From the Wild and Weird Department of Public Ed in the U.S.
First up, the ex-drug addict mom who just wants to volunteer. Okay, so Jessica Gianfranco from Rhode Island had two felony convictions in her early twenties for drug possession (she was a heroin addict). Fast forward 6 years. She went through detox, became a mom (apparently right around the time she quit), is in a 12 step-program. Her daughter is in kindergarten. Mom wants to be a PTA volunteer at her daughter's school, helping with events and going on field trips.
If you volunteer at any school, you can see where this is going. They ask you to do a background check and the form asks if you have been convicted of a felony.
The ACLU is now involved because drug addiction is considered a disability (along with being a prosecutable crime).
Now I personally don't see the ACLU on these grounds but more on the issue that a criminal record or drug-related disability isn't a barrier to employment, just to being a volunteer. She has been a correspondence coordinator for the PTA but she can't work with children or at events where children are.
She said she believes the school system does need a policy regarding those with criminal records.
"I don't want a child molester in the school with my daughter either, but they need some type of discretion."
Now I looked at a couple of parenting sites and it's "she made a mistake years ago, be forgiving" or "look, she had felonies and I wouldn't want her around my kids".
As a former PTSA co-president and having served on many Boards all I can think of, for both the school and the PTSA is....liability. Sure, you could ask the School Board to draw up a list of "okay" felonies and "not okay" felonies (plus how far out they occurred in a person's life) but if just one person who gets approved from the "okay" list does something, there will be a lot of finger-pointing (not to mention lawsuits).
I get this woman is turning her life around but I don't know how much I would want to change the policy. Thoughts?
Then, we have the middle school in Mississippi (75% white, 25% black now but I don't know the stats from 30 years ago) where they have the kids nominate and vote by race for class officers. Yes, in order to have diversity, they rotate the offices and list them as "white" or "black". Initially, the superintendent was "reviewing" the processes and procedures but yes, now that it has national attention, the School Board got rid of the policy.
I say this a lot but it's freakin' 2010, are you kidding me? How did NO one ever say anything? Was it really impossible for any black student to get elected without this so-called help? I seriously doubt it.
Comments
Something else that is happening in 2010:
The biggest issue driving national elections at the moment is whether or not a "mosque" should be built 2 blocks away from ground zero.
We're talking about the culture of the USA--bigotry is alive and well. No, I wouldn't be surprised that it was impossible for a black student to get elected.
ken berry
As to the Mississippi thing. The school is sort of damned either way. Yes, it is certainly possible that the student council positions need some sort of affirmative action. Those are pretty much beauty contests... and therefore it is entirely possible that minorities could never win... and be excluded completely from participation. But then... there's the tricky bi-racial, multi-racial, more obscure racial cases.
I dont think that's appropriate....
This doesn't help anyone and it puts all teachers' unions in a bad light.
I do think there ought to be some sort of probation period (a certain number of years clean, with no other criminal record at all), but six years seems like enough, given that it was only possession/use and not dealing.
Helen Schinske
What? Of course mental illness is a disability. Moreover, last I heard, those with mental illness were no more likely to commit violent crimes than the general population. See http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587839.
Helen Schinske
Mental illness might not predispose you to violence, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the felony. Most likely, felonies don't predispose you to violence either.
Personally, if if was 7 or more years back, I'd be forgiving. But I wonder if I'd feel the same way if, for example, the offense was directed at a third person - -assault for example, or, god forbid, assault (sexual or otherwise) of a child.
The are some cases where looking back a long way may be merited. Not caught recently does not mean the behavior is extinguished. Again depends on the behavior and the situations.
But how to get to that on an individual school/district basis? I think it asks too much of those people to make judgments they aren't really qualified to make.
So when has that ever stopped the SPS?
This was 1995, but a co-worker who went to school in Missouri said that when the history class held a debate on slavery, about half the class enthusiastically believed the pro-slavery side.
"Emotional disturbance: a disability whereby a student of typical intelligence has difficulty, over time and to a marked degree, building satisfactory interpersonal relationships; responds inappropriately behaviorally or emotionally under normal circumstances; demonstrates a pervasive mood of unhappiness; or has a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears."
Helen Schinske
The categories are: autism, deaf-blind, deaf, emotional disturbance, hearing impaired, mental retardation, mulitple disabilities, orthopedic impairement, other health impaired, specific learning disability, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment.
That's it. If she were disabled by her addiction, having many years of demonstrated problems, it is possible she could qualify under "other health impaired". That is more of the catch-all category. But, it wouldn't be a slam dunk.
But, the ADA is another matter... this isn't a work place. So, it's hard to see how that applies. And, under the law, she's a felon.
I don't know why IDEA is relevant anyway, given that the thread started out being about a non-student.
Incidentally, only twelve states bar those with felony convictions from ever voting again (and in most of those states it's not all felons who are barred). Typically as long as you're no longer incarcerated, on parole, or on probation, you can vote. In some states you can vote during parole or probation, and in two states there are no restrictions on felons voting.
"Forty-eight states prohibit current inmates from voting, 36 keep parolees from the polls, 31 exclude probationers, and only two — Vermont and Maine — allow inmates to vote, according to the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington, D.C."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html
Helen Schinske
"7. Q: What about applicants with a history of illegal drug use? Do they have rights under the ADA?
A: It depends. Casual drug use is not a