A lot has been said and done over the years to “prove” that we have strong teachers in the State of Delaware. Anyone who reads my posts know that I have always thought that we had excellent teachers in this State; they just are stuck working in a failed and broken system (A system which the Democrats, who have long controlled Dover, are loath to fix at the request of the Union). So, while our self-congratulatory political leaders have put higher & higher testing requirements on our students, more and more bureaucracy over our schools, and more and more national certification benefits onto certain teachers, we still do really stupid things in our schools.
One of the most absurd? Suspending a 6 year old Newark cub scout for bringing in his camping utensils. You can see the NY Times article here.
I’ve got an idea… Why not get rid of the bureaucracy and free our school leaders to do what they know how to do…. teach. Sorry kids….
NYT: For Delaware, Zachary’s case is especially frustrating because last year state lawmakers tried to make disciplinary rules more flexible by giving local boards authority to, “on a case-by-case basis, modify the terms of the expulsion.”
Charlie:
1. The NYT implies the school board is bound by state law. Is this true?
2. What do you know about last years attempt to “make disciplinary rules more flexible by giving local boards authority…”? Who was behind it and who opposed it?
3. Before the attempt to loosen the law – what was the previous law, who was behind enacting it, and who opposed it? Were you in office at the time the stricter law was enacted?
If I can find these answers before you do I will post them here.
last years attempt to “make disciplinary rules more flexible by giving local boards authority…”? Who was behind it and who opposed it?
http://www.communitypub.com/education/x1098994143/Bill-would-alter-zero-tolerance-policy-for-knives-in-school
HB 120, signed June 26, apparently in response to the cake-knife incident. I don’t recall any serious opposition:
delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga145/chp064.shtml
45th General Assembly
House Bill # 120
Primary Sponsor: Schooley
Additional Sponsor(s): Rep. Barbieri & Sen. Hall-Long & Sen. Sokola
CoSponsors: Reps. Atkins, Blakey, Gilligan, Hudson, Keeley, Kowalko, Kovach, Longhurst, Mitchell, Ramone, Scott, B. Short, Viola, Walls, Wilson, NewLine, Sens. Bunting, Cloutier, Ennis, Simpson, Venables
Introduced on : 04/07/2009
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 11 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO CERTAIN OFFENSES
Synopsis: This bill amends the “zero tolerance” provision in the Delaware Code to give discretion to school boards to modify the terms of expulsions when a school board determines that it is appropriate to do so.
Current Status: Signed On 06/26/2009
Also according to NYT:
In Zachary’s case, the state’s new law did not help because it mentions only expulsion and does not explicitly address suspensions. A revised law is being drafted to include suspensions.
There is a website where you can read the full story and learn how you can help:
http://www.helpzachary.com/
There is a school board meeting tomorrow night if you’d like to protest:
October 13, 2009
General Business Meeting ~ 7:30 pm
Porter Road Elementary School
500 Caledonia Way, Bear, DE
The language making expulsion mandatory for weapons possession was added in 2003, apparently in response to Federal requirements… however it looks like the Delaware statute went beyond the Federal requirement by including “weapons” instead of just “firearms.” (unless someone has a different explanation?) Two-thirds voted Yes including Sen. Copeland.
So Zachary might have been expelled if not for the law signed this year.
Prior to the 2003 change, the same code was amended by “70 Del. Laws, c. 213” . Not sure what that is; that bill is not online. Maybe it explains who made expulsion mandatory. If anybody has a law library handy you can look it up.
Two-thirds voted Yes including Sen. Copeland.
Unanimous, actually.
noman
“The language making expulsion mandatory for weapons possession was added in 2003, apparently in response to Federal requirements”
Well Arne Duncan USDOE is coming to town 10/27/2009 to seal the deal with Markel and Rodel so get use to more federal intrusions in public education.
Be nice to Charile he voted what made sense at the time and sorry to say it was better to have overkill and readjust when needed. Bit odd not too many comments about the parents no given the young boy proper instruction.
So what next, high school kids get caught with knife in back pack and parents steps up and said it was theirs and left it there when they borrow it? I do think with this case the board could have called a special meeting which wouldn’t require public notice as it’s student discipline issue and only discussed in executive session. The state law doesn’t specify the number of days for suspension.
noman:
Do you have a bill number from 2003?
But most unanimous votes have a couple of components… 1) If federal education funds are tied to the legislation, no legislator wants to vote to “deny” money to our schools (you can imagine the post card during a campaign), 2) No legislator wants to vote “for” violence in schools (think Willy Horton), or 3) The sponsor alleges that the bill is just “clean up” language to make it consistent with federal law.
No excuse to allow the law of unintended consequences to hurt a child’s education. Sounds like 100% Republican and Democratic support — another fine bi-partisan effort.
