Parent's Rights
"Parents have a right to raise their children, and children
have a right to be safe. These rights are not mutually exclusive. We
do not
have to choose just one or the other. Both are necessary and both are
possible. To those who say that if we err, we should err on the side
of children, I say, why should we err at all? Our laws should enable
and encourage parents to fulfill their awesome responsibility to raise
their children to the best of their ability."
- Douglas Lamborn
State Representative, District 20, El Paso County
PARENTAL RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM
What does Lewis-Palmer's "one strike and you're out" disciplinary
policy have to do with parental rights?
Answer: EVERYTHING!
The policy was instituted because of parental rights, and there are
strong reasons why it should be revoked because of parental rights.
In fact, all public school disciplinary policies are, or at least should
be, crafted to achieve a balance between seemingly-opposing "rights." This
is no different whatsoever from the situation that exists in society
as a whole, as expressed in the old saying that the right of free speech
doesn't mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theater. To say
it another way, "your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose
begins!" Rights are not absolute - they inevitably involve tradeoffs.
Public schools generally recognize this and attempt to achieve a reasonable
balance in their policies.
How well does the LP "one strike and you're out" policy achieve
this reasonable balance? That depends on the "rights" which
are being balanced. When parents send their kids to public schools, they
expect that their children will
1) be educated in a safe environment conducive to learning,
2) receive an education which will give them the opportunity to become
productive members of society and to attend college if they choose to
do so, and
3) not be indoctrinated with specific religious or moral values, since
these may be at variance with what is being taught at home.
Before examining the effect of the "one strike and you're out" policy
on these three basic parental "rights", it is necessary to
have a clear picture of just what this policy is.
JUST WHAT IS THE "ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT" POLICY?
Actually, "one strike and you're out" is not a written Lewis-Palmer
policy at all, but rather an approach which has been used by the school
district as an unwritten extension of its so-called "zero tolerance" disciplinary
policy for alcohol or drug offenses. "Zero tolerance" was put
into effect in 1995, apparently in response to the frustration of school
principals who were concerned that certain students were not getting
the message, even after multiple suspensions, that alcohol was not to
be tolerated in the school or at school events. A better-defined and
stricter policy was needed, and as a result, the current "zero tolerance" policy
was adopted by the Board of Education.
The "zero tolerance" policy does not call for mandatory expulsion
from the school for alcohol- related offenses, and in fact is worded
in such a way as to lead a student or parent to believe that discretion
may be used in setting the level of punishment to match the severity
of the offense. It is important to realize, however, that it is being
applied in a totally inflexible way which admits of no discretion whatsoever.
The reason for this is unclear and can only be given by the Lewis-Palmer
Board of Education.
For the benefit of unwary students and parents, the "one strike
and you're out" policy for alcohol can be clarified as follows:
1) A student who possesses or consumes alcohol is simply expelled from
the school on the first offense.
2) No consideration is given to the amount of alcohol consumed. A student
who falls down drunk is expelled, and so is a student who has a single
sip.
3) No consideration is given to the student's prior disciplinary record.
Years of exemplary behavior are absolutely ignored.
4) Academic credit for the expelled student's coursework for the entire
semester is nullified even if the infraction occurs near the end of the
semester.
5) The expulsion is permanently noted on the student's transcript. School
district policy does not provide a mechanism whereby the expulsion can
be expunged from the student's record by any amount of upright behavior
or community service.
6) No distinction is made between students who provide alcohol and students
who have the alcohol provided to them. If a senior provides the alcoholic
beverage and pressures a freshman to take a sip, both are expelled equally.
7) On school-related trips involving remote lodging (e.g., a motel),
the policy is enforced 24 hours a day even if the lodging is paid for
by parents and the school- related activities are over.
8) No consideration is given to whether the school arranged for enough
chaperones on a school-related trip, or notified parents in advance that
few or no chaperones would be present.
9) No consideration is given if a student comes forward and voluntarily
confesses. A student who takes his or her chances on denying involvement,
but ends up getting caught, will be expelled along with a student who
confesses.
Clearly, the current policy is very strict. It imposes the most severe
punishment the school has available for even the most minor of alcohol-related
offenses.
In fact, there is concern in the Lewis-Palmer school district that the
policy was formulated by a relatively small group which did not solicit
widespread community opinion, and which did not thoroughly consider the
negative effects of such a stringent policy. The High School Accountability
Advisory Committee listed as one of its goals for the 1998-1999 school
year to "research factors and community input in developing the
current zero tolerance policy in District 38." Unfortunately, as
explained below, the Accountability Committee is currently restrained
by the Board of Education from pursuing this goal.
THE EFFECT OF "ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT" ON PARENTAL
RIGHTS
The effect of the "one strike and you're out" policy on the
parental rights listed above can be examined one by one:
1) The right to a safe environment conducive to learning:
The "one strike and you're out" approach arose from a desire
to promote for students a safe environment conducive to learning, something
that all parents want without question. Not tolerating alcohol (and drug)
use is a key aspect of a positive school environment, and most parents
want any alcohol use at all to be viewed as a serious problem requiring
immediate and forceful attention. The question to be answered is whether
promoting a safe environment conducive to learning requires or justifies
always applying the school's most severe punishment, no matter what.
