Troiano argues that there is no research to suggest the zero tolerance policy is successful in stopping students from repeat offenses and that expulsion is, to his knowledge, a blanket punishment for "at least a full year."
The superintendent, other administrators, and board members, many of whom have served the district for decades, always offer explanations on the contrary to these key argument points whenever Troiano brings up his zero-tolerance opposition at meetings–not to mention, varying punishments resulting from the due process expulsion hearing process can be found in old board meeting minutes. They also point out zero tolerance is federally mandated in order to receive Safe Schools funding, which Troiano continues to question.
Troiano wrote regarding some of the issues he brings up that he "can’t be sure because the district is obstructing the PCYC from obtaining this public information." The thing is, he does attend meetings and does ask questions–and repeatedly gets answers–so while I understand he has a position against zero tolerance policy, I'm puzzled why he resorts to ignoring the answers he is given at meetings, other than to make his view more appealing and to stir up controversy using his organization.
While I do like how Troiano writes in the comments section of his blog post that PCYC is working on a research paper on zero tolerance at DV, with his publicized preconceived opposition and his dismissiveness toward the answers he gets at board meetings, I'd be wary about the paper ultimately just fitting his own opinion. I also think the group, which is powerless compared to the school board that supports the policy, could more efficiently focus its efforts elsewhere than spending time butting heads.
Posts
11 comments:
Thanks Ryan for the analysis. I see how it can be construed that I am ignoring their answers. But I assure you it is not the case. I would love to ask many follow-ups and debate points even further at these meetings, but I chose not to push the issue at this point.
For example:
I ask: How do you know this works?
They say: The policy works because rarely does a student come back to break the rules again.
I say: Capital Punishment can achieve this too. What's to say a lesser punishment could not have the same effect? And where is the proof of any deterrence? If this policy did work as a deterrent, we wouldn't have had to expel two dozen students this year.
I ask: Why not leave the administration discretion?
They say: There is discretion, because the board can decide how long the punishment can be.
I say: There is no discretion because breaking the relevant rule must result in an expulsion and the majority (not all, as I have learned) are for at least a full year.
I ask: Why do we need to have this, and why must it be expanded?
They say: Zero tolerance is a federal mandate and we need it for funding.
I say: You can have zero tolerance without mandatory expulsion. And I cannot find anything about this mandate in my research so far. Most importantly: there obviously exists no mandate about alcohol offenses. That is why I am writing about this in the first place.
As you can see, I don't ignore their answers, I just think they are hardly answers at all.
Also worthy to note I have never presented any opinion of mine as that of the Pike County Youth Coalition. The Coalition's blog is a means to share opinions. And I have not mentioned PCYC once at a board meeting.
My opinion on zero-tolerance was made after I independently spent hours researching the topic. I actually supported it for quite a while. I guess that makes me a flip-flopper, which I would rather be than blindly follow the DVSD on this issue. I came to the realization that expelling students who are not a danger or disruption to others is generally an awful idea - as is how this whole policy is carried out.
The research paper PCYC is working on will come to its own conclusions. As a reporter (as you like to point out) for many years, I believe I am proficient at achieving an objective end to a question. In addition, there will be input from many people. And many people will be authoring it - not just me. The project is designed to gather the facts, take in various perspectives, and then turn out recommendations as to how best serve the students and solve this problem. If that happens to be against my own opinion, that's fine.
August 2nd 11am at the Dimmick - a round table discussion about this topic and teen pregnancy. If you are interested in attending, email pcyc@pikeyouth.org. We will be providing lunch.
I really apologize for the length of this comment, but I just don't see your welcomed criticism as very fair. I would rather have read a counter-argument to my own consisting of more than repeating what school officials say.
On your first point, I think you're overlooking the decades of experience of the board members and administrators who enact and enforce the policy. Last year’s inflated number of two-dozen students is a fluke (hopefully, anyway) caused by the random prescription-drug-use outbreak.
Your second point has already been refuted: expulsion simply is not a blanket yearlong punishment. Since you don't believe what Dr. Finan continues to say, take a look at the May agenda. Four students can reapply at the second marking period, one at the third, one at the fourth, and one at the end of next year. That's variation, and mostly less than a year. Keep in mind we’ve been attending meetings only two years, and even in that time I'm sure you weren't archiving expulsion lengths. While as always you’re entitled to your opinion, this point doesn’t justify it when you’ve gotten contrary research that is still conveniently brushed aside.
