Zero tolerance . . . policy or tradition?

Some interesting developments unfolded in the halls of New Paltz High School this week.  Several students were caught violating school policy on drugs, and the district's "zero tolerance policy" rolled into action, with the principal meting out multi-day out-of-school suspensions pending hearings.  Despite the fact that the case is swathed in rumor and cloaked in the secrecy necessary for dealing with kids, it's an opportunity to see how the school's code of conduct and due process work.

By cobbling together scant official reports with the existing rumor mill and some knowledgeable sources, I pulled together some details of the case.  Students generally believe that a dozen students were involved, but none of those questioned were able to provide more than one name.  The official line from superintendent Maria Rice was that the number I had heard was grossly exaggerated, and a source close to the investigation claimed that it was really only five students.  I spoke to the one kid whose name the other students knew, and he confirmed that the accusation was of selling marijuana (and, I'm going to guess, possession).  I was able to gather very little information about the other cases, but it appears that one of the other students may have been caught with a weapon (brass knuckles) and turned over the alleged drug dealer to cop a plea.

Now the fun begins.  At the beginning of the school year the board said that they were going to be looking at the "zero tolerance policy."  I reviewed the code with a board member, looking for a quote about that member's position on zero tolerance.  It took some time for the member to wade through the code of conduct, which didn't surprise me, but what did was what we didn't find . . . zero tolerance.

Wikipedia says that "zero-tolerance policy in schools is a policy of punishing any infraction of a rule, regardless of accidental mistakes, ignorance, or extenuating circumstances."  However, the district's code provides for a wide range of consequences for drug charges, ranging from an oral warning to permanent suspension from school.  (This is the same range of punishment that can be meted out for lying, possessing a cell phone or iPod on school premises, and using an obscene gesture.)  The superintendent is explicitly given the right to consider "extenuating circumstances" and other information when deciding on or approving of a disciplinary action.

With the board member befuddled, I contacted the district office to ask exactly where this "zero tolerance policy" exists.  I got a request to FOIL the info, and I'm considering exactly what to ask for.

The language of discipline in schools has changed.  OSS (out-of-school suspension) was not in my vocabulary as a kid - you were suspended, or you were not.  It was always in school.  If a kid got kicked out, we called it "expelled," and I think it happened once in my school years.  Now we have OSS and ISS, and OSS is considered a viable option.  Let's see how that works, shall we?

This kid is out of school until he gets a hearing in a week or so.  He will get maybe two hours of tutoring a day, and unless his parents don't work, he will be otherwise unsupervised.  So by sending him home, the schools have committed to spending money on a tutor above and beyond what his teachers already cost, right?  And since he's accused of breaking the law, I assume that there is some possibility that in his free time he will roam the community and perhaps do something that will require police activity - also paid for by my tax dollars.  If the student was remanded to the school as a non-dangerous but disruptive student, he could get his work sent to him all day long and require neither tutors, nor police.

Sounds to me like the school district is foisting off its problems on the rest of us.  I've talked about the problems with OSS before, and I think it needs to change.  If a kid is a danger to the schools he needs to be out of there - but that probably means the police need to be involved.  I doubt there is a case where the kid is really a danger and some kind of professional intervention (mental health, police, whatever) is not needed.  Why can't you keep the rest of these kids in the building?  Why are they being sent home?  It doesn't appear to be mandated by law, and so far I can't find the actual "zero intelligence tolerance policy" which is taking things out of their hands . . . so why is the school washing its hands and putting the problem back in our laps?

Considering the number of administrators making more than $150,000 a year, I think they can find a way to do just that.  We're paying them a lot, and I would like to see them use those well-paid brains to come up with a better idea, like keeping kids in school.

Racism? orly?

Trustee Edgar Rodriguez dropped a very colorful ball during the circus that was the most recent Board of Education meeting. In amongst a series of bizarre votes and actions, some of which seem to have been made up on the spot by board members, Rodriguez gave the rest of the board the impression that he thought they were all racist. I'm sure I'll be accused of either being Eurocentric or hopelessly naive for saying so, but I didn't realize we had more than one race among the board members.

Middle School Renovation
Let's back up a bit. Edgar Rodriguez felt outnumberered on the Board of Education from the day he was elected, and from my conversations with him I believed it to be because the other members at the time were very conservative and didn't hold the same philosophies about taxation and education. The debate over the Middle School led at least two of the current members to run for the Board, and I figured that if anything, Edgar had made it into the majority of thought, but apparently the shift still left him out in the cold.

