Copyright 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.
St.
Louis Post-Dispatch
June 7, 2000, Wednesday, FIVE STAR LIFT
EDITION
SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. B7
LENGTH: 786 words
HEADLINE:
WHEN CHILDREN ARE KICKED OUT OF SCHOOLS, THE PROBLEMS GO TO THE COMMUNITIES
BYLINE: Cynthia R. Keele
BODY:
EDUCATION
SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT has proposed an
amendment to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (S2). It adds drugs, assaults and threats of assaults to
weapons possession as offenses over which local school authorities could suspend
or expel disabled children. Schools would have the option of serving or not
serving a child during suspension or expulsion. The right to a free and
appropriate public education would not be guaranteed. Each local public school
district would be given the choice to cease all educational services to a
student with a disability who carries to or possesses a weapon at school or at a
school function; brings drugs to school; commits or threatens to commit an
assault at school.
The public, school families, administrators and
faculty are all greatly concerned over safety. Ashcroft's amendment might seem
an appropriate response to killings in schools all over the country. While we
may cheer the schools' empowerment to take local action, we must not turn our
backs o n the community in which the school is located. Invariably, the
community just inherits the same or a worse problem when a child is permanently
excluded from educational services.
Law enforcement agencies report that
ceasing education services for children only increases juvenile crime. In fact,
research demonstrates that cessation of education services leads to increases in
illegal drug use and youth incarceration as well as in other juvenile crime.
Rather than releasing troubled children to the streets, part of the solution is
to require all students, disabled or not, who are expelled or suspended to
continue their education in secure, supervised educational settings.
FAMILIES of children with disabilities are just as concerned about
school safety as the school staff and other parents are. In fact, these families
know that too often their children are the victims of inappropriate conduct.
Families of children with disabilities know and accept that their children
should be appropriately disciplined for serious offenses. The 1997 law renewing
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act says that an essential component
of appropriate discipline for a disabled child must be a formal finding of
whether the child's offending act was a "manifestation" of the child's
disability.
To families of a child suffering an early onset mental
illness, the manifestation provision is particularly just. The carefully crafted
l997 discipline compromise should be tested before it is lightly repealed by an
education act other than IDEA.
The larger issue is whether local public
school districts should be permitted by the federal government to throw any
child, irrespective of disability, out of school permanently -- with no
alternative program of instruction. So, a 9-year-old brings an unloaded gun to
school (or even a loaded one), an 11-year-old brings drugs. Each could be barred
from ever returning to publicly financed education services. What does the one
do for the next nine years, the other the next seven, until they are 18? How do
they make their way in the adult world, much less make a contribution?
School authorities and faculty have a right, indeed an obligation, to
the legal ideal that schools must provide a safe environment conducive to
learning. This may justify, even require, removal of a child who has committed a
serious offense -- whether or not the child is disabled.
Schools are
already given ample authority under the 1997 law to maintain environments
conducive to learning.
For example, a student with a disability who
brings a gun to school can be immediately removed from school. Schools can
immediately call the police and report crimes committed by students with
disabilities.
If the behavior of a child is not related to the child's
disability, t he child can be disciplined in the same manner as non-disabled
children. While education services cannot be terminated, a child can be removed
from his or her home school and placed in an alternative setting.
The
changes the Ashcroft amendment would make to the existing authority eliminate
the finding of "manifestation" and permit cessation at the option of the local
district. By extinguishing a child's right to a "free and appropriate public
education" by federal law and local choice, aren't we throwing these children
away?
Does the federal government really believe we can just throw them
away? Certainly public expense is involved in establishing and maintaining
alternate education services for such children. Nevertheless, taking them --
even appropriately -- out of one school cannot justify refusing to place them in
another educational setting.
LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2000
