Since the implementation of the Zero-tolerance policy in Texas schools in the wake of the 1995 Safe Schools Act, Texas students with no history of behavioral issues who commit any minor infraction of the rules, have been subjected to harsh punishments previously reserved only for those who were seen as “problem students”. For example, in Katy I.S.D, a twelve year old male student with no previous disciplinary problems was issued a ticket by the KISD police for assault with bodily injury and sent to a DAEP (disciplinary alternative education program) for six months for soft-tossing a tennis ball to a friend that accidentally brushed a female student’s nose. Granted, a reprimand of some sort was certainly in order for his actions. After all, tossing any object in a school hallway is, with good reason, against the rules. However, a ticket and a six month-stint in a DAEP were excessive to say the least. The outlandish manner in which this situation was handled speaks to the unnecessary rigidity with which children are handled in the Texas education system. Students are being held to a higher standard of behavior than adults!

According to Texas State Representative Dora Olivo, “These ‘zero tolerance’ policies, though presumably guided by a sincere desire to maintain school safety and classroom order, can result in a blind and mechanical administration of codes of conduct with dramatic consequences for the students involved.” In the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, Representative Olivo authored House Bill 171, relating to the consideration of mitigating factors in determining appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against a public school student. This policy amends section 37.001(a) of the Texas Education Code to require a school district’s student code of conduct to specify that consideration will be given to certain mitigating factors, in each decision concerning a student’s suspension, removal to a disciplinary alternative education program, or expulsion. The bill extends the requirement to have the student code of conduct specify that consideration will be given to those factors also in a decision concerning a student’s placement in a juvenile justice alternative education program, and to specify that such consideration will be given in each decision concerning such disciplinary actions regardless of whether the decision concerns a mandatory or discretionary action.

The H.B. 171 bill analysis indicates that, prior to its introduction, school districts were authorized, but not required to consider mitigating factors such as self-defense, intent or lack of intent at the time the student engaged in certain conducts, a student’s disciplinary history, or a disability that substantially impairs the student’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. Such factors are clearly relevant and consideration of such factors is clearly necessary in making a fair and impartial decision as to the manner in which a student is disciplined.

H.B.171 was passed and has been rewritten into the student code of conducts by the boards of trustees for each independent school district in the state of Texas with an effective date of September 1, 2009. It applied beginning with the 2009-2010 school year.

Currently, the state does not have a plan in place to evaluate the success or failure of these changes to the education code. However, it is likely that an analysis of the number of suspensions, expulsions, and students being sent to DAEPs in contrast to the level of violence and disruption on Texas school campuses will provide an accurate picture of the effects of this new legislation. Taking such a measure would also have the potential to encourage a re-humanization of the discipline system in Texas schools—a necessary characteristic that has been missing for well over a decade.

It has been a long-standing practice in the court system to treat juveniles differently from adults – and for good reason. While they may be physically mature, adolescents are not miniature adults; their brains are still developing in areas such as impulse control and judgment.

In most cases, juveniles are not subject to the adversarial court system of adults and are treated as developing individuals in need of rehabilitation rather than retribution. Yet some judges, such as Louisiana Judge Mark Doherty, believe that denying a jury trial to a juvenile who is facing a confinement of greater than six months is a violation of due process.

The question is: Does the juvenile justice system function as it was intended – a rehabilitative system to keep adolescents from becoming adult violators? Or is it simply a miniature adult prison system? Perhaps it is something in between.

Yesterday, the Louisiana Supreme Court decided they are not yet ready to give up on the current juvenile justice system. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the current system’s denial of jury trials for juveniles in favor of a system that allows the judge to act as “finder of fact” and take into consideration social, behavioral and environmental factors when determining whether or not an adolescent is delinquent and what rehabilitative measures are appropriate.

Last Wednesday, in his State of the City address, New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an imminent and significant change to the city’s juvenile justice system: the Department of Juvenile Justice will combine with the Administration for Children’s Services.

Some media outlets, including The New York Times, have interpreted this move as a signal that the city intends to send fewer of its teenagers to jail, opting for a more therapeutic, community-oriented approach. Recent reports have painted a bleak picture of the juvenile justice system in the state of New York, citing recidivism rates well above the national average. Within the state’s youth prisons thrives a “culture of violence”, one report said, with frequent broken bones and sexual assaults. The Bloomberg administration’s new approach, effective immediately, will attempt to deal with some of these shortcomings.