The details of the renovation have been discussed at recent BoE meetings, and last week a fellow Board member told me that Edgar was handing out information to the public that was "just flat-out wrong." In particular, he made notes in the margins of some financial statements that made claims about what the district currently owed that were incorrect - claims that were corrected at the most recent meeting by superintendent Maria Rice, and were also the focus of much of the shenanigans that occured.

To say that Edgar is not quite decided on the fate of the Middle School is both fair and understandable. He voted to move forward with renovation over building anew, a project that would have cost far more in the long run but less per year, but now he's expressing concerns about the senior citizens in New Paltz (although maybe this project will get them moving into Woodland Pond more quickly, so the first residents won't have to pay extra if the facility isn't filled up - a bizarre contract clause that the Woodland Pond Board thought appropriate to foist upon their neighbors . . . but, I digress). I would probably have trouble balancing the needs to the community, too, because the property tax model pits our children against our elderly. I get that.

Let's not let the public see this
At the last meeting, Rodriguez' ambivalence was a focus. Trustee Patrick Rausch, according to the New Paltz Times, wanted to move to executive session to work out the disagreement. That's a creative use of executive session if I ever saw one. I may just try it on the Village Planning Board. Oh, wait, that's right, they would ask me the legal justification for the motion and I'd either talk out my butt or sit there with my mouth agape, because you can't just go into executive session because you disagree. Public meetings are about public debate, right?

Then Rausch tried a different tack, suggesting that they close the meeting and enter a "retreat" to discuss their differences. The fact that they seriously discussed this possibility would lead me to believe that Rausch didn't make this idea up on the spot, but I'm still not convinced. It sounds to me like another way to dodge the Open Meetings Law, like when they denied Rodriguez the right to attend Facilities Committee meetings (even as a spectator) so that the meetings wouldn't have to be open to the public. This kind of secrecy makes me want to vote "no" on anything they bring before me - what could you possibly have to say to each other that you can't say in public? How do you intend on treating this man?

But . . . the race card?
Edgar Rodriguez, who left the meeting early after casting the only vote against not adjourning it, told his fellows trustees he would not go to a retreat with them unless they all attend the "Undoing Racism" course. He was later quoted as saying, ". . . I am getting differential treatment on the board. And I'm starting to believe that it is because of my racial ethnicity."

As I said above, I never thought of Edgar as being a member of a different race than the remainder of the school board. There are three races, I was taught, and they are characterized by physical differences. Edgar does not possess a high melanin content, broad nose and lips, and highly kinked hair; nor does he have an epicantic fold that changes the appearance of his eyes. Granted, his skin lacks the particularly pasty quality of mine, but it's no darker than that of my Italian friends, and I'm certain that I share a race with them.

Did nature evolve a race of people with a genetic predisposition for fluency in Spanish that I am not aware of? Well Dan Torres should be a member of that race and be getting similar treatment. In fact, each of the board members seems to occupy a different racial profile: woman, firefighter, entrepreneur, IBMer . . . aren't these all races? No?

I don't think Edgar is wrong to believe he's being picked on, but I think it's got nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or any of those qualities which he cannot control and from which genuine discrimination springs. Edgar has sat on this board long enough to see it swing from one end of the political continuum to the other and it change from almost entirely white men to a body diverse in ethnicity and representing both genders. I think that if he's still feeling like he's left out in the cold, that it might be more about how he behaves as a trustee of the Board of Education. It's about dispensing inaccurate information, the victim mentality, and not knowing how to conduct yourself when you hold a minority view in an elected body. If you want to be a kid, go trick-or-treating. We need adults handling our schools, thank you.

The Board of Education seems to be an illegally secretive body, but those secrets don't look like they have anything to do with race. I only wish that the much-needed shakeup on this Board could occur before the Middle School matter is voted on by the public, so that we can separate that question from these childish shenangins.

We need a clear plan for disciplining our kids

If you've ever watched Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader, you've probably been stumped by a fair amount of the questions that throw at the contestants. Some of them are bloody hard, but that's good - it prepares our kids for much tougher things, like reading the Code of Conduct for the New Paltz Central School District.

Some background: every year the Health Advisory Committee, a group of faculty, parents, and community members appointed by the Board of Education, review and revise the district's code of conduct. Then the Board reviews what they say, and approve some form of it.

What the actual Code ends up being is a Gordian knot of vague statements supported by endless appendices that is damned near impossible to decipher. The actual Code lays out what's expected, because it frames it in a positive light. However, this means that one might want to look up in a stressful hurry - say, what happens when you or your kid is accused of doing something wrong - you discover it all crammed in the back, as if it were an afterthought. To make things even more fun, the list of prohibited conduct is one appendix, and the consequences comprise another one entirely. What this means is that you have to find the bad behavior in Attachment C, and then cross-reference it against the list of punishments in Attachment D.

