MY COMMENTS TO THE BOARD AFTER I RESIGNED:

The month after I resigned from the Katy school board in 1996, I spoke to the Board at their regular June meeting.  At the previous "Work Study" meeting in May, I had attended, as a Board member, prepared to discuss the Discipline Management Plan as I had done the previous four years.  No other board member ever bothered to look over the proposed changes, and since this document yearly creates such havoc with students, parents, teachers, and interested others, I felt it my duty to review it thoroughly.  I would meet with Bonnie Holland, the administrator who annually reviewed and made the presentation to the Board for a couple of hours or so to go over all the changes so that I could understand why they were made, and to also indicate to her and the superintendent that the Board was paying attention to this document. The Board is, after all, charged with oversight! You will also see that I was very thorough and conscientious about what I was doing--something else one no longer witnesses with current board members.

The Board had previously gotten in hot water (See Sex With a Chicken article elsewhere on this web site) over the DMP, and I wanted to prevent that from happening again. 

At the meeting, instead of allowing me to make the presentation I later had to make as a member of the public, Bonnie Holland proceeded to present the board with a series of cartoons, depicting the two new board members, Judy Snyder and Jean Richardson, in a lighthearted manner.  When Ms. Holland was finished (after handing out many color copies of her (?) artwork, the Board moved on without allowing me to make my presentation. 

I include the presentation here, because lots of people think I didn't do anything much while I was on the Board.  As I have said many times, with the Board in a 4/3 split, mostly I just stopped things.  But if one doesn't even get a chance to speak, thanks to Superintendent Merrell, then one might as well resign at the next meeting.  And I did. When reading the following, imagine if you can, a Joe Adams or a Rebecca Fox or a Bryan Michalsky or a Henry Dibrell  (or any other current board member for that matter) knowing enough about the matter to make such a presentation! 

Mr. Kimmel, Members of the Board, Dr. Merrell: 

My name is Mary McGarr.  I reside at XXXXXX I do not have children attending KISD schools. 

My remarks tonight are concerned with the proposed Discipline Management Plan.  At the last meeting that I attended where it was an agenda item, ten minutes were allocated for its discussion, and that time was taken up with a cartoon presentation.   (See cartoons below.) This is a very important document which affects the lives of all KISD’s students in one way or another. Traditionally I have been the only board member who read the proposed document and who spent a few hours with Mrs. Holland reviewing its contents.  Hopefully at least one of you will assume that responsibility.  May I remind you that when our previous superintendent wanted to blame the board for the inclusion of the infamous penal code description of aberrant sex, I was the one who had read and saved the document that we had actually approved and so was able to place the blame on him for this mistake that brought the Board  censure from the Houston Chronicle editorial board and others nationwide. (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1149781) or (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1993_1152275)  [These pages have been wiped from the Chronicle server.]

 I cannot stress how important it is for you to review thoroughly this document. 

I have several general concerns.  Among these are the liberal changes with regard to the actual wording of the law.  Mrs. Westhoff, a parent concerned about these matters, reviewed these with you at an earlier meeting, and I hope you have all contacted her to receive her documentation. 

I am also concerned with the overall lack of due process for students.  This omission of a basic right granted by our Constitution to all citizens (including students) seriously concerns me.  Because of the “mays,”  and “when appropriates,” too much latitude is given to those dispensing punishment.  As a result, the rights of students are violated, due process is not allowed, and those in charge are allowed to make up rules as they go. [This situation is especially egregious when the Katy ISD police are called in whether a crime has been committed or not.]  If your child gets in trouble, the severity of the discipline is too often tempered by the personal whim of the principal. Punishments should be specific and announced in advance.  Most activities can be covered, if someone wants to go to the trouble to do so.  This document is rife with examples of this flaw. 

I am additionally concerned with the initial statement on page iii with regard to the District’s not discriminating on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex or disability in providing educational services, when in fact, because of the lack of enforcement in the code,  there are definite examples of just such discrimination.  Discrimination of disabled students occurs all the time in our school district.  A change in the policy on Hazing could take care of some of the problems if (in the first paragraph) the rest of the sentence after ”safety of a student” were deleted. 

