 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Zero Tolerance Nightmare At Chester Senior High
Eileen's Story: My son, Sean, is 15, a freshman at Chester Senior High School in Chester, SC. Last year, we moved to Chester just as school began. Within the first grading period, while attending Chester Park Middle School, Sean got into trouble for making a joke about bringing a gun to school. Long story short, he's a shy kid and so was an unknown to teachers and students, as he hadn't made friends yet. He was being teased by some others as they all waited for the bell to end the school day. When one questioned him tauntingly about his impatient pacing-- this was outside, so not inappropriate-- with the words, "What's the matter with you? Are you crazy or something?" all the boys laughed, including Sean. That's when my comedian son had a momentary brain disconnect. He answered back, "Sure, right. I'm crazy. Probably bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everybody, uh-huh." Everyone laughed, but... he was promptly reported to the Security Officer and taken from the school that afternoon to the Law Enforcement Center. I received a call to come and get him from there. He was charged with communicating a threat, he was recommended for expulsion, and the school reported his 'crime' to the DJJ (Dept. of Juvenile Justice). After a nightmarish 7 weeks or so, 3 hearings and a psychological evaluation, Sean was reinstated. Fortunately, he'd been given his assignments during the situation, so he hadn't fallen behind in school. I was aware that we'd pulled off a miracle, in light of the national hysteria over Columbine and similar incidents. This despite Sean's spotless history with no prior discipline incidents. I thought we'd all surely learned a lesson. And then on February 15, 2001, my son made a drawing while in JROTC class. The drawing depicts stick figure kids-- his fellow students-- goofing off all around the JROTC classroom, being disrespectful to the no-nonsense teacher, a retired master sergeant. Each stick figure is 'saying' something, which Sean says pretty much describes the kinds of things that go on in this class. The major later described this particular group of children to me as "unmotivated." No, that's not the part that got Sean into trouble. Also depicted are a student with a gun, saying, "Eat lead, Sergeant So-&-So," and a student driving a tank into the room (A tank! This is obviously not meant to be taken /literally/!), while commenting, "Time to die." The point of the whole thing was the stick figure student leaping to the MSG's rescue, saying "I'll save you! Then I'll make sergeant!!!" Sean's attempt at an editorial cartoon was less than politically correct, needless to say. He should know better, but I guess we all make mistakes. And some of us, especially as adolescents, make multiple ones. Ironically, he didn't even draw himself in the picture. It was intended solely as a satirical illustration of his classmates' opinions about the teacher. Several students saw the drawing and forcibly restrained Sean so that they could take it from him. They ran to the MAJ with the picture. After speaking with Sean, the MAJ and MSG together decided that the only action that needed to be taken was that they would call me. I was told confidentially that neither felt it was a high priority situation, as they know Sean and recognized the drawing for what it was-- in poor taste, showing a lapse in judgement, but NOT a threat. These students, however, went straight to the school's Security Officer and reported Sean. From there, it went through Administration. That afternoon, Sean was called to the Assistant Principal's office. He answered all questions truthfully and honestly, and never tried to deny making the picture. He told the Asst. Principal that he has no hard feelings or resentment toward the MSG; that instead, he respects the teacher for the discipline he requires and the motivation he gives the kids. Sean was clear about the fact that he, himself, is not depicted in the picture, and that it was his take on the attitudes of others in his class-- many of whom have repeatedly said they hate the MSG. (Some have even made threats, though Sean says he believes they were only joking, so he had not reported them.) He came home and told me what had happened, believing that was the end of that. On Friday, 2/16, Sean went to school as usual. During 2nd period, he was called to the office and the principal and assistant principal spoke with him concerning the drawing. He was told not to come to school the following Monday. No one notified my husband or myself at that point. When Sean arrived home that afternoon and told us, my husband contacted the principal immediately. He asked for a copy of the drawing and was told one would be available for him to pick up at 7 am on Monday morning. He also asked for a conference with the principal, /before/ she made a decision about punishment. Finally, he requested that our older son, a senior at the high school, be able to pick up Sean's assignments for Monday. He was told that it would be a violation of school policy for Sean to be given an opportunity to keep up with his schoolwork while suspended. Monday, 2/19, Sean stayed home. We heard nothing from the school. The copy of the drawing my husband had requested was 'not ready' when my elder son went by the office to pick it up. Tuesday, 2/20, Sean was about to walk out the door on the way to school when we received a call from a secretary there. We were informed that the principal had asked her to call us and pass along the message that we were to keep Sean home for the next 6 days. She explained that he had been suspended for that period of time. I asked if Monday would count. She said she was unaware he'd been out on Monday but that yes, that would count toward the 6 days. Once again, the copy of the drawing was not ready for pick up at the office as had been promised. Wednesday, 2/21, my husband went in for the conference with the principal, Ms. Kathy Greer. He was informed that she was recommending that Sean be expelled. The charges were 'flagrant disrespect' and 'creating a drawing that depicted violence toward a school official and was perceived as threatening in nature.' The principal was intractable, citing the Zero Tolerance policy. We have no idea why it suddenly