Page 8
Think zero tolerance is implemented fairly throughout all Texas school districts. Think again. In 2007 Texas Appleseed, a non-profit public interest law organization that focuses on systemic reform released a report entitled, “Texas’ School-to-Prison Pipeline: Dropout to Incarceration: The Impact of School Discipline and Zero Tolerance.” The report concluded that where a child attends school in Texas, and not the nature of the offense, is the greater predictor of a child receiving a disciplinary referral. The report also included the fact that 2/3 of the children sent to alternative schools are sent there for non violent offenses.
Also if your child is expelled the type of alternative school they will be required to attend is drastically different from one school district to another. 51% of Texas Juvenile Justice Education programs (JJAEPs) utilize a traditional class room model, 26% utilize a therapeutic based model, and 23% utilize a military boot camp model. 221 Texas counties do not have a JJAEP and students are expelled to the street.
For some reason the 14th amendment to the United States constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law for each of its’ citizens does not seem to pertain to Texas public school children: Your child’s disciplinary history & intent may be considered in the disciplinary process in one Texas school district but not in another school district for the exact same offense. If your child is expelled from their normal school they may be sent to a regular class room school setting in one school district while in another school district they will be sent to a juvenile “boot camp.”
The Texas legislature is fully aware that the current system is completely unjust. In the 2007 legislative session the bill analysis of a bill (HB 851) that passed the Texas House unanimously as an amendment to another bill that would have required all Texas public school districts to consider intent or lack of intent, disciplinary history, self-defense, and disability in all disciplinary decisions stated: With respect to making a decision regarding suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, or expulsion, current law authorizes, but does not require, consideration of self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in the conduct, a student's disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. These factors are clearly necessary and relevant in making a fair and impartial decision with respect to the appropriate discipline for a student's misbehavior. Because current law authorizes, but does not require, consideration of these factors, discipline may be administered in an arbitrary manner. The purpose of this bill is to require that these factors be considered in the interest of achieving fundamental fairness in disciplinary actions.
So what is the solution to the problems caused by zero tolerance in Texas?
~ Chairman of the Texas House Education Committee, State Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, said the Legislature did not accomplish what it set out to do in writing a bill (HB603) passed in 2005 that gives school districts leeway when meting out discipline.
When the legislature reconvenes in 2009, Eissler said, lawmakers should tighten up the language to specify that administrators deciding punishment must consider the student's intent, disciplinary history, and whether the student has a judgment-impairing disability or acted in self-defense.
~ The American Psychological Association task force recommends as an alternative to zero tolerance “a meaningful approach to school discipline … one that treats students and their families with respect throughout the process, seeks to learn from students and to nurture their learning and growth as human beings and that finds ways to bring students more deeply into the school community and the surrounding community as well.” To that end, the task force advocates improving collaboration and communication between schools, parents, law enforcement personnel and jurisdictions, and juvenile justice and mental-health professionals. According to the APA task force, these groups need to work together to develop effective alternatives for students who challenge disciplinary rules.
The American Psychological Association task force suggests as an alternative to zero tolerance policies, employing restorative practices such as restorative justice conferences, to prevent violence and increase the sense of school safety. “Restorative and community justice programs in the school setting prioritize activities that try to reduce delinquency and find solutions to delinquent behavior and build a community capacity to respond to problem behavior without resorting to the criminal justice system and to create a safe and supportive learning environment that effectively expresses the values of the culture.” The report concluded, “Emerging data suggest that restorative justice programs may represent a promising alternative to zero tolerance.”
Texas Zero Tolerance believes that the following reforms to the current system would go a long way to making sure that innocent children are not ensnared in this system:
1.) Require that parents be contacted by school officials immediately any time an incident is serious enough that the child could possibly be suspended or expelled from school or if a police officer wishes to interrogate their child provided there is not an immediate threat. If there is not an immediate threat to a student or teacher why is there a need to rush to judgment and convict the child right on the spot?
Most parents don’t know there is a problem until after their child has been interrogated, arrested, and sent to juvenile detention or jail. In a lot of cases parents have had knowledge of what caused the infraction and the child was completely innocent. By not immediately involving parents these children’s lives were inexorably changed forever since they were referred to the juvenile justice system.
2.) The state law that was passed in 2005 (HB 603) allowing administrators to consider mitigating factors prior to implementing punishment should be made mandatory before any punishment is levied on a student for any infraction except for a firearm which automatic expulsion is mandated by federal law. The following factors would have to be considered before a school district is allowed to inflict a life altering punishment on a child ~ disciplinary history, self-defense, intent or lack of intent, & disability.
Currently in a lot of instances even if the child had no intent to break school rules they are punished anyway. Some Texas school districts do consider intent since HB 603 was passed in 2005 but most do not. This begs the question ~ Why should one Texas school district consider intent and another not consider intent for the exact same offense under Texas state law?? We live in America not a banana republic. Consideration of intent should always be a requirement.
3.) A true independent appeals process. Currently most appeals are just a formality and whatever punishment the administrator has decreed is upheld.
4.) Give a child a way to turn in a prohibited item without fear of having their life destroyed. Currently if a child makes an honest mistake and brings a prohibited item to school they have nowhere to turn once they set foot on a Texas public school campus. There is no guidance in chapter 37 of the education code on what a child is supposed to do if they find themselves in this situation. Chapter 37 only decrees what punitive measures are to take place should a prohibited item wind up on campus.
In 2005 the Texas House of Representatives addressed this issue and passed a bill (HB 625) unanimously that would have instructed school districts to put in their code of conducts a method whereby a child could turn in a prohibited item without fear of punishment and that would have required that parents be notified of the incident. Unfortunately the Senate Education Committee refused to allow this bill to be heard and this bill died.
