There has been one "terrible mishandling" after another involving the Superintendent's staff. What else must occur under this man's watch before there is a change in leadership?

The trauma that young boy has been put through by the over-reaction of the school and by the Alexandria Police, whose deliberate and questionable actions need to be investigated thoroughly is appalling.

The story of what that young boy is being and has been put through by the school and the Alexandria Police is appearing in European newspapers.

It is interesting to note that, according to WRC, the Commonwealth Attorney declined to prosecute and dropped all charges. In other words, neither ACPS nor APD were right in arresting the child.

This is not an isolated incident - similar stories across US - across all ages and ethnic backgrounds. Not that it makes it right but once the police are involved they have to follow protocol or gosh forbid if there was a shooting then police blamed for not following thru.

The APD are over funded and are reckless in there approach. They need to be destoryed.

and by destroyed I mean looked into by an independent 3rd party.

If I were the young boys parents, I'd sue the pants off of APD & ACPS. A blatant over reaction to the incident. Suspension yes. Arrest? No. Is the Commonwealth's Attorney the only adult in the room??

I think Ms. Gilbert deserves to know why her son's backpack was searched without a parent present.

Could some attorney correct me if I am mistaken that a minor cannot be questioned without a parent being present (or at least notified)? According to numerous media reports, neither happened in this case.

I have not read in any articles that the school called Ms.Gilbert that day re her son bringing his toy gun to school - did they call her?

At the present time it is quite apparent the school and the Police Department have gone into a 'cya' mode!

The Superintendent owes this mother and boy a personal apology. No, the boy should not have brought a toy gun to school, but honestly, where are the adults in the room? It was a TOY, and if the APD can't figure that out in the first five seconds of looking at his backpack, then we have more serious issues. I absolutely do not understand. To actually proceed to arrest this little boy is ABSURD. The school administration should be suspended without pay for lacking common sense. I hope the school board is reviewing this.

Police can question a juvenile without a parent present. A parent can interrupt the questioning, and a parent may (under some but NOT all circumstances) have the right to be advised, and the juvenile has the right to receive Miranda warnings. The juvenile's parent or guardian can also terminate the questioning. But the Supreme Court's JDB v. North Carolina decision did not prohibit the interrogation of juveniles, nor require that a parent actually be physically present.
ACPS and APD's collective hands are tied in a case like this. Applicable regulations simply require police involvement -- there's no discretion. The fact that the case has apparently led to no prosecution and no expulsion, but has led to a punitive transfer and lots of direct parent involvement, is probably the right outcome.

Mark: Thanks for the clarification.

Maybe the police didn't conduct any questioning at all. The only things we do know are that (1) ACPS was absolutely required to notify APD, without any exception whatsoever, (2) APD was required, upon the receipt of a report, to take the child and the device -- whatever it was -- in, whether the Commonwealth's Attorney intended to charge or not, and (3) ACPS is prohibited by FERPA of '74 (the Buckley Amendment) from releasing any further details, except in formal litigation or an administrative proceeding. The mother made public statements revealing her identity -- ACPS could not, and apparently did not. If this seems like an over-reaction, call somebody in Richmond. (And if you really dislike what happened here, good luck with state legislation transferring school control to the new "Opportuinity Educational Institution" entity -- OEI will be subject to non-published regulations and will be entirely beyond any local scrutiny).

Mark, even though the TOY GUN was obviously a TOY GUN, do you mean that the school had to notify the APD and the APD had to take the child in to the police station under the law? If so, what law stipulates that?

The mother will be waiting for hell to freeze over before she gets an apology from Mort Sherman.

Yes. And the statute isn't a stipulation, it's a mandate. Even if it's a toy gun (same treatment as bomb threats that are known to be false) -- other kids complained and expressed fear, and the notification to APD was positively required. It's been on the books since the late 90s, and the School Board was actually directed to convert it into a policy statement and adopt it. There are multiple Virginia statutes and a Virginia state supreme court case behind it. That doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. But it does make it mandatory.

Mark, given you comments & obvious knowledge, what did APD spokesman Donaldson mean by: “If we were able to investigate right away, the outcome might have been different.” That seems tom imply that, had APD been called when the "gun" was first discovered on the school bus, the child would not have been arrested. That implies APD has some discretion. Do they or don't they?

We should start calling Mark Williams 'The ACPS Apologist'. Is it any wonder with people like Mr. Williams around that Alexandria is annually considered one of the 'least attractive school districts'?

http://delray.patch.com/articles/alexandria-among-country-s-least-attractive-school-districts-to-parents

All parents should be concerned by the response of school officials and police in this incident. ACPS Central office made the choice to notify police and have this child arrested rather than administer a consequence at the school level. After doing so they made it sound like police were already at the school and ACPS no longer had a choice in the matter. Following this incident the superintendent made public comment at a school board meeting that this family and this student were "well known" to school officials. What was the superintendent implying by that public statement? Did previous interaction with this child and family lead to the calling of police or was it due to a toy being found? Parents must press the Superintendent's office for details to ACPS policies and responses. How have staff been trained to handle and properly report threats? On what exact dates was that training provided? How are staff to respond to a threat on a school bus or in a school building? What are the exact dates of that training? When was the most recent threat assessment made for all school facilities? Are response and reporting policies universal throughout the district or different from school to school? The superintendent was quick to release a public letter in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut however when tasked with responding to a child with a toy ACPS was wholey unprepared.