The other example that I would like to bring to your attention has to do with the “improved” policies for athletes, cheerleaders, and drill team members which allegedly call those students to a “higher” standard.  In those documents which you were not allowed to approve, but which were reviewed for you, female students who are drill team members or cheerleaders must be approved by their teachers to a set standard, they must pay for most of their uniforms and their practice uniforms, they must pay many other expenses, they must meet weight requirements, they have fewer District instructors per student, and they have no facilities of their own.  I do not think anyone could argue that our female students are not being discriminated against on the basis of their sex. You have a clear responsibility to fix this problem.  As a Board member, I asked for a review of that policy, and you agreed that it was necessary.  I think the public should know when it is given to you. 

My last general observation has to do with the rewriting of the “Responsibilities of the Board, Central Administrators, Campus Administrators, Teachers, Students, and Parents.”  I must ask if the people who revised this section knew the meaning of the word responsible?  It means “legally or ethically accountable.”  It appears to me that most of the accountability has been deleted.  If you will take the time to review and compare last year’s DMP with this year’s draft, you will understand the problem.  Almost every word that requires accountability of someone is gone!  I think it’s very telling that the following items were deleted from the list of responsibilities for Campus Administrators:  (the first four on last year’s list) provide training for campus personnel on the District’s Discipline Management Plan and Student Code of Conduct, provide appropriate support for teachers in dealing with students sent to the office for disciplinary problems, promote effective training and discipline based upon fair and impartial treatment of students, and encourage parent communication with the school, including participation in required parent-teacher conferences.  Under Teacher Responsibilities “comply with District and school policies, rules, and regulations, and directives” was changed to “be familiar with and adhere to state, district, and school policies, regulations, and requirements.”  Since teachers can be non-renewed for not “complying” with policies, rules, regulations and directives, I should think it important that they know that.  I believe the inclusion of the statement under “Responsibilities of Parents” that they “participate in parent-school organizations.” is one of those tenets of Outcome Based Education (i.e., parent as teacher, it takes a whole village, and all that other nonsense) that is an invasion of a parent’s privacy.  I don’t believe the school district (which is a government) needs to be telling parents that they are required to join the PTA!  They can join or not join, but it is none of the school district’s business whether they do or not.  Under Responsibilities of Students I guess I am most appalled by the dictum that states that students shall “Seek help from school personnel when having school or personal problems.”  Parents should be outraged by this one.  Students’ personal problems are none of this school district’s business either. 

Specifically  I would suggest attention to the following additional items: 

Page 1, Last paragraph, change “This objection may” to “must.”

            I do not believe that the addition (although it was not marked as an addition!) of “awards received in school and most recent previous school attended” as well as “weight and height of members of athletic teams” is “directory information”  i.e., public information.  Please also note that scores on TAAS tests are not included in this section! 

Page 2, Under Development of the Plan, what happened to including students in the decision making process?

Under Discipline Management Plan, there needs to be a citation of local Board policy so parents know where to look when they need additional information.

Under Class Credit a description of the Attendance Committee needs to be given, an exact citation of the guidelines (I’m not aware of their existence) and Board policy needs to be given.

Under Local Campus Options it appears to me that the authority of the principal to make rules at individual schools has been deleted and assigned to the District.

Under Parent Training Workshops I would be concerned that this OBE idea has been elevated to its own category.  The next step is to say that parents must attend these questionable workshops.

Page 3, Under Responsibilities of Teachers, I am very alarmed that the word “teach” does not appear in the entire section.  Teachers as facilitators is one of those OBE  ideas that is so misguided.  The main responsibility of a teacher is to teach!

Under Responsibilities of Students the item “Cooperate with school staff in investigations and all school-related matters.” should refer back to a responsibility for principals to inform a student that such cooperation may be used against him in a court of law.

