YourCT.com header image 2
← Open Thread Norwalk: The Pagano Investigation (sort of) →

Norwalk: BOE & New Legislation


by turfgrrl


April 30th, 2007 · 15 Comments

A commentator has pointed out that the comments have shifted from the usual BOE budget talks to some pending legislation in hartford concerning in school suspensions. I’ll recap the comments here:

3. IMPORTANT: ALL PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS TAKE NOTE.
The Connecticut General Assembly has passed a bill that will make it extremely difficult to “suspend” students for misconduct. While the intent of keeping students on task and supervised by reintroducing the concept of “in-school” suspension is a worthy one, the restrictions of this bill will be devastating. There are no provisions for additional funding to properly implement such programs, create space to house them, or train people to run them. Further, not all behavioral infractions can be solved with a single strategy. In-school suspension is an option that be very valuable in a repertoire of administrative consequences. I encourage anyone interested in quality public education to check out this legislation, discuss it, and contact your state senator about amending it or blocking it before it clears the state Senate. It will exert potent effects on the climate of our schools. There will be many unintended negative side effects: fiscal, attitudinal, academic, security, and administrative. By limiting local school board autonomy in deciding which serious misconduct requires exclusion, Hartford will put well-behaved students and the staff that teaches them in greater jeopardy.

by Charles the Hammer — April 28, 2007 @ 5:22 am

The comments that followed related to this issue.

Tags: CT House · Education · In the News · Norwalk

15 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: BOE & New Legislation”



  • 1 anonymous // Apr 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Charles do you have the direct bill to post? This can be really frightening if not worded the right way.

  • 2 Charles the Hammer // Apr 30, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Here is the link to the House bill:

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/FC/2007HB-07350-R000462-FC.htm

  • 3 anonymous // May 1, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Thank you Charles. That was very helpful. My question would be what happens when the child has more than 50 days of suspension in the school year? Does that child fit into the school system? Will educators need to take classes in how to deal with such troubled youth?

  • 4 Charles the Hammer // May 3, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Anon 3, can there be “classes” that can sufficiently prepare one to undo the myriad attitudes and difficulties that a very troubled student brings to school? Among the 3-5% of our students that are the most unresponsive to disciplinary measures, I don’t know what the answer is. Some are irreparably damaged by neglect or abuse. Others are in the grasp of gangs, drugs, or other societal pathologies. Fewest of all, is the group that is criminally-minded. I do know that our success rate in this group has always been and continues to be very, very low. The notion that everyone will succeed is a romantic and utopian fantasy. There simply is no historical data to support the dream of 100% success. Therefore, we are obliged to do “the greatest good for the greatest number”. What are schools to do with those who, once referred to in-school suspension, choose to continue their chronic misconduct if the option of Out-of-school suspension is voided? Will there be a wider effect upon school conduct caused simply by the knowledge that virtually no student will EVER be excluded or removed? Mr. Cafero speaks about “constitutional” obligations to educate. I submit he needs to remember his duty to the majority and the rule of law for the common good. We must not sacrifice security and an atmoshere conducive to learning for the expediency of his political profile.

  • 5 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Charles, The bill provides for out of building suspensions and expulsions when deemd necessary. It does not use a one punishment for all system. If the child is endangering others or him/herself and are a continous problem in the school, they can be removed. The question here is and should be, who will recommend help for this child and will the parents understand the magnitude of their childs behavior and seek to get this child counceling or will they fight the rules and hire lawyers to defend their loveable innocents? This is a huge problem and could hold cities across th state in very tight financial binds for attorney fees etc. There is nothing worng wrong with inhouse suspensions for little johnny who refuses to do his work and disrupts the class with his antics or little suzie who is constantly late for school and comes without her homework for the umpteenth time. there is however, a real problem when parents don’t believe that their child is a danger or that they are not abiding by the rules and need to seek other areas of education.

  • 6 Charles the Hammer // May 3, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    #5 The opening statement of the bill speaks to its intent: “This bill generally prohibits out-of-school suspensions.” It will make it infinitely more difficult to do.

    We are NOT talking about forgetting homework or gum chewing. Try, repeatedly telling the teacher to “Shut the F— up”, refusing identify oneself to staff, or marking the school with gang insignia. In-school would be a welcome ADDITION to the disciplinary repertoire. It cannot be a substitute for removing the worst behaviors out of the school.

  • 7 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 7:33 pm

    Suspension committees need to be made up of professionals. Psychologists, specialists etc. ones who can identify with the childs problem and make the correct decisions where this bill comes into play.

  • 8 anonymous // May 3, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    My Daughter had a really bad time in school last year with a child who bullied her and harrassed her to the point that she did not want to go to school.The other child had been suspended many times in the school year for different offenses, and when the child was out my daughter could go to school and breath easy. Sometimes with some children removed from the day to day life in school the greater good get to learn. Charles you seem to have been a teacher and know what I am talking about. I don’t think our founding fathers ever intended to give a free education to a person who would terrorize others while they tried to get their education. Where in the Constitution is a free education guarenteed?