changed from a 6 day suspension to expulsion for the rest of the year, and no explanation was ever offered. My husband asked for a copy of the pertinent page in the Student Handbook and was given it, along with a copy of the drawing-- finally. The Student Handbook does not mention that students will be summarily expelled for even making a joke that might be perceived as threatening, but it/does/ list a range of appropriate punishments for conveying threats. A conference with parents is the first level; in-school and out of school suspensions of varying lengths constitute levels 2-4. Expulsion is Level 5. Strange how a verbal threat or a /drawing/ receives the very highest order of 'appropriate' punishment. Over-reaction, anyone? My husband pointed out that this would mean that Sean would have to repeat the 9th grade unless he was put into the alternative school. He was blithely informed that 'it's too late in the year' for the alternative school to be a possibility for my son. The principal stuck to her Zero Tolerance inflexibility, refusing to use any discretion whatsoever. When my husband asked if he could speak to the MSG and/or the MAJ regarding their part in the matter, he was told that both were busy, but that the MSG /had/ felt threatened by the drawing. My husband was not allowed to see the statements the JROTC instructors had written after the incident was reported to the Administration. Later, the MSG confided privately to me that he had not felt threatened at all, and indeed, his statement that he intended to call me 'when he got around to it' tends to confirm that. If you're feeling threatened, you don't ordinarily delay taking actions to keep yourself safe. Monday, 2/26, after much consideration, I went to the high school and withdrew Sean. I filed the paperwork with the homeschool association required by SC law and intend to homeschool him for the rest of this year. We will most definitely be moving out of this county prior to next school year, having only stayed this long to allow my eldest son to graduate. A source familiar with the school board thought that withdrawing him might be a way to stop the process before Sean was formally expelled. With the previous situation on his record, as well as the numerous school events, major ones, on his senior brother's horizon-- things we'd attend as a family, all 6 of us-- we were trying to find a way to halt the proceedings. Although we didn't have the $600 to pay for Sean's homeschool through an online academy, this seemed like the best option. I guess I was pretty naïve to presume that the proceedings would simply stop. Thursday, March 1, I got a call saying that the process had not been stopped at all, and advising that we needed to attend the scheduled hearing on Weds, March 7. I explained that Sean would not be returning to Chester County schools, and would be homeschooled until our move. I was told that I would need to speak to the principal to see if she would stop the proceedings. Of course, that was like slamming into a brick wall at 100 mph. She would not budge a centimeter, saying that if she did that, we might bring him back to the school 'next week' and register him again and she wouldn't be able to stop us. Heaven knows, our son's verbal wit and dubious drawing skills are grounds for the utmost caution on the part of school officials. Yes, my cynicism is showing! Insiders tell us we should almost expect to have the Hearing Officer 'rubber stamp' the principal's recommendation. We've spoken to a lawyer and found out we can't afford one, not this time and not for the hearing in front of the board that will no doubt come next. We're told that numerous other children have been expelled this year from Chester High School for this same type of thing, none of it taken seriously but all punished with a vengeance, in the name of Zero Tolerance. And now the media is trumpeting how this child in CA 'joked' and 'joked'... and no one believed him. An excerpt from USA Today online today (3/6/01) says, "Another form of zero tolerance, however, has proved both popular and effective. Across the country, school districts have worked to encourage students to report any threat of violence by any other student. In the past six weeks alone, student reports have helped authorities avert at least four ''Columbine-style'' attacks.... The success of that tactic makes plain that schools should do more to promote it. And so, sadly, does Monday's shooting. The student charged in the killings gave off multiple signs of his pending attack, and at least one other student took him seriously enough to check his backpack for weapons. Yet apparently no one mentioned his threats or his talk of guns to authorities, concluding instead that he was only joking." You don't usually search a backpack because a friend is joking. But maybe I'm the only one who sees that. An official quoted elsewhere says we need to make sure that kids trust officials enough that they report things like this. With my sick feeling lingering, I note that overreactions like the ones we read on this website-- with expulsions used right and left for 'threats' which are really jokes, or massive overreactions to oversights or simple misunderstandings, etc.-- have made this almost impossible. Kids /don't/ trust the administration to use discretion and to look at whether the child is having problems, didn't know about the situation or was just being silly. So they keep quiet, out of loyalty to friends and because they rightfully distrust petty bureaucrats who are so busy doing CYA that they can't use a little professional judgement in deciding what's fair and what's not. Who needs a stern talking-to about inappropriate jokes or things you can't do in today's world, versus who might have a real problem. Somehow, I doubt anyone besides me will see the logic in the above. And certainly it would be too terrible to consider that rampant and improper use of Zero Tolerance policies actually may have done more to *contribute* to the tragedy in Santana than to prevent it. UPDATE: I thought it couldn't get any worse, but it did. On March 7, 2001, Sean, his little sister and I attended his initial hearing. Because it was held during the day, and because we are a one-income family, Sean's father did not attend. (He works 40 miles away in Charlotte, NC.) Nor did his other siblings, who were in school. Nor did his grandparents, both licensed psychologists, and both also at work. Because I'd only been able to confirm that we needed to attend the hearing at all a few days prior to the 7th, I hadn't yet had a chance to get statements from Sean's teachers, adults in the community who know him, etc. I'm sure some of you who know the ropes are groaning already. I didn't know, and it wasn't explained to me at all, that the first hearing is the evidentiary hearing. This means-- in this district anyway-- that whatever you don't bring to that first hearing DOES NOT COME IN. Period. Well, unless someone on the school board is feeling reasonable, and I sure wouldn't count on that. Aside from telling me that my research on ZT was 'useless,' and so was the psychological evaluation done on my son last year-- 'It's a year old. Not pertinent now.'