SB 158 in the 142nd.
Yes, the bill appears to have been noncontroversial, in response to new Federal laws at the time. I probably would have voted the same way at the time.
But if you are going to criticize the inflexible bureacracy, it seems like a relevant disclosure to point out your vote here.
The question was, by including “weapons” instead of just “firearms” did Delaware go beyond the Federal requirement? If so, whose idea was that?
Also, when did the “mandatory expulsion” language enter Delaware law? (probably in response to earlier Federal law).
FYI, the online Delaware Code lists the biills that amended each section of the code… in this case, go to http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc07/index.shtml#1457 and scroll to the bottom of §1457(11); there you will see a list of the bills that created or amended the law. If the bill is hyperlinked then you can go right to the online bill listing. If the bill is not hyperlinked then it is “pre-online” and you have to go to a law library to find it in a dead-tree book.
Yes, the bill appears to be connected to new Federal requirements for education funding.
If you look up the bill via legis.delaware.gov, you can get a page with links to the text of the bill, and the roll call from 2003. Pretty cool.
Interesting… not totally unanimous, Pam Thornburg voted No. Wonder why?
Don’t know why regarding Pam. If I was afraid of being criticized, I would post anonymously.. 😉
When I get an irrevocable income I will post with my real name. Most of us have to wait until we are 65 for that. Notice how most of those bloggers who used their real names have dropped out of blogging.
Noman
You know I am not bashful and have taken some hard shots at Charile but I must say the vote for Zero Tolerance was / is the right call! Once they make exception to the rule that Pandora’s Box open. The law has to be carefully tweaked.
“I’ve got an idea… Why not get rid of the bureaucracy and free our school leaders to do what they know how to do…. teach. Sorry kids….”
Charile as long as there is money to be made and power to be had it’s not going to happen. We use to have Title 14, Chapter 2, Subchapter I, Section 207 and it was repealed in 2002 because old Kilroy exposed the facts education laws were illegal because the law wasn’t being followed. Impact studies and secure funding is inportant before passage of legislation. I know I rant my ass off and maybe twist thing for dramatics but I know the ugly truth. I was right about DSTP from day one and I am right about Duncan’s agenda.
We cannot hold anyone in education until we hold legislators and elected officals accountable to serve the people.
The Zero Tolerance needs to say intact with very little wiggle room. If that boy harmed someone than if would be a different story and if anyone thinks a 6 year old isn’t incapable of causing harm in this day and age they need to wakeup.
sorry was Kilroy not Kilroywashere
“Notice how most of those bloggers who used their real names have dropped out of blogging.”
That is an unprovable statement if there ever was one. I haven’t noticed that at all.
That is an unprovable statement if there ever was one. I haven’t noticed that at all.
downwithabsolutesblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/thank-you/
delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2009/09/goodbye-for-now.html
delawarepolitics.net/im-out/
delawareliberal.net/2009/08/21/how-delaware-liberal-works/
Kilroy (who is still hanging in there):
I agreed the 2003 bill was noncontroversial. I just thought it needed to be pointed out that, when Charlie is taking shots at the bureucracy and the school leaders, he should acknowledge the role of the legislature in getting us to this place. Without that disclosure the story was kind of incomplete. It would irk pe to leave Charlie’s post hanging for posterity as if he were some kind of outsider taking shots at the system.
ahhh. So by “most of those of bloggers”, you just mean Delaware’s political junkies. I don’t read those blogs. Sorry.
“[Charlie] were some kind of outsider taking shots at the system.” — like… you??? I’m an insider trying to improve the system.
Charlie you have a couple of anonymous bloggers on this site. Or maybe they are all just you in a bad mood.
This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.
Noman,
Charlie does drinks wine from paper cups from time to time. Sure he doesn’t have the experience look at like from the bottom but he has a clue. I don’t see him start a sister to Charter School of Wilmington to who wants the cream. If I am going to curse him (which I do) it because I disagree with him not his soical status.
“Kilroy (who is still hanging in there)”
That’s because I have nothing to loose as the younger folks who bail did. Many hide in the shadows fearing they will lose their jobs. Speaking of , I had one for the last 35 year until I voted for Obama. Same goes for healthcare.
If only 50% of my rants on education make sense then I am doing my job with the other 50% being drama. Wow, that sounds like politics 🙂
I don’t see him start a sister to Charter School of Wilmington to who wants the cream.
I don’t know what this means but I really really like it.
This is the kind of stuff that happens when you lose sight of the children and focus on an inflexible law. Totalizing laws always wind up hurting some people they are meant to protect. When there’s no flexibility, Jean Valjean gets a life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread.