  • 9 Charles the Hammer // May 4, 2007 at 4:53 am

    #8 The “constitutional duty” reference I’ve heard comes from CT State Rep. Larry Cafero. I don’t believe there is a reference in the constitution to a “right” to an education. There is a right to due process and “equality of opportunity”. Messrs. Cafero and Morris seem to want to guarantee the “equality of results” that is a popular principle of social utopians.

    I’m sorry to hear of your daughter’s woes because that is precisely the problem I’m referring to. There seems to be a belief that our schools MUST keep every ill-behaved student regardless of the number of offenses. There is a percentage of hard core disrupters, bullies, crude cursers, gang members, and the like who are IN school with our kids and are currently very difficult to expel or remove. The proposed legislation will make it even more difficult, and I contend it will expand the number of those who embrace extreme misconduct. Again, I restate that the overwheling majority of kids are wonderful, and those who have a few minor problems can be handled in an in-school program. The 3-5% of habitual offenders are a much more difficult problem that will not be solved by Cafero’s “magic” wand.

  • 10 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 7:29 am

    Is it true what I am hearing about the Naramake before and after school program? That the grant money they get is being used to pay the principals wife to work? To pay himself to run it? To buy a station wagon so he and his wife can use it everyday to commute to work from Newtown? Gas at $3 a gallon, insurance, CT reg fees (337 WAX). Hope what I hear is wrong! But some say where there is smoke there is fire.

  • 11 ENrwlker // May 4, 2007 at 9:43 am

    Charles the Hammer — The “constitutional right” Cafero’s referring to is in the STATE Constitution, not the Federal Constitution: “ARTICLE EIGHTH - OF EDUCATION. SEC. 1. There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.”

    That having been said, guaranteeing free public schools isn’t the same as allowing terribly disruptive students to stay in the school building no matter what they do. I agree that such students should be thrown out.

  • 12 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    ENrwlker- I am with you however, it would be great to get rid of people who did not see the worth or advantage an education can make. That would save some on the budget!

  • 13 Charles the Hammer // May 4, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Enrwlker
    Thanks for the CT Constitution reference. Those words only say the state should not charge a fee for public education as a point of principle. How does the legislation being discussed serve that end? You rightly conclude that it does not.

    CT taxpayers are spending big bucks per pupil. As you may have guessed, I’m a teacher. Along with my colleagues, I tell you honestly, I dig in my pocket regularly to make things happen in my classroom and at my school. This law and the way it has come forward are very discouraging. It is a disservice to good kids, taxpayers, teachers, administrators, and everyone who cares about public education.

    Part of keeping schools “free” and economically viable is caring for the institution and not sacrificing it for the few who don’t appreciate the cost or politicians who would use policy as a political foil.

  • 14 anonymous // May 4, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    I have a question For Charles, you say you are a teacher, if I can ask, do you teach at the high school level or below? I note you mentioned in another post kids swearing and cussing etc. Its probably not important but I would like to know if these kids that are doing this are doing so in the elementary schools, middle schools or high school? If we are having this problem, why aren’t the parents being called in and why are these parents not warned of the consequences of their childrens actions? Are any of these kids the ones who do not belong in this school district are they the cause of some of this bad behavior?(i know Corda won’t admit we have a problem with out of district students) Are these kids being reported? Unfortunately some teachers in the High School treat the kids as if they are their friends and allow this behavior until it gets out of hand. There are alot a questions behind this one subject.

  • 15 Charles the Hammer // May 5, 2007 at 7:38 am

    #14, There are pretty outrageous behaviors demonstrated at all three levels in the primary and secondary schools. Of course, they are more pronounced amongst teenagers because adolescents have the nature to rebel. That is natural and even desirable, to a certain degree, because we want them to be independent adults. It’s part of becoming autonomous. However, as all parents of teens will attest, it requires strong supervision, and determined direction to properly direct those natural tendencies to a good outcome. Your questions regarding the hierarchy of intervention by teachers, counselors, and administrators regarding poor conduct are insightful. In the classroom, small prblems are addressed by the teacher with a rebuke or mild desist. If it persists, parents are conacted, or perhaps the student receives a detention. Suspension is rarely the first option. Only after a laundry list of offenses, or in the case of an outrageous episode, does suspension occur. Parents ARE called. Warnings ARE issued, and there is a huge amount of intervention at every phase of escalating misconduct. The fact is that a small percentage of parents are not properly engaged in raising their children. Others are struggling with normal pressures of raising a teenager. There are other factors such as both parents working, more frequent divorce, and the coarse influence of pop culture that contribute to undisciplined conduct and “enabling”. You are right about the number of questions involved. It is a very complex problem. That’s why a simplistic solution like this legislation is harmful.