-- the hearing officer did nothing but what we'd expected. He rubber-stamped the principal's recommendation. I signified at that hearing that I would have another evaluation performed, if it would help Sean's case for reinstatement. We requested an appeal before the entire school board, were notified about one scheduled hearing the day of the intended meeting (March 26, 2001), and rescheduled for April 23, 2001. On March 26, when my husband spoke to the acting superintendent, regarding the need to reschedule the hearing-- we were still waiting on the psychological report we'd paid to have done-- he was told, 'It doesn't matter anyway. Nothing's coming in that wasn't presented at the first hearing.' No statements, no psychological, not even he, himself. He hadn't attended the first hearing. Especially in light of the letter we'd received from them, however, mentioning that we would have the right to present witnesses, question witnesses, etc, we didn't believe they'd really go that far. They did. We arrived at the hearing on April 23, report and statements in hand. Along with Sean's father and siblings, my parents were also present, willing to answer questions the board might have regarding the psychological tests Sean had been given. They'd driven almost a hundred miles to attend. The board refused to allow anyone but Sean and I in the hearing room. My husband, Sean's biological father, was summarily denied his parental rights. He wasn't even allowed to SIT in the room, silently witnessing the hearing. When my stepfather addressed the chairwoman and explained that he would be willing to testify regarding the psychological report and the tests, the board still denied permission for him to remain. This was an abuse of power, and a transparent attempt to intimidate me. Sadly, it worked all too well. The school board refused to hear the psychological report. They refused to hear the portion of the report that addressed the previous psychological, which I /had/ brought up in the initial hearing. This should have been fairly vital to the proceedings-- for one, because it showed quite clearly that my son is not a danger to anyone. Also because the new psychologist took a look at the test scores from November, 1999, and asked why Sean hadn't received any assistance for his learning disability. Learning disability?!? First I'd heard of it, but I did know from my research that there are some protections under federal law for children with disabilities. One of them involves the mandatory provision of alternative schooling, if these children are suspended for 10 days or more, or expelled from school. The school board, however, in their infinite wisdom and in light of their vast professional experience in the diagnosis of LDs, refused to acknowledge that Sean could possibly have a disability, much less one of which I had not been aware. The fact that he's exceptionally bright and therefore potentially more able to compensate than some other children apparently never occurred to them. It was a farce from the very beginning, in short, and a vicious one at that. Sean was expelled, no surprise after that debacle. We had stood before them with the best proof available-- an entire battery of psychological tests performed by an expert with over 20 years' experience in that type of testing for several school districts-- and been ignored. Makes it hard to believe they were acting rationally at all. If you are considering expelling a child because you believe he poses a risk to other students, anything that would point to that being unnecessary can apparently be disregarded. We don't own a gun. Sean doesn't have access to weapons (not to mention, tanks). He's under near-constant parental supervision. And while he's shy, he's well-adjusted. We have two psychologicals in two years to prove it. But… My bright son's non-PC wit, verbally and in writing, is apparently far more dangerous than a REAL weapon! It might be a backhanded compliment if it didn't have the potential to wreck his future. I understand that currently there are universities in the ACC that refuse to accept anyone who's been expelled. We're now working with the state Protection & Advocacy group to try to 'prove' the disability, and are considering legal recourse to try to get the expulsion removed from his record. I also believe that the failure of the school to note the diagnosis of an LD, and their subsequent failure to provide services, is tantamount to malpractice. It definitely affects and has affected my son. However, I don't know that any of this will ever be resolved, much less to our satisfaction. I wonder now why I ever gave these bureaucrats so much control over my family and our lives. This is especially pertinent as we try to wrangle permission from the principal for Sean to attend his brother's graduation. We're crushingly aware of the fact that she can say no-- and may-- without regard to what is right or fair. Much less what is best for my sons, and our family. From now on, I will be paying CLOSE attention to school board elections. These people may potentially judge your child someday, and are certainly judging the children of others in the community. That's a very sobering thought; one I urge everyone to consider. Even if you think it can't happen to you and your child… think again. Talk to the candidates and find out where they stand on ZT. Ask the hard questions. If you don't, no one will. Sincerely, Eileen |
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 All Rights Reserved. |