I'm sure that all of these hard-working volunteers have the very best of intentions, but it makes me recall the joke about a camel being a horse built by committee. And the organization of the document hides some even more troublesome facts.

When I was a kid, it was universally accepted that there could be no more terrible punishment than having to sit quietly in a room, doing nothing, for an entire school day. Okay, maybe some schoolwork if you were lucky enough to have a teacher send some down (and you'd be begging for that to happen after a couple of hours), but no talking, standing, moving, singing, sleeping, leaving, or enjoying was permitted. There were always tales about that really bad kid who decked the principle and got expelled, but that was serious stuff - it never happened to someone you knew or anything.

I'm finding that in the New Paltz Code of Conduct, the phrase "permanent suspension" (which sounds like Newspeak for "expelled") is popular - it's a listed consequence for twenty-four different offenses, ranging from violence and theft to lying and using an MP3 player. I emailed the superintendant on September 18 requesting some fairly detailed information about how often this and related consequences (suspension from school, as opposed to in school suspension) were actually meted out last school year; as of this writing I haven't even heard whether or not she intends on supplying me with those data.

Removing a misbehaving child from the classroom is often a good idea, and in extreme circumstances I'm sure it's useful to keep them out of the building, too. But in a world were parents have to work, being sent home isn't so much a punishment as it is an abdication of responsibility. If a kid brings a weapon to school, of course the first priority is safety, but shouldn't the second be to figure out what's up with this kid? That might be harder if they're, oh, wandering the streets for an extra four hours a day (figuring two hours a day is being spent with a district-supplied tutor). If it's serious enough to keep the kid out of school, it should also be serious enough to keep the kid in a juvenile hall or psychiatric facility. Any kid that isn't in one of those categories shouldn't be sent home as a reward for "Engaging in any willful act that disrupts the normal operation of the school community." (prohibited conduct A9).

So my concerns about the existing Code of Conduct are three:

1. It's so badly organized as to appear to be deliberately confusing,
2. It permits removal of children from school when that may be detrimental to both the child and the community, and
3. It provides so much latitude in meting out punishments that a child could be expelled for lying (prohibited conduct D1).

Let's keep the kids in the classroom, or at least the school, unless it's dangerous to do so - and get those kids the help they need, instead. Understanding that the current Code provides flexibility so that an administrator won't find her hands tied when she needs to act, let's take another look at whether or not the punishment fits the crime. And to make any of that possible, let's make some real changes to how the Code reads, so that's it's understandable to the layman instead of the lawyer.

Otherwise, what are we teaching our kids?

7%

Due to state budget woes, the school budget process schedule will be much earlier this year. Last Wednesday (February 4), Superintendent Rice presented her draft budget at the board of education meeting. The summary and power point are now posted on the district website.

The proposed increase in the tax levy is 6.99%. Some board members (in particular, Don Kerr and Patrick Rausch) reacted that in order to get the tax levy down to 5%, the budget would need further cuts and/or the district would need to generate more revenues. Steve Greenfield noted that while 7% is not a low figure, in comparison, many districts in the region are now considering double digit increases and we need to remember we are dealing with public education, not a consumption budget (e.g. the district can’t stop going the movies and out to dinner, like a household can). Rod Dressel pointed out, it is also very important to note that the increased levy is primarily a result of less money coming from the state, not more spending in the district.

This coming Wednesday, Feb 11, the board will continue their discussion of the budget. (Reminder: this is the same night as the Middle School renovation study presentation.) On February 25, the board is seeking public input and will host a community forum at the high school. Maria Rice will submit her revised budget on March 4.

In terms of cuts, there is one in particular I would argue against: the $7,000 allotted to the food services line which is/was meant to facilitate progression towards healthier foods served to the children in our schools. While $7K is not chump change, in a 48 million dollar budget, it is somewhat symbolic… and its retraction is very indicative of a lack of commitment to providing better food in our schools.

Areas where I would like to see more cuts are in administrative lines… I am sure we could unearth at least $7K in the board of education ($105K) and superintendent ($264K) lines.

As far as revenues, one of my biggest concerns is the proposal to start charging building use fees to non-school groups that use school facilities after 6pm on weekdays and on the weekends. *I believe* it was stated that these fees will be $30-45 per hour (it is not in the power point…). This could have a major impact on civic and sport activities in New Paltz and I am very concerned about the ripple effects this will have on the community.