Drew, I read that :"That day, the 10-year-old stood in a small courtroom, answering questions about Miranda rights, accused of brandishing a weapon, his mother said. He was fingerprinted and photographed. He now has a probation officer, lawyers and another court date." His Miranda Rights no doubt were being explained to him by the Judge and he was asked if he understood what was being told him. In reality, how many 10 year old children would have ever heard of the Miranda Rights and the meaning of the Rights and why it is given? That young boy no doubt was terrified standing in that courtroom with being accused of brandishing a weapon.

As a parent with a student at MacArthur I have to say much of the discussion here is certainly going the opposite direction, from what many of us felt throughout the events. Personally my concern was that the actions of the Central office was mishandled, but because they did not act aggressively enough. Because the police were not called right away (not until the next morning), the child returned to school the next morning with a "gun" in his backpack. At that point the school did not know whether the gun was real or a toy gun. At that point the ACPS was putting our children at risk because of their inaction. Thank goodness it wasn't real, but I hope that is the lesson we learn here. We should take any issue of a "gun" seriously and Police should be called immediately. We have had two children in our community killed this week because kids did have real guns.

As far as comments from the mother with the emphasis about this being a toy gun. It is not as simple as she makes it out to be. The gun did look very much like a real gun. The reason why it has the orange tip is because children have been been shot in the past branishing similar toy guns because they look so real. I hope the mother realizes that his putting the gun in his waistband, under his coat, the orange tip was hidden making it look very real. He was at risk, and this could have had turned out much more tragically for him. It would not have been the first time.

I do not know a MacArthur parent that thinks this child should be expelled, but hopefully we will not lose this opportunity to clarify the ACPS policy, and educate all our kids that bringing a weapon to school, toy or not is just not exceptable. This is a good opportunity for the child to perhaps do a good community service by going to other schools to sharing what he went through.

Mr. Goeas makes some valid points and raises important questions which have not been answered. It has been over two months since the tragedy in Connecticut and other than a video featuring the superintendent and a listing of outside resources there has been nothing forethcoming from ACPS regarding their safety and security procedures. A meeting scheduled for this evening by central office staff to address questions and concerns about safety and security was abruptly canceled. ACPS stated this was done so ACPS, APD, and court services could work together to "present joint informational work sessions to the staff and the community." Why have these sessions not already occurred? Why was the superintendent so quick to highlight his national letter to the president yet the school system had been so slow in its response and communication with staff and the community? This is very unsettling. Let's hope Mr. Goeas and others continue to press for answers to their questions and concerns.

Mr. Lewis - In the wake of Newtown, some substantial procedural changes have been made at my children's school and the changes announced to both staff and parents. I am curious what your point of contact might be that suggests changes have not been made. In any event, I can't magine it augments our children's safety to announce the specifics of these security changes to the general public, but they have been announced to parents, at least at our school.

Mrs. Kelly, procedural changes at one school do not point to well prepared district procedures and policies. The fact that two months after Newtown ACPS admits that it has not coordinated with APD and court services to provide joint informational sessions for staff and citizens is very troubling. We have a director of safety, what exactly are they doing to earn their administrative salary? We have a superintendent who wishes to show off his national letter, what is he doing to ensure student safety? The next time you are at your school ask building staff and teachers when they have been specifically trained to deal with threats within the school building (active shooter, trespasser refusing to leave, unstable individual in building or on school grounds). Get dates. Ask the building administrator when a threat assessment was provided by APD for the building. Get dates. Ask the teachers and staff what is the ACPS policy for reporting threats when they have been notified by students or parents. Ask if there is a universal signal for reporting a threat in the building. Determine if all staff know the signal and if all students know what to do and where to go. I believe you may be dismayed by the responses you receive. The sad fact is that are students are no safer today than they were on December 14.

http://www.alexandrianews.org/2013/02/gwmw-emergency-preparedness-procedures/

It is a known fact that when you label a child that label acts as permission for the chld to act that way. If you are labelled the class clown, he will be the class clown, If he is labelled the troiuble maker, he will be the trouble maker. This school and the police system just labelled this child (because of a toy gun). I wonder what path he will take now that the system has him in an expected catagory.

The real troubling thing is that as big as this country is along with the number of people that live here makes it impossible to actually be safe. Zero tolerance and other restrictive policies give us the illusion of safety. As parents of 9, 5, and 2 year old girls, it is our responsibility to give them the tools and knowledge to be aware of their surroundings and other people that are around them. We have hopefully given them enough info to help keep them safe. Zero tolerance does not keep them safe. The reality of it has the adults suspicious of some of
the children as possible trouble makers while taking away anycommon sense or
discretion they may use in a given situation.

He didn't bring a weapon to school. There was no weapon. There was never a weapon. Whoever called the police should be charged with filing a false report. That's the first miscarriage of justice. The second miscarriage of justice is that a 10-year-old is detained and questioned without the presence of a parent. The third is that the judge didn't immediately throw this BS out of court and reprimand every adult responsible for allowing to get to that point.

What a weak, stupid society America has become.