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 
