{ prima facie } the Temple Law newspaper

By Amanda Dougherty

As a mentor for children in a local homeless shelter, I recently discovered that one of the boys who lives there, “James,” (not his real name) had a hearing the following morning concerning his possible expulsion from school. His mother was obviously disconcerted. Apparently James had been punched in the face by a boy at his school. The gym teacher intervened and the boy ran away. Meanwhile, upset about the situation, James began kicking doors and pacing the hallway.

In his anger, James stated that he would like to bring a gun in and shoot the boy who punched him. As a consequence, James has been kicked out of school without an official hearing.

The boy who punched James is in school again after having received a three-day suspension. James was not able to speak with the principal about being kicked out. He was impeded from presenting any evidence that his attacker had been harassing him for three months prior to the punching incident; his mother was never given any official notice that there was going to be a hearing, that James might be transferred, or that his suspension would run longer than three days. Instead, she was told about an unofficial hearing and possible expulsion just twenty-four hours prior to its occurrence.

That evening I also contacted a lawyer from the Education Law Center (ELC). This attorney informed me that going with the family might be insightful. He also said that it might be personally disappointing. It was both.

The “hearing” was not a real hearing, but rather a pre-hearing where one officer meets with the parents and child and takes action prior to an official hearing. This officer characterized James’s words as a “terrorist threat,” which is classified as a level two offense and punishable just as if he had actually brought a weapon into the school.

During the meeting the officer placed a call to the school principal. We were not privy to this conversation, and afterwards he told us that the principal was not comfortable having James return. Solely on the basis of that discomfort, and without any inquiry as to whether his threats did or did not carry any force, James was transferred temporarily to an alternative disciplinary school.

I wonder how many times kids who grow up in Northeast and West Philadelphia hear someone get angry and say, “I’d like to shoot him.” I wonder how many of you reading this article have gotten stuck in traffic or had an argument with your boss and muttered, “Man, I’d really like to shoot that jerk.” Granted this was probably said under your breath, or in the car out of the general public — but sometimes thirteen-year-old boys do not have the common sense to shut their mouths when they get angry. It’s a trying time for Philadelphia, what with the increased violence and guns on the streets, but isn’t that just another indicator of the care with which children ought to be treated?

This boy is an A and B student. He is soft-spoken at the shelter and helps his mother with his two younger siblings. Everyone that I spoke with at the shelter believes that this was wrongly decided.

Five days after his transfer, the pre-hearing officer’s decision was affirmed by an official hearing. From what the mother told me, the hearing officer felt that the transfer was inappropriate — James, after all, had no record and his grades were good. However, the principal refused to permit James to return to his original school. During the two weeks when these hearings were occurring, James was not in school, nor was he given any schoolwork to do at home.

The ELC attorney informed me that it is rare that an attorney will take any hearing cases these days. This is primarily because it is unclear what attorneys can even do if they do find out about a hearing in time to attend. A decision last year established that the court system will not hear an appeal from a decision made by the school district, even at an unofficial hearing before a single official. Tyson v. School District of Philadelphia, 900 A.2d 990, 992 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Even if there is an appeal based on due process, the case will probably be sent back down, but usually yielding the very same result. After all, principals always act in a rational, unbiased manner . . . right?