Rather than being sent to prison, some offenders will now remain in their neighborhoods under the supervision of child welfare. For some, this means New York City is “going soft on crime,” but Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs refuted these claims. Essentially, Gibbs said that the new approach to juvenile crime in the city of New York could not be worse than the previous one; combining the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Administration of Children’s Services will place more emphasis on improvements in home life and education, simultaneously saving the city a substantial amount of money. An offender who might otherwise spend the rest of her life in the penal system has a chance, under the new structure, to return to society better equipped to avoid criminal activity as an adult because she committed a crime as a juvenile.

Washington State Senator Rosa Franklin has proposed legislation that would discontinue use of terms that negatively identify children such as “at risk” and “free lunch recipients” and replace them with more positive terms such as “Children at Hope.”

Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin says negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success and she’s not a bit concerned that people will be confused by her proposed rewrite of the 54 places in state law where words like “at risk” and “disadvantaged” are used. The bill has gotten a warm welcome among fellow lawmakers, state officials and advocacy groups.

“We really put too many negatives on our kids,” says Franklin, who is the state Senate’s president pro tem. “We need to come up with positive terms.”

Republican legislators have challenged the program on pragmatic grounds:

“It’s not the label, it’s the people who show up to help (children) that make the difference,” he says. “What helps is a smart, well structured program, that has funding and credibility.”

The use of such terms may not only be ineffective but risk harmful unintended consequences. Juvenile justice has a long and ignominious history with euphemisms. The harmful effects of labels were recognized by the founders of the juvenile courts. In the 19th century, legislation began referring to children convicted of crime as ‘juvenile delinquents’ to distinguish them from adult ‘criminals’ and to the proceedings to incarcerate them as ‘adjudications’ rather than criminal ‘trials.’ This unobjectionable and seemingly innocuous change in nomenclature, carrying with it the decision to treat the proceedings as civil adjudications rather than criminal trials, was intended to reduce the stigma of the terms and judicially mandate a rehabilitative mission. It’s most lasting effect was to strip children of the constitutional protections in criminal trials that they would otherwise enjoy. The future of children accused of criminal activity was often left almost wholly to the whim of juvenile judges. By 1967, in In re Gault, the mistake was apparent enough for the Supreme Court to intervene. The lewd phone call that would have cost an adult ‘criminal’ at most a $50 fine would have sent 15-year-old Jerry Gault into state custody at the Arizona Reformatory school until his 21st birthday - a 7-year sentence not mandated by any sentencing guideline or statute but all because he was called a ‘juvenile delinquent’ instead of a ‘criminal defendant.’

No obvious harm looms in Senator Franklin’s proposal and she is absolutely correct that labels matter. I’m ‘at hope’ that if adopted, unintended ‘at hopeful’ consequences will be the unfortunate legacy of the bill.

• State. Sen. Rosa Franklin, Labels can shape children – and our attitudes toward them, News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) (January 22, 2010)
• Donna Gordon Blankinship, Wash. lawmaker wants to banish negative language

We’ve been watching news reports detailing the catastrophic damage in Haiti with special concern for the country’s children. The Center for Children, Law and Policy recently published Children, Law and Disasters (ABA) analyzing the legal framework in the United States in responding after Hurricane Katrina. The impact of the earthquake in Haiti is far worse. In the wake of such devastation, one wonders whether the rule of law is felt at all and legal analysis must take a back seat to the efforts of first responders.

Ann Veneman, the executive direct of Unicef, offered a good summary of the issues in taking first steps in responding to the needs of children in natural disasters in an interview with Charlie Rose.

What you worry about in these situations is, are children displaced from their families. Were their parents killed? Are they alone on the streets?

So one of the things you want to do is to make sure that they are protected, that they’re in a safe place, and that people are helping to find family members so that they aren’t subjected to trafficking or exploitation. So that’s one very important thing.

I mean, obviously, the immediate means for medical care, food, and clean water, and sanitation. We’re very concerned about the spread of disease, particularly childhood diseases like diarrheal diseases which can sap the system of nutrition, making children very weak.

And I think that clearly, in the aftermath of a huge tragedy like this, disease and disease spread is something we’re very concerned about which could cause additional deaths. So supplies getting in quickly, food, medical assistance, shelter, and clean water.

Such disasters naturally engender an outflowing of support and charitable donation. Those of us too distant to physically lend a helping hand are nevertheless instrumental in making financial contributions and focusing the world’s attention on what can be done to ease the damage and help in reconstruction.

We’ve collected information on the various ways people interested in helping children can make a difference with whatever gifts, skills and resources they may have. Due to the logistical difficulty of transporting goods and the damage to the port, monetary donations are most appropriate.

Organizations Active in Haiti

• Washington Post: A List of Charitable Organizations Active in Haiti
• Today Show: A List of Charitable Organizations Active in Haiti

Donations by Text
Donations by Text have already raised millions. For example, texting “HAITI” to “90999″ will create a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill.