Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Mar 7, 2009 12:38:07 GMT -5
Other states have already adopted this. Texas only requires that "the superintendent has a reasonable belief that the student has engaged in conduct punishable as a violent felony" for OFF CAMPUS conduct, to require MANDATORY placement in an alternative education program. www.atpe.org/protection/workingwithothers/studdisc.aspThat's good information for Ms. Senger in pushing the bill. I signed this petition and will pass it along. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Mar 9, 2009 6:32:44 GMT -5
Thank you to docwho for posting this on blue. Please get all letters/faxes/call to the reps today. Also sign the petition at the following link: www.senger.ilhousegop.org/?page_id=102 For anyone who can make it - would be nice to show our support for Darlene Senger's bill.-------------------------------------------------------- Randy Hultgren's bill to get this to the Senate is being read Tuesday SB 1885 www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStat....=96&SpecS ess=0 www.ilga.gov/legislation/96/SB/09600SB1885.htm----------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstat....36&SessionID=76Bill Status of HB1310 96th General Assembly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Full Text Votes View All Actions Printer-Friendly Version Short Description: SCH CD-ALT SCH-FELONY CHARGE House Sponsors Rep. Darlene J. Senger - Mike Fortner - Michael G. Connelly - Sandra M. Pihos - Michael P. McAuliffe, Jim Sacia, Suzanne Bassi, Bob Biggins and Linda Chapa LaVia Hearings Juvenile Justice Reform Committee Hearing Mar 12 2009 11:00AM Capitol Building Room 115 Springfield, IL Last Action Date Chamber Action 3/4/2009 House Remains in Juvenile Justice Reform Committee Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance 105 ILCS 5/13A-2.5 105 ILCS 5/13A-4 Synopsis As Introduced Amends the Safe Schools Law of the School Code. Provides that a "disruptive student" includes suspension or expulsion eligible students and students against whom juvenile or criminal proceedings alleging the commission of a felony are pending (instead of just suspension or expulsion eligible students). Provides that a student against whom juvenile or criminal proceedings alleging the commission of a felony are pending may be immediately transferred to an alternative program. Effective immediately. Actions Date Chamber Action 2/13/2009 House Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Darlene J. Senger 2/18/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Mike Fortner 2/18/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael G. Connelly 2/18/2009 House First Reading 2/18/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee 2/19/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Sandra M. Pihos 2/20/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Michael P. McAuliffe 2/20/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Jim Sacia 2/20/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Suzanne Bassi 2/20/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Bob Biggins 2/23/2009 House Assigned to Juvenile Justice Reform Committee 3/4/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia 3/4/2009 House Motion Do Pass - Lost Juvenile Justice Reform Committee; 004-003-000 3/4/2009 House Remains in Juvenile Justice Reform Committee
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Mar 11, 2009 17:31:54 GMT -5
Copied from another thread and posted here.... Naperville abuse case prompts attempt to change lawBy John Patterson | Daily Herald Staff Published: 3/11/2009 4:03 PM SPRINGFIELD - In the wake of a Naperville middle school abuse case, a panel of state lawmakers today supported letting school officials move students accused of crimes to alternative education programs. Just a week ago, a different legislative committee rejected the idea, saying it was too far reaching and expressing concern over moving children out of classrooms when they've not been convicted of doing anything wrong. However, that rejection sparked local outrage and statewide support for the proposal being pressed by Naperville Republican state Rep. Darlene Senger. On Wednesday, with support from Democratic leadership, her plan was moved to a House education committee and approved 14-4. The House Juvenile Justice Reform Committee had narrowly rejected it last week. Senger said she thought it should have gone through the education committee all along and was pleased to make progress."It was important to my district, for crying out loud," Senger said afterward. The proposal to empower local school officials to act on allegations of off-campus criminal behavior follows a high-profile, shocking incident of sexual abuse among middle school students in Naperville's Indian Prairie Unit District 204. Police say an attack involving Gregory Middle School students occurred Nov. 11 in a home on Naperville's south side. The alleged victim's parents wanted the accused students removed from the school. A 12-year-old and 11-year-old face felony charges of criminal sexual abuse and criminal sexual assault. The 11-year-old also faces a misdemeanor count of battery in a separate, in-school incident involving the same alleged victim. Recently, one of the accused transferred out of District 204 to Lincoln Junior High School in neighboring Naperville Unit District 203. A court order is keeping the other student at Gregory Middle School but 100 feet away from that classmate. School officials have said their options are limited under current law because the incident occurred off school grounds. Senger's proposal, which now advances to the full House, allows school officials to immediately send students facing certain, forcible felony charges to an alternative school program.