These are just a few of the things that popped out at me upon my first perusal of the draft budget. I urge anyone concerned about the tax levy and the delivery of public education in New Paltz to take a look, and to then show up on February 25 for the community forum. The superintendent and school board have asked for our input – about spending cuts and revenue generation – and we need to take them up on their offer to listen to us.

(ps. Check out the file name of the power point. Very funny.)

One Week... Three Important Meetings

In the next week there are three VERY important events for New Paltz town/village/school district residents to attend.

Two involve the schools:

what: Superintendent Unveiling Early Draft of 09-10 School District Budget
when: Wednesday, February 4th, 7pm
where: High School Audion

what: Middle School Renovation Feasibility Study Presentation
when: Wednesday, February 11th, 7pm
where: High School Audion

more info at: http://www.newpaltz.k12.ny.us/newpaltz/site/default.asp
and... http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=59497249663

One has to do with the Town Master Plan:

what: New Paltz Comprehensive Plan Public Workshop
when: Saturday, February 7th, 10am-12pm
where: SUNY New Paltz Student Union, Multi-purpose Room

more info at: http://www.townofnewpaltz.org and...
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=58639699336

and if you are home right now and it is before 7pm on Monday, February 2nd... go check out the Martin Luther King Jr Day Celebration at SUNY New Paltz, Lecture Center 102

more info here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=59497249663#/event.php?eid=40279018289

So many meetings, so little time! The fun never ends!

A 6 Man Board (We Need a Mom!)

Laura Walls resigned from the school board this week to take a job with Eliot Auerbach in the Ulster County comptroller's office. Laura was also the board vice president so that position is also now vacant.

The current board now consists of six men: David Dukler (President), Rod Dressel, Steve Greenfield, Don Kerr, Patrick Rausch, and Edgar Rodriquez.

These six men can:
* Leave the seat vacant until the May elections
* Appoint someone to the open seat now
* Authorize a special election for the seat

As far as the VP seat, these six men can:
* Leave it open
* Vote for a new VP

Any actions will be taken in executive session, I believe even the Superintendent will not be present.

It is too close to May to hold a special election. Given the prevalence of 4-3 votes on this board (Laura being in the "4" group), my suspicion is the board will appoint someone. Is it even possible these six men could find someone that they all could (well, at least four of them) agree on?

And what about the VP slot? I suspect they may just let that one go till May, maybe even July.

The Dressel and Kerr seats are up this year, and if they decide they want to stick around, they will need to run (and win) in May to keep their positions. Laura's term also would have been up, so that means we have three school board seats to fill in May. Will they appoint someone just to fill the slot till May, someone that may not even choose to run this Spring? Will that be a prerequisite to appease all parties?

Only three (I think) of these six men have school-age children attending New Paltz schools. Only one has elementary school age kids (again, I think). In my opinion, we need a New Paltz mom! (Or two, or three... but good golly I'll take at least one at this point.)

(This post is also at The New Paltz School Renovation)

Meet Me at the High School Manana!

Can you believe it has been nearly a year since the board voted to keep the Middle School where it is now? What progress has been made on the renovation project, really? And now, we have to be concerned that the funding for the project could be reallocated?!? Please come to tomorrow's school board meeting - Wednesday, January 14th, 7pm at the high school - to speak during public comment to help ensure the money for the Middle School Project stays intact. Or, just show up and be in the room -- our power is in our numbers!

To Plan or Not To Plan!

To plan or not to plan is not really the question. Of course we should plan! But, it strikes me as problematic that both our town and school district are having such a difficult time answering simple questions about what exactly they are planning and specifically how they are paying for it all.

Amid the ethics questions raised about Ken Wishnick’s new job as Town Planner, the question of precisely what the job will actually entail has been lost. As reported in the New Paltz Times, Mr. Wishnick himself is not really sure what the position involves. While the town has already approved this new position in the budget, and a civil service job description has been written, Wishnick states, “the town board will decide the role of the town planner and it has not yet done so.” How can this be so?

The town is not the only local elected body lacking a clear articulation of what a planner could do for them/us. The school district is considering hiring a consultant to create a long-term plan. I don’t mean to sound cute, but what exactly are we planning? We have a building inventory, and we have a forthcoming educational learning plan to be constructed by the superintendent. Is this long term planning a synthesis of these two documents? Or is it more? We need additional information about what a consultant will provide: Does this involve data that has already been compiled and/or that could clearly be assembled by existing staff? What existing studies (that are sitting on a shelf or otherwise) will be integrated into this planning? How come the superintendent and her staff are not assigned the task of conducting this type of planning? And what will a paid consultant value-add to this planning process, exactly?