What ever happened to common sense? If the school was worrried about the boy’s bringing his camp gear to “show and tell” or whatever and felt it inappropriate, just call his parents and ask them to take note of what is permissible and what is not.
From what I hear and read, this poor little six-year-old is now going to have to go to a special school for a year in order to reform his proclivities toward violence–not that he actually did anything, mind you.
Geez, what a tempest in a teapot–all because of some federal mandate (translated into state law) that is totalizing and allows no exceptions.
Potential home schoolers, take note and run, run, run to get your textbooks to teach at home.
And while I’m at it, just wait to see how this whole thing will play out in a political campaign. I can just see the slogans–“Joe Smith voted AGAINST violence in schools!! Do you trust Joe with YOUR kids? How safe are they from knife-wielding six-year-old potential rapists!!!”
Or, “Joe Smith voted for a total ban on anything that could possibly be perceived as a weapon. Joe doesn’t support knife and gun rights. Do you want Joe as a potential dictator, a Hitler of Delaware?”
Sigh…
Non-anonymously yours, 🙂
Fay Voshell
Further, to raise a question by Clarice Feldman, who was commenting on another case entirely, “What ever happened to mens rea?”
As she points out, “Mens rea, the concept of criminal intent, was until fairly recently an essential part of criminal law, precluding the conviction of those who had inadvertently committed a crime without intention to do so and without acting negligently.”
Feldman points out a legitimate concern of law, and one that certainly applies to the “Cub Scout Utensils Kit” court case–and doubtless it will evolve into that–namely, the complexity of the law is such, the minutiae with which our daily lives are regulated so incredibly varied and invasive, each and every one of us is inadvertantly breaking the law even when completely unaware of so doing.
The result is arbitrarily applied law by those in power and with a vested interest in persecution, power and vengeance.
In brief, law that is too complex assures injustice.
Solution: fewer darn laws.
Fay Voshell
If the school’s can enact a zero tolerance, why can’t we enact a zero tolerance for terrible administrators, teachers, bus drivers, etc. Red Clay is down a few mil, then zero tolerance for the super and CFO. A school doesnt meet expectations, than sero tolerance for the principal and staff.
noman
“I don’t know what this means but I really really like it.”
It means may call Charlie an elitist and assume the charter school he was working on would be for the affluent which many refer to CSW but Charter took the road to a charter school for the at-risk population.
You know, those teachers expect the students to display some basic common sense. Where is the common sense that one would expect the teachers to have? Absolute lunacy. If this boy goes bad, the fault can be laid directly at the door of this idiotic preinciple. Shame on them for abusing this boy like this.
Well, my son brought a weapon to school. A sword.
He harmed no-one. He threatened no-one. He did not brandish it about.
He did not cause any situation that was explicitly unsafe. I do realize that having any weapon – even a sharp pencil – in the hands of a 14-year-old in a school setting is implicitly unsafe. But in this case no person was ever in real danger.
The school officials acted immediately and effectively to remove the sword from my son’s first period classroom, on a tip-off from another student.
My boy has been suspended for ten days so far. It appears that he will probably be expelled. My suggestion that he be allowed to make restitution, perhaps with community service, instead of receiving further punishment, has not been accepted.
A 14-year-old who did something stupid is not as media-friendly as a 6-year-old who did something less stupid but equally harmless. I don’t expect help from the media.
The school administration is calm, friendly and completely relentless. It’s like being brutally beaten by Santa Claus.
I understand that Delaware’s legislature feels justified in ruining my son’s future because he did a foolish thing that harmed absolutely no person. I get that part.
I understand that they want to purposely harm my boy, as punishment for just the possibility of a harm that didn’t actually happen. I know that is what the law intends, regardless of whether I like it or not. I have no options.
I don’t understand why the rest of the family has to be punished as well.
My daughter committed no crime, not even the victimless, orwellian crime of merely being in possession of something that might be dangerous. Why does her education have to be compromised too?
The fines and punishments may break me, financially. I’m waiting to find out. I have a retirement account I can liquidate, and I can take my daughter out of the private school she loves, where she’s learning and growing, and put her back into the public school that made her cry every single day.
The Task Force that studied Delaware’s Zero Tolerance policy proved that it was harming the entire community. It’s not a case of a few dodgy people being the “broken eggs required to make the omelet” – there is no omelet!
The entire state is being harmed by this, and absolutely no-one is being helped. Yet, the common-sense language of that would allow school boards to “determine that expulsion is not appropriate” was struck from the bill put forward by the Task Force.
So, not only school principals, but even school boards are not allowed to show discretion. All infractions, no matter how harmless, will be punished to the same degree as a serious incident that caused major harm.
Good day! I could have sworn I’ve been to this web site before but after going through many of the posts I realized it’s new to me.
Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be
book-marking it and checking back often!