2) The right to an education which will give kids the opportunity to
become productive members of society and to attend college if they choose
to do so:
This right is the motivation, in the state law (CRS 22-33-201), for
the statement that "expulsion should be the last step taken after
several attempts to deal with a student who has discipline problems." If
a public school expels a student unnecessarily, it neglects its responsibility
to provide the education which the parents have been legally obliged
to pay for, and the permanent "black mark" of an expulsion
may adversely affect the student's future. For these reasons, expulsion
is to be used, according to state law and common sense, as a last-resort
necessity in order to remove dangerous or habitually disruptive students
from school. Schools cannot remove a student for behavior just because
it may eventually, if left unchecked, lead to dangerous behavior, nor
can they remove a student as a "punishment" intended to serve
as an example to other students.
3) The right to not be indoctrinated with specific religious or moral
values, since these may be at variance with what is being taught at home:
The effect that the "one strike and you're out" approach has
on this basic parental right is subtle and insidious. Disciplinary actions,
whether issued by schools or parents, teach kids the relative importance
of various moral values. Parents have the primary responsibility and
right to teach their kids values, tailoring a particular punishment for
a particular offense to a particular son or daughter, thereby fixing
the problem while doing the least harm. An exaggerated punishment, however,
stemming from an inflexible policy, can do more harm than good. When
a kid with no prior discipline problems is expelled after voluntarily
confessing to one minor mistake, years of parental training in the importance
of such virtues as honesty, respect for authority, courage, compassion,
fairness, and common sense are undermined by a rigid, single-issue mentality.
Clearly, the school should impose a disciplinary action for unacceptable
behavior. But in cases which do not involve dangerous or habitually disruptive
behavior, the school should not proceed directly to the last resort,
expulsion, without first attempting to work with the parents.
AN ALTERNATIVE FIRST-OFFENSE DISCIPLINE POLICY
Before deciding to revise the "zero tolerance" policy, it
is essential to consider what an alternative policy might be, and to
examine it in light of parents rights and how it may help or hurt the
Lewis- Palmer school disctrict. An alternative first-offense policy for
alcohol might include the following elements:
(1) a suspension of up to 5 days
(2) a mandatory parent/principal conference
(3) community service or other "consequences" which are beneficial
to the student and others
(4) counseling programs if necessary
(5) expulsion may be recommended by the principal for extreme (dangerous)
cases
The parent/principal conference is a key element in that it provides
an opportunity for the parents and the student to be made aware, in no
uncertain terms, what the consequences of a second offense will be. But
more importantly, it gives the parents, who may have found out about
the behavior after the school did, at least one chance prior to expulsion
to work with the school to prevent a recurrence.
This is a strict policy which promotes a safe environment conducive
to learning while also promoting positive school-parent relationships.
It gives the desired message to kids while preserving the parents' primary
role as disciplinarians of their own children.
THE BOTTOM LINE: DO WE NEED "ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT"?
The negatives of the "one strike and you're out" policy are
real and easily identifiable.
1) Students have been and continue to be unnecessarily expelled. They
are deprived of the education that the public school system was designed
to provide them. They receive a permanent "black mark" on their
record, which no amount of upright behavior or penitence can ever erase,
and which may negatively effect their choices and success in the future.
2) Kids who receive an unreasonable and permanent punishment may develop
bitter feelings and a loss of respect for authority. Ironically, expulsion
hurts a conscientious kid much more than one who really doesn't want
to be in school anyway.
3) Parents who perceive that their son or daughter has received an unreasonable
and permanent punishment experience a sense of betrayal and find themselves
in an adversarial relationship with the school district they once energetically
supported. The loss of parental support has a detrimental effect on the
school district.
4) Parents are deprived of their right to be the primary disciplinary
force in their childrens' lives. Their ability to issue an appropriate
punishment for a particular child is superseded by the school system's "one
size fits all" approach.
5) Since kids know their "punishment" will be the same whether
they lie or tell the truth about consuming alcohol, in effect they are
encouraged to lie when they are questioned about it.
The positive side of the "one strike and you're out" policy
is elusive and theoretical. There simply is no evidence that a "one
strike" policy produces a better school environment than a "two
strike" policy, with the latter having the tremendous advantage
that it keeps parents in the loop.
If you add it up, the "one strike and you're out" policy is
hurting district 38! This extreme and inflexible policy is not necessary,
does not achieve a reasonable balance of parental rights, and does considerable
harm while producing no tangible good. This policy "throws the baby
out with the bath water."
It is time for the school district to admit that, although the policy
was conceived with good intentions in mind, it needs to be reviewed and
revised as soon as possible.
WHAT PARENTS CAN DO:
The "zero tolerance" policy is, by its own terms, overdue
for review. Unfortunately, the Board of Education has chosen to delay
this review while its lawyers attempt to overturn, through an appeal
process of indeterminate length, a judge's ruling which, in essence,
declares the "one strike and you're out" approach a violation
of state law. The Board has dictated that, while their legal proceeding
is in process, district employees may not discuss the issue. The school
district's Accountability Advisory Committees have also been silenced.
Meanwhile, kids continue to be unnecessarily expelled, even though there
is a high likelihood that either the appeal process will eventually fail,
or the "one strike and you're out" approach will be scrapped
when the "zero tolerance" policy is finally reviewed.
Meanwhile, taxpayer funds are going to lawyers instead of teachers,
whether the taxpayers agree with the "one strike and you're out" policy
or not. The Board of Education has simply presumed that the district
taxpayers want their money spent in this way.
Isn't this issue best resolved in the court of common sense, not in
a court of law? If you believe the Board of Education is acting unwisely,
contact them and urge them to stop the legal proceedings and turn this
issue back to the community where it belongs. The Board, which is elected
to represent the community, will be eager to receive your input.
|