There are a few things on this topic I feel pretty strongly about: One, I am concerned about shipping this job out to someone external to the inner workings of the district and our community. If this process is to move forward, we need to be clear, those that are most intimate with the data, that is, the teachers, staff, parents, and the community, must play an integral role. Perhaps the volunteer Building Level School Climate Action Teams, whose task will be completed in February, would be willing to stay on and work on this project. Given the state of the economy, any tasks that can be completed by current staff or volunteers should be done so in house (so to speak). Further, while the district plans, so does the Village and Town of New Paltz and the rest of the towns that are included in the district. Any planning project needs to include input and collaboration with these local municipalities.

Second, we need better projections for our school age population. In the board’s pamphlet handed out at the Middle School forums last winter, there is chart of the projections from 2008 to 2070 which show (within the margin of error) a tiny decline in student population and reads,

“The district has conducted multiple* demographic studies, which have revealed varied statistics. After careful examination and comparison of the various studies against actual figures, enrollment is projected to be approximately 2,200 to 2,300 students annually in the next five years.”

I would like to see a very simple, straightforward analysis of the projections of the school age population for at least the last ten years to see if the current source(s) for this information is reliable. As a parent of kindergarteners in 2005 and 2008, I am highly skeptical that the current sources are dependable. In 2005, kindergarteners found themselves in classrooms of 24-26 students because the estimates were off. This past May, an additional kindergarten class was added to the expected number for this past September when pre-registration showed the estimates to be low. In August, an additional third grade class was added at the very, very, very last minute (for the earlier cohort of 2005 kindergartens) because of the inaccuracy of the projections. As Yogi Berra said, “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” But I think we can do a better job. And, we need reliable data in order to move forward with a comprehensive plan.

Third, the Middle School location is non-negotiable. As reported in the New Paltz Times on December 11th, school board member Don Kerr, while supportive of hiring a consultant, was concerned with the time frame. If the study is to take eighteen months, “…what if the planner’s final report contradicted their decision to renovate the middle school? Kerr said he did not like that possibility.” Nor do I. Any district wide planning needs to be crystal-clear, the Middle School is staying put – this issue is absolutely not on the table. Last winter, our community (including the Village Boards and Town Boards) came out in full force to let the school board know that the Middle School – not just any one of our schools, but the Middle School – is to stay put. There is no wiggle room. (And the study needs to take a lot less time than eighteen months. As my dad use to say, “While you plan, it happens.”)

However, there are implications for the future of the Middle School site that impact the wider district. Two obvious ones are the location of the kitchen (there is only one kitchen that actually is suited to cook food, the rest merely distribute food, and the cooking kitchen is currently at the Middle School) and the old district office of which I don’t even know is possible to renovate and perhaps needs to be leveled. At the September meeting where Rhinebeck Associates, the firm hired to evaluate the Middle School, presented their work to date before the board, the firm was clear that they are only looking at the Middle School, not at the district as a whole. Is this a logical way to proceed? I am not sure, nonetheless I am not open to a process that will impede the guarantee of the Middle School staying put, along with the planning dollars promised to the endeavor. The Middle School is actually the only project even close to shovel-ready given the work already done by Rhinebeck Associates, which means we should be moving faster and focusing more on the Middle School since it is the only site realistically available for potential Obama stimulus dollars in the next year.

Which leads to my last point: Given the state budget cuts, how much money are we talking about and where will the district get the money for this service? It is my understanding that the money is proposed to be taken from a budget line that has been unmistakably allocated for study of the Middle School renovation, including an assessment of both the current status of the facilities and how to implement the actual renovation. It is unacceptable to use these dollars for different purposes. From the district website, the results of the vote to focus on the renovation of the Middle School are recapped:

“Passing the resolution means the Board will move ahead to flesh out the specifics of a plan to renovate and reconstruct portions of the Middle School using the latest “green” and energy-efficient technologies. The Board will engage professional architectural, engineering, and surveying firms to provide detailed plans and costs* that will be shared with the community as the discussion moves forward.”

While only a portion of this budget line has been spent so far, that is, the initial fact finding portion: the state of the facilities, it is the only part that has been completed, and has not even been reported to the public yet. (FYI – scheduled for February 18th .) The remaining dollars are for the remaining stages – not just current status but implementation. Implementation dollars for the Middle School project should not and cannot be pilfered from this budget line.

If you would like the school board to hear your opinions on this matter, please attend their next meeting on January 7th, 7pm at the high school.

* Emphasis added

Relevant links: blog about the New Paltz Middle School