weapons policy. If the district doesn’t follow the federal regulations they stand to lose federal funds. You know things like transportation, special education, lunch money, grants, etc. How the federal policy is implemented is a matter of local control.
For instance, our school has adopted a weapons policy based upon the definitions outlined in state statute. In our school, each case is weighed individually and I can say that unless there are factors we are unaware of, the girl would not have been expelled unless she either verbally and physically threatened to use the spray or actually did use it. In our school the disciplinarian and principal would have determined the kid’s fate in conjunction with the superintendent. She would have been back in class in a couple of days. I can also say with about 99 per cent certainty, that in our state’s largest school district she would have been expelled regardless of the circumstances.
If you go back and read the superintendent’s statement you will see that he seems to agree the penalty is too severe, but “the law is the law”. I don’t think he is referring to school rules either.
Many schools have taken the stance of implementing the federal weapons policy by adopting a no tolerance position. The language in the federal regulations is just vague enough to make school officials wonder if the penalty must be expulsion for a year or might be expulsion for a year. The way I read it, the penalty must be expulsion. Our school is hedging their bet the other way. I am guessing the gal is attending one of the many (and I mean many) schools across the country that have adopted the no tolerance policy with expulsion following due process. In this case what is due process?
First, did the kid know the spray is specifically forbidden? In our school we go over the handbook in class and the kid’s parents sign the cover. Yeah, she knew (and I’ll bet her parents did too) that the spray was forbidden.
Second, did the student understand the consequences for bringing a weapon to school? I’ll bet she did.
Next did the student knowingly violate the policy? Sounds like she did to me.
The last item is the kicker and the one the kid’s attorney will have fun with. Is the request (rule) reasonable? Well, in light of the federal requirement, it is.
There you go folks. Like it or not the kid is basically screwed whether you think she deserved the expulsion or not. Don’t blame the school officials and don’t blame the board. The policy was brought to you by none other than our friend and confidant, Bill Clinton.