Page 4, Under Assault the definition of “any school-related event” has been deleted and it needs to be returned.

Page 5, Under Dress Code, the inclusion of Lycra-spandex as a prohibited material is regularly violated by no less than the cheerleaders as well as all students who wear underwear.  I should think it time to eliminate this one.

Also, the addition of a restriction on the coloring of hair in outlandish colors needs to be added as this is becoming a distraction and principals seem to be unwilling to enforce the “distracting” part of the code.

Under Drug/Alcohol Use Chapter 483 of the Health and Safety Code needs to be delineated or else return to the language in last year’s book.

Page 6, Under Gang-Related Behaviors/Activities the addition of the law which says that students who wear gang-related  garb can be expelled needs to be included.

Page 7, Under Jurisdiction I would ask, what about a misdemeanor?  If the District does not have jurisdiction over students who commit misdemeanors, why do we have a principal who regularly punishes students (at least some of them) who have MIP’s?

Under Participation in Extracurricular Activities,  the Board agreed previously that a copy of each student’s signed copy of the SCC would be provided to him/her, and I believe that that stipulation should be in this document.

In the last paragraph of this section the very broad statement “assessed appropriate disciplinary consequences for the infraction” needs to be more specific to protect students.  What exactly is “appropriate”?  A recent example exists of a student who was wrongly charged with a felony. This student was forced to miss regular classes for four weeks, had all honors and elective offices stripped, and was not allowed to participate in  student elections for next year. This student’s family spent thousands of dollars for his defense only to have the prosecutor in the district attorney’s office laugh the case out of court saying there was no basis for the charge! I believe this example clearly indicates the need for students to be protected by this document against such excesses and misjudgments by those who dole out the punishment.  I would also like to bring to your attention that although administrators knew that a federal judge had struck down the Texas law that requires districts to place-students in alternative education if they are implicated in felony crimes, they failed to mention that fact while we were discussing it!  A change in that part of this document (page 13, Level IV) also needs to be made until this case is appealed and a decision is reached.

Page 8. Under Questioning of Students by Outside Authorities another item needs to be added with regard to questioning by principals.  The rights of students here need to be addressed.

I also question why the last paragraph in last year’s DMP has been deleted.

Page 9 Under Tobacco Use and Possession I would urge you to change “Appropriate disciplinary consequences will be assessed for violations.” to something more specific as otherwise the punishment will be different for every child and at every school.

Page 10  Under Weapons there needs to be a catch-all section as new weapons (or ones you don’t know about) emerge all the time.  (Chains come to mind.)  I also would like to know how many tomahawks we have taken away from students recently.

Page 11  Under Discipline Management Techniques   #10, students may be “assigned school duties other than class tasks, including but not restricted to custodial duties, restoration of property, or clean up,”  is a new “technique” that you need to reject.  There is too much room for abuse here. I don’t think Mr. Kimmel or Mr. Brasier would like for their young daughters to be assigned “custodial duties” (with all that might entail) as punishment at the whim of some principal, and I don’t think any other parent would either.

Page 12 First paragraph Why would a student “as a consequence for persistent or serious violations” be referred to the nurse?

Under Level I Offenses The chewing gum section should be deleted as it is not enforced.

 Page 14 Under Due Process The actual law needs to be cited.

Pages 14 through 22 need to have exact citing of the law.  The laws cannot be changed at the whim of the school district's administration!

Page of Parent/Student Acknowledgment  I do not believe that the District can require a parent to “consent to the responsibilities outlined in the publications”!  If it can, then where are the signed statements of all the other entities, i.e., administrators, principals, assistant principals, teachers and aides?  The District is asking parents to give up their rights, but no one else has to give up theirs?

I then passed out to the audience in the Board room copies of my remarks and of the cartoons.  I got a standing ovation.

This was, of course, before the Superintendent realized that he needed to get the photo op session over and allow all those parents and students to leave so they didn't hear all the comments of the Public Session!