Fair and Equitable Free and Public Education system for all students.

As I return from the Equal Justice Initiative's Peace and Justice Summit and grand opening of the Legacy Museum and the Peace and Justice Memorial, I am reflecting on the entire experience and I am full. I feel as if I am ready to birth a new movement, but it is not new-- more like revived, renewed, recycled. This movement is to champion educational justice through the lens of humanity and equity.  Although the physical journey through the museum and memorial was short in distance, it was a long journey in time, spanning back over 200 years. The journey shined light on how far we have come and how far we still need to go.

As I walked through the memorial and read the reasons men, women and children were lynched,  it became apparent the lynch mobs' goals were not merely to kill an individual, but,  instead,  to kill the seeds of equality, justice, fairness, prosperity and humanity.   Some of the reasons individuals were lynched ranged from refusing to vacate their own property, organizing sharecropers, writing a note, testifying against a white man,  registering Blacks to vote, and complaining about being discriminated against.    As I reflect on the past and present state of and experiences in many communities of color,  it could be argued, the mobs in part achieved their goals.   Today, in 2018, there still remains remnants of the terror that lynchings imparted on an entire race. The remnants of inequality, injustice, greed, and inhumanity are embedded in many of our institutions and structures.

As I walked through the museum,  I was overwhelmed by the lack of humanity reflected in photos of those who gathered to bear witness to lynchings and attacks, as if it were entertainment. There were men, women and even children in the crowds.   As I looked at the crowds, it became even more evident to me that passive observance is passive consent.  Sitting or standing in silence does not make us less guilty of the deplorable acts we witness.   Not directly participating is not innocence. 

Yes, lynchings are no more, but we continue to grapple with institutions and structures that achieve the same outcomes as lynchings,  including, but not limited to:  inequality, injustice, unfairness, and dramatically limiting access to education and financial prosperity for people of color.  The same agenda with different methods of attainment.  There continues to be work to be done!

As an educator, advocate, and social justice warrior, I attended the Equal Justice Initiative's Peace and Justice Summit, as well the museum and memorial grand openings to gain tools and insight to continue working to ensure all students, especially students of color,  have access to a high quality, fair and equitable free and public education system.  For me,  this means educational professional are supported and held accountable to professional standards; policies and practices are monitored to ensure fairness; success for all students is at the center of all decisions; elected officials are held accountable for desired outcomes for all students; best practices become memorialized in policies as the norm and expectation;  identified injustices and inequities are directly addressed and remedied; and lastly, the students with the greatest needs receive the appropriate levels of support and services.  To do this important work, leaders must be results driven, continuously challenge status quos and mental models,  master the critical and hard conversations, set professional expectations with accountability, advocate for resources and services, and invest in capacity building.

I am excited to continue this work with social justice advocates, near and far.  I highly recommend a visit to the Equal Justice Initiative's Legacy Museum and Peace and Justice Memorial.  For those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it!

Committed to the work,

ShaKenya Edison

Missouri's New Law: School fights could be a felony?

For purposes of clarity, I differentiate between a mutual student fight and those where students are viciously attacked with no provocation or those where weapons are used to cause serious bodily injury. Also, it is necessary to mention that both causing physical injury and/or emotional distress is serious.This post should be interpreted to make light of violence of any form or bullying, and the effects of them.

Under Missouri's new statute, students caught fighting could face third-degree assault charges and up to four years in prison. For the state, "third-degree assault" means causing injury to another person. It is also reported that if a student experiences "emotional distress" as a result of harassment caused by bullying, the student accused of the harassment may also be charged with a felony. 

The determining factor of "caused injury" is often a subjective conclusion which is influenced by the personal beliefs, biases, and life experiences of the person making the determination.  The arbitrary interpretation of "caused injury" is not the basis of my objection to this law.  My objection is more based on philosophy and pedagogy.   Student fights are often a result of students lacking the capacity to identify and regulate one's emotions, resolve conflict, or seek help.  In addition to academic content, the role of education is also to develop in students the values, attitudes and behaviors that align with those expected in society. With all we know about brain development, to criminalize, with a felony, this natural deficit in adolescent development is unethical.  

As we intentionally work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline, new laws such as this cause alarm; especially, given the indisputable data that show students of color are disproportionately penalized by laws such as this.  The disproportionate enforcement of similar laws and practices has lead to the disproportionate representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice system.   The thought has crossed my mind that the spirit of the law is to be a deterrent. Unfortunately, as a K-12 Administrator tasked with enforcing state law as it pertains to discipline, I am a witness that the spirit of law does not often manifest in the implementation.  In addition, the spirit of the law also does not often calculate the unintended consequences.  

As educators, we must advocate against laws, policies, and practices that criminalize normal adolescent behavior. As an educator, a proponent of social-emotional learning, and a student of the neuroscience of adolescent brain development, I cannot support or enforce any law as this.  In California, there are Education Codes (schools) and Penal Codes (criminal).  The statutes in the Education Codes give school administrators authority over student discipline violations. The Penal Codes are enforced by law enforcement.  The Education Codes are intentional to promote positive and inclusive alternatives and restorative practices, before exclusionary discipline.  The challenge is the behavior violations in the Education Codes are also duplicated in the Penal Codes. This raises a question of jurisdiction. Behavior violations that occur on school campuses should be governed by Education Codes. This is the first step to dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline.  The Education Codes even give guidance on when law enforcement should be notified.  This mandated notification only involves a handful of serious violations, which does not include fights.  

As I continue to conduct the "Let's Talk School Discipline!" series, in an effort to reform school discipline practices, I will use the Missouri statute as an example of a step in the wrong direction. Criminalizing normal adolescent behavior has two negative consequences: students are referred to the juvenile justice system at higher rates and students have lack of access to quality education.  Both of these consequences have long-lasting negative impacts on student outcomes, family socioeconomic upward mobility, and community.  Education has the potential to change the life trajectory of students.  Any limit to the access of education is detrimental.  Educators must evaluate laws, policies, and practices through the lens of limiting access and potential life outcomes.