May 20, 2009
Some kids will do almost anything to get out of fourth period algebra class or a tough history exam. But planting a bomb in the building or setting the place on fire crosses a line separating stupid teenage pranks from serious criminal behavior that puts hundreds of lives at risk. There's no excuse for it, and it can't be tolerated.
That's why Baltimore City Schools chief Andres Alonso is right to draw the line at students who commit arson or detonate explosives on school grounds, even if it has led to a spike in permanent expulsions, including one elementary school student. That may seem harsh, especially for parents hard put to home-school their children or afford private-school tuition. But as a means of dealing with potentially serious troublemakers, it's an essential last resort if schools are to fulfill their mission.
Last year Mr. Alonso rightly urged principals to look for ways other than suspension and expulsion to discipline disruptive students. Kids who are suspended are more likely to fall behind or drop out, while the schools themselves fail to educate every child. Since Mr. Alonso took the helm, suspensions for nuisance offenses like truancy and talking back have fallen, while test scores have gone up, proving he was right to insist that good schools don't kick kids out.
But the superintendent also insisted on zero tolerance for violence, particularly when it involves arson or explosives on school grounds - as it did in at least one case last year involving two students at Patterson Park High School. When kids act out in ways that are not only disruptive but also threaten others with violent harm, they destroy the whole idea of school as a safe and secure learning environment. What parent wants to risk sending their kid to a place that might catch fire or blow up as a result of some classmate's misguided idea of a joke?
Mr. Alonso should stand by his convictions on this one. But in order to make the policy fair to the small minority of students affected, some of whom may have experienced discipline problems for years, the schools need to make sure of two things. First, students and their parents should be able to appeal expulsions, and the appeals process must be weighted toward giving them an opportunity to explain why a child deserves a second chance.
Someone needs to be able to differentiate between stupendously bad judgment and genuinely violent behavior with malevolent intent, and the stakes are too high for such calls to be products of bureaucratic routine. Parents also need to be notified in plenty of time that their child faces serious consequences that will affect the whole family.
Second, in cases when permanent expulsions are upheld, the school system must provide counseling and resources to help parents find alternatives to the public schools that are appropriate for their children. They may require specialized instruction or other types of intervention to get back on track, and just because the public schools can no longer deal with such students doesn't relieve them of the responsibility for assisting in that process.
