, , , , , ,

Regular readers know I am a critic of current trends in public education.  Among the most damaging trends is the insanely politically correct push to outlaw discipline for minority students, particularly Black male students, who commit far more disciplinary offenses—and outright crimes—than their numbers in the student population.  California is a leader in racing to the bottom in student accomplishment, and virtually every other measure of human achievement, and this is no exception, as The Washington Examiner Reports:

Next school year, it will be illegal for both public and charter schools in California to suspend disruptive students, from kindergarten to 8th grade. In a sweeping act of government overreach, the California state legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have decided that they know better than teachers and school administrators.

The new bill permanently prohibits suspensions for ‘willful defiance,’ which sponsoring Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner, says ‘puts the needs of kids first.’ This statement, though deeply ironic, is not incorrect. The bill does put kids — especially the defiant variety — first. The problem is that it privileges them above the adults tasked with their education and their obedient classmates.

This is a perfect example of D/S/C thinking, California style.  It is willfully defiant kids that, above all others, must be removed from schools.  If they are not, teacher’s ability to control their classrooms is undermined, and kids that actually want to learn are deprived of the opportunity.  It is such “children” that use and deal in drugs, and commit violence against other students, and teachers.

As part of the new bill, superintendents or principals must provide alternatives to suspension or expulsion that are “age-appropriate and designed to address and correct the pupil’s specific misbehavior.” Yet, Friedrichs and other teachers fear that the replacement of clear consequences with nebulous and complicated behavioral interventions could make schools more dangerous.

“Could?!”  Absolutely do and will.

Also at issue is California’s regulation of charter schools through this bill. Publicly-funded and privately managed, charter schools were meant to be exempt from burdensome state regulations and bureaucracy.

Since these schools are free to create their own disciplinary policies, the new law effectively overwrites the language of 1,300 charter petitions. This would cause significant disruption at the local level, according to the Charter School Development Center.

Well of course.  Normal Americans cannot be allowed to rule themselves.  They’re not qualified.

This is a topic I’ve addressed before in these, among other, articles:

On Race And Statistics-Based School Discipline (08-19-13) 

Racism In The Public Schools: Dead Or Alive? (04-17-16) 

Race-Based School Discipline: The Movement Continues (07-15-16)

Race Based School Discipline Find Fertile Ground In Minnesota (07-23-16) 

Racial Equity In The Twin Cities (07-29-16) 

St. Paul Schools Change Course, Establish Safe Environments: Naaaaah! (08-05-16) 

But some, even in Minnesota where this kind of insanity has taken root, are successfully fighting back, as Alpha News MN reports:

A Minnesota teacher received a $525,000 settlement, after suing the St. Paul School District for retaliating against him after he criticized its use of racial quotas in school discipline.

Aaron Benner, a black man, filed the suit in 2017. He said the St. Paul School District forced him to quit after investigating him four times in the 2014-15 school year. Those investigations were a first for Benner, who had nothing else on his disciplinary record, and was by all accounts an outstanding teacher. [skip]

Benner first spoke out, through the proper channels, in the 2011-12 school year. That fell on deaf ears.

Benner ran afoul of D/S/C policy:

At the time, the district was led by Valeria Silva, a leftwing activist who was pushing to ‘reduce racial disparities in student discipline’ Silva’s way of doing this was to simply not discipline black students who had repeat misbehavior problems.

This is the idea that if Black students make up 24% of a student population, they cannot possibly commit more than 24% of the disciplinary offenses or crimes.  If they do, this is prima facie evidence of racism.  There can be no other possible explanation, and the actual evidence of student’s behavior is beside the point.  Anyone trying to make that point is also—you guessed it—racist, and if they deny they’re racist, that’s absolute, undeniable evidence of racism.

In 2013, Benner blew a whistle on the district offering a bonus to principals who reduced suspensions—another failed Silva policy, the effect of which led to principals not disciplining students, which kept disruptive students in the classroom. The district ended this practice after Benner brought it to public attention.

This would have been an inexcusable offense.  D/S/C’s policies cannot possibly be wrong, and when they’re forced to do anything contrary to those policies when reality smacks them in the face, they’re out for blood.

In May 2014, Benner joined four other teachers at a board meeting, where he pushed against St. Paul School District’s racial quotas on school discipline. He said the district was failing black students by allowing mostly-black classrooms to be disrupted, and by not holding misbehaving black students accountable for their actions.

Benner was fired the following year.

The settlement is large, which means it is likely the district didn’t want to proceed with a suit, due to the discovery and bad publicity that it would bring.  Benner had also just won a court ruling that allowed him to seek punitive damages in the case. And before that ruling, the district had tried to get the case thrown out, only to be shot down by the judge.

The settlement indicates two things: (1) The district knew it would end up paying far, far more when discovery revealed their stupidity and malice. (2) They wanted to downplay the failure of their policies in the hope people wouldn’t look too closely at their other policies.

The issue is not at all hard to understand.  If a school is not run by adults, little or no learning will occur.  If students are not made, by the certain knowledge of sure, swift and lawful discipline, to behave appropriately, little or no learning will occur.  And if little or no learning occurs, our national crime rates will skyrocket, and there will be no one to pay our bills in the future.  We either raise generation after generation of contributors, or by default, we end up with little but entitled takers, desperate to take what little remains.