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. 

The Whole Student

Due to surgery and forced time off for recovery, I have been reflecting on the ‘good ole’ days and heading back to school.  It is timely, as my district started school two weeks ago and most of the surrounding districts returned or will return shortly.  It was while I was subdued by pain medication and could do nothing but think that I began to reminisce about the excitement of heading back to school.  I zeroed in on my high school years and the excitement of shopping for back-to-school clothes and school supplies.  I did not always get exactly the clothes or supplies I wanted, but always everything I needed. 

More than the new things, I remember being excited at the thought of new classes and having a consistent social life again.  After all, that is what middle and high school was for me and continue to be for many other tweens and teens.  It was the place where my social circle expanded beyond family.  It was where I learned to deal with challenges and develop coping skills.  It was where I worked hard to define my social status among peers.   It is where I developed positive relationships with other adults and began to test the boundaries of those relationships.  It was where I learned that I could do the bare minimum and still be above-average (the birth of my academic procrastination that I battled through undergrad and grad school).  Overall, my school experience was positive, including many opportunities to succeed, as well as learn from failures.

Fast forwarding a few decades, and now working in education, it is apparent to me that the start of school triggers similar and very different responses for young people.  I now know the student population is more than genders and ethnicities, but instead, ranges across the whole gamut of demographics (foster, homeless, pregnant/parenting, juvenile justice involved, military family, transgender, low and high socio-economics, English language learners, students with disabilities, etc.). Just as the demographics differ, the specific school experiences also differ greatly. Given this fact, student demographics require educators to be jacks of all trades. This is an unfair industry expectation, but very necessary to ensure the success of ALL students.  Success for ALL students makes it paramount for Instructional Leaders, like myself, to lead educators through transitions that are in the best interest of the profession and student outcomes.  It is equally important to preserve and embellish what is working well, and ensure that all practices be evaluated through an equity lens.  Change is difficult, but necessary. 

In a nutshell, the challenge is for educators to balance instruction and meeting all of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for their students in order to maximize learning. 

Although introduced over 70 years ago, in Abraham Maslow’s 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation," many current day frameworks are rooted in this theory, such as social-emotional learning, trauma-informed practices, and developmental assets.  Before students can be expected to learn, their basic, psychological and self-fulfillment needs must be met.  When vested stakeholders come together, these needs may be met through innovative, collaborative, no-cost/low-cost practices.   For long-term sustainability and impact, any practices must be memorialized in board policies so the changes outlast any individual. Change does not happen overnight.  It has to start with changing beliefs, before changing practices and outcomes.  

Edison Educational Consulting is available to facilitate stakeholder conversations and support planning system change around this shift.