On your third point, e-mail Dr. Finan or ask at a meeting before you publicize your own "hunch." I'm sure she'll help you: she and Connie Kaden always reply to me within a few days on board/policy questions. Aside from that, alcohol is a drug, and it's an illegal one for any public school student to possess. This isn't "expanding" a policy; it's enforcing one that already exists. And it calls for a due process hearing to keep students who are “a danger or disruption to others” (i.e driving home drunk from dances or handing out pills to other students) out of school, and to punish such contributors to a major societal problem by temporarily barring them from the social privileges of school.
Perhaps PCYC could do better by working on drug prevention programs. Policy evaluation 101: look at power, priority, and position firmness of your players. Whether or not we like it, the board, especially the TU members, have the power. And it certainly seems Bob and company are extremely firm and place drug issues high on their list of priorities. Absolutely nothing anyone can say or do will change their power (until an election), and there’s an extremely slim chance of reversing their firmness on the issue. A research paper, even if experts wrote it, realistically probably wouldn’t change this policy.
Let’s not lose sight of the real problem here: students use drugs, and they use them at school. Surely there are better ways to combat that problem than picking nits with the board in a paper or spending a non-profit organization’s money on a short-notice lunch for a small, elite group of teens to talk about it, especially when the opportunity to discuss these issues already exists at the public (and always unattended) safety committee meetings, which even have the experts and policymakers themselves on hand.
(As you know, I’m already busy on the 2nd.)
Actually, according to board policy there is no "zero tolerance" drug policy.
There is a federally mandated and district policy of a 1 year minimum suspension for bringing a firearm to school (Originally enacted in 1994, this law was later rolled into the NCLB (TITLE 20 > CHAPTER 70 > SUBCHAPTER IV—21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS) where the "mandate" exists today.
There is no Federally prescribed punishment for tobacco, alcohol, or drug use or possession. None.
The district weapon policy echos that of many districts, it has been expanded to cover all weapons or potential weapons and look-alikes with a soft prescription for a one-year expulsion. That one year expulsion is not in stone; I assume in deference to the Lyons v. Penn Hills PA court decision where it was decided that the administrators should be given discretion on expulsion (therefore our weapon clause reads "The Superintendent may recommend modifications of such expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis." There must also be special consideration given to special eduction students (a clause in our policy that nods to the Lyons v. Penn Hills decision). It is an interesting decision, well worth reading. It clearly reminds boards that there is a requirement for them to develop policies that are "reasonable."
The court decided that zero tolerance was not a reasonable policy, and therefore the Penn Hills School Board had overreached.
I disagree on the power of the board. The board must hear public comment. The board must note letters written to it. The board must act on advice of counsel. The board seems close to overreaching here.
We are a nation of laws. At present, from what I can find, a policy that demands zero tolerance expulsion for drug use is unreasonable (according to the reasoning in Lyons). I would argue that by law:
-School administrators must have discretion to decide if the severity of the infraction and the circumstances warrant bringing a student to an expulsion hearing.
-This must be done on a case by case basis.
ryan: did something happen between you and the pcyc? you seem to be attacking them rather a lot lately. i thought you were one of the founding members?
That's a good question. First, I hope my words in this post and these comments are not viewed as an attack on PCYC, but rather a sifter and interpretation on what Nick Troiano had to say in his blog post.
I removed myself from PCYC firstly because I disagreed with the non-profit organization's management. Before PCYC had done anything for the community (and from watching its website and the local news for the past few months, it still hasn't), hundreds of dollars were spent on unnecessary administrative costs.
I also disagreed with the scope of PCYC as an umbrella organization, spreading itself too thin, rather than focusing on a particular issue to operate more efficiently and get more done. Economic opportunity, civic engagement, research and policy, schools and education, social opportunity, youth interests, and community service are all committees inside PCYC, when each one should really be its own organization.