A near identical proposal was filed in the Senate by Winfield Republican Randy Hultgren and approved by a Senate committee www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=278402&src=76
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 11, 2009 18:24:44 GMT -5
Excellent news
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 11, 2009 22:14:02 GMT -5
what I don't get is there are people slamming the SD's handling of the situation that are carpooling out to springfield to support this bill getting passed(which I have been in favor of from day 1) which one is it? were their hands tied by legal and privacy issues or did they try to cover it up? You cant have it both ways people
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Mar 11, 2009 22:31:21 GMT -5
Steckdad,
I am just grateful people from our district are taking time out of their lives and getting involved down in Springfield. The trek back and forth must take better part of a day. A big thank you to all that volunteer to go, your efforts are appreciated by many.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Mar 12, 2009 6:52:39 GMT -5
Committee OKs Senger's school safety billMeasure passes on second try March 12, 2009 By PAIGE WINFIELD pwinfield@scn1.com Armed with more than 500 signatures, state Rep. Darlene Senger gained ground this week on a bill responding to the sexual abuse case at Gregory Middle School. The legislation was approved unanimously in the Senate education committee and 14-4 in the corresponding House committee on Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning, after barely failing in the House Juvenile Justice Committee last week. It would allow the District 204 board to remove from Gregory one of two students charged with sexually assaulting a fellow student last November. The other has already transferred voluntarily. Senger worked to rally public support this week, starting an online petition Monday and collecting hundreds of signatures in support of the bill. "In two days we collected close to 450 online petitions and probably another couple hundred (physical)," Senger said. "They were forwarded to my BlackBerry. It was clicking nonstop … it was unbelievable." The legislation, now included in H.B. 640, would have closed what supporters say is a loophole in the law by giving school boards the ability to place students charged with violent crimes in alternative schools. Three legislators who opposed the measure last week cited concerns that it would give school boards too much power. But Senger didn't change any wording in the bill that was approved by the education committee, where she said it should have landed in the first place. She was able to procure the hearing so quickly by tacking it onto another bill that would require all children in the third and seventh grades to have a scoliosis screening. "It should have been in education to begin with," Senger said. "Part of the problem was putting it in the juvenile justice committee." State Sen. Randy Hultgren is sponsoring the bill's Senate version, which doesn't specify that a student must be charged with a forcible felony before he or she may be removed to an alternative school. He plans to meet next week with school board and juvenile justice officials to discuss whether that language should be added. "I think we're going to pull a group together and address some of the concerns that people have on this, that it gives school boards too strong of an ability," Hultgren said. www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1471383,Naperville-Senger-school-safety-bill-NA031109.article
|
|
|
Post by warriormom on Mar 12, 2009 7:54:16 GMT -5
what I don't get is there are people slamming the SD's handling of the situation that are carpooling out to springfield to support this bill getting passed(which I have been in favor of from day 1) which one is it? were their hands tied by legal and privacy issues or did they try to cover it up? You cant have it both ways people this is my understanding... "people" (as you refer to them) are upset because the school board has had the authority to move the acccused boys since day 1 to another middle school but chose not to. .... (not to mention other issues which 'people' are upset about; how MM spoke about the victims father in unacceptable terms for an elected official and , Dr. D. not officially notifying board immediately etc.) The reason 'people' are supporting Senger's bill and going to Springfield to assist is because the bill will grant the district the power to move a child to an alternative schooling environment due to an off-campus felony charge; something which the board currently does not have the authority to do; currently they can only move the child to another MS. This is my understanding; if I am incorrect, please clairfy.
|
|
|
Post by cocrt21 on Mar 12, 2009 8:11:20 GMT -5
You are correct warriormom !
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Mar 12, 2009 8:20:32 GMT -5
But again, that would be moving a dangerous child, per what I have heard, from one school to another. The new school community would not be aware of the history, thus exposing the new community to this danger.
On the other hand, this law would allow the district to move a dangerous child to an alternative school.
While I worry about "innocent until proven guilty", this law provides the district with a much safer solution to these issues.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Mar 12, 2009 8:50:00 GMT -5
what I don't get is there are people slamming the SD's handling of the situation that are carpooling out to springfield to support this bill getting passed(which I have been in favor of from day 1) which one is it? were their hands tied by legal and privacy issues or did they try to cover it up? You cant have it both ways people steckdad. There are numerous juvenile laws that are very restrictive and the policy of the SD (Which I agree with) is to keep discipline issues out of the public venue. I personally believe there was no effort to cover anything up. They thought they had it handled, and apparently did not.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 12, 2009 21:52:56 GMT -5
what I don't get is there are people slamming the SD's handling of the situation that are carpooling out to springfield to support this bill getting passed(which I have been in favor of from day 1) which one is it? were their hands tied by legal and privacy issues or did they try to cover it up? You cant have it both ways people steckdad. There are numerous juvenile laws that are very restrictive and the policy of the SD (Which I agree with) is to keep discipline issues out of the public venue. I personally believe there was no effort to cover anything up. They thought they had it handled, and apparently did not. we don't really know if they had it handled because we are not at gregory every day to witness. (some don't need to be to slam the SD, because that is their M.O.) I think what it came down to is that the father was demanding that the accused be transferred and that was the only viable option in his mind.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 12, 2009 21:56:08 GMT -5
Steckdad, I am just grateful people from our district are taking time out of their lives and getting involved down in Springfield. The trek back and forth must take better part of a day. A big thank you to all that volunteer to go, your efforts are appreciated by many. completely different from what I am talking about SSSM....
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 12, 2009 22:06:07 GMT -5
what I don't get is there are people slamming the SD's handling of the situation that are carpooling out to springfield to support this bill getting passed(which I have been in favor of from day 1) which one is it? were their hands tied by legal and privacy issues or did they try to cover it up? You cant have it both ways people this is my understanding... "people" (as you refer to them) are upset because the school board has had the authority to move the acccused boys since day 1 to another middle school but chose not to. .... (not to mention other issues which 'people' are upset about; how MM spoke about the victims father in unacceptable terms for an elected official and , Dr. D. not officially notifying board immediately etc.) The reason 'people' are supporting Senger's bill and going to Springfield to assist is because the bill will grant the district the power to move a child to an alternative schooling environment due to an off-campus felony charge; something which the board currently does not have the authority to do; currently they can only move the child to another MS. This is my understanding; if I am incorrect, please clairfy. a. the SD did not move the accused, but they did not sit by and do nothing as some have charged. b. the email by MM has nothing to do with my post. and I do not condone it... as far as the board not being notified, what could they do when legal already was in the loop and warned all about privacy issues, etc...? Once they found out was there any great action by the SB to make the situation better? actually it just snowballed out of control IMO. c. people can support the bill for whatever reasons they like. I never contested that....just curious about people's perspectives....
|
|