I also disagree on a philosophical level with the political nature of the organization. I believe politics and non-profits should not mix, and I believe more good can be achieved by avoiding politics. It saddens me that politics play such a large, often inhibiting role in our own school district. Not only is civic engagement at PCYC's core, as demonstrated by Troiano's comment above the organization prioritizes writing a paper lobbying policy changes over tackling the problem without politics, head-on by funding drug prevention programs or doing something similar.
Finally, I had a serious personal problem with Troiano and after months of trying to overcome it, it only got deeper, to the point that in combination with my issues above I no longer wanted to be a part of PCYC.
Well that's certainly an unnecessary subject and attack.
These administrative costs you speak of are incurred by ANY non-profit organization by their own nature. They were filing for incorporation and tax-exempt status (two expenses). Without that, we would not have recently received a $1,200 grant from the United Way. And in the future, we could not apply for government funding, as we are in talks with our state representatives about.
Secondly, the organization is not political. We advocate for youth. Civic engagement is one of our main missions because there are too few people like us, and too many people like those who are doing drugs and getting pregnant out there. Civic engagement is crucial to our democracy. A blog named after yourself used to grind an axe - not so much.
Why don't you write a blog post about why I cannot update our Website about what we have been doing, Balton? We still don't have the necessary software that costs hundreds of dollars. After you were relieved as Webmaster for posting a vicious personal attack against me on the site the night of our community fundraiser (which almost resulted in legal action), we could no longer update it. That's something we're close to resolving, but not quite there. So sorry you are not in the loop about what we are doing for the community.
You absolutely not only have an agenda against PCYC, but also me- so much so it is becoming apparent to your readers.
You write about a lot which you don't know about since you left. I suggest you end the conversation there because this is not what RB for DV says it is about and I don't think you want to continue this personal saga in front of the community.
I didn't think it was unnecessary to answer Emily's question.
You seem to be capable of updating the website with your opinions, so I figured it could also be updated with what PCYC has done for the community. If I write a lot about what I don't know, perhaps keep the community enlightened and that wouldn't be a problem.
You are both huge hypocrites of one another. Just give it up. Nick you post things on your PCYC blog that are your opinions as does Ryan. Just get over it you both do the same things that the other discourages.
And btw Nick it doesnt cost hundreds of dollars maintain a website its quite simple and has no cost if you do it in the right way.
You tell Ryan to stop the conversation there but because it isnt what RB for DV stands for yet you posted an unnecessary comment (again hypocritical of Ryan who also posted an unnecessary comment), so is that what you stand for?
It's embarassing to see someone who obviously peaked in high school still so emotionally attached. You must have had a very difficult and lonely freshman year up in there.
It is pathetic (yet mildly amusing) the way you two continue to pansy-slap one another with polysyllabic words. It makes one long for the days when men were men and took to the village green with fisticuffs, to settle their differences.
Mrs. C
Just because the girl of your dreams likes Nick better than you, Ryan, doesn't mean that you need to be acting like this. It's really time you learn to get over that.
How does this petty, stupid, childish argument help unify DV, like your goals of the blog are? It doesn't. Grow up, both of you, and move on with your life. The DV community doesn't want you, or care for your opinion, Ryan. Just go away!
I hope the two anonymous commenters understand why I still take an interest in our community, in which I grew up and into which I invested myself deeply: http://rbfordv.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-do-i-do-what-i-do.html .
I apologize to anyone who takes my comments about PCYC as an attack. I have not and would not have brought up my issues with PCYC if I had not been asked. I was trying to honestly answer the question posed. I do believe the question and the answer are valid discussion for this blog since PCYC has published its opinions about issues affecting DV and the organization has a schools and education committee. If you found the answer to be attacking, please consider calmly reading it over, and I hope you will find it is nothing more than a truthful explanation from my point of view. In any event, I will take heed and try to be more careful when articulating ideas in the future.
While I still have trouble seeing my opinions in that explanation as an attack, I'm unsure what to make of the commenters who consider my words an attack and go on to mock me for caring about the community that raised me and for extremely serious problems I've had in my personal life. With the exception of mentioning in my answer to Emily's comment that a personal problem was part of the reason I quit PCYC, I have kept my personal life out of this blog and intend to continue that. I hope that commenters, whose words I won't delete but who I ask to always to identify themselves, will kindly do the same.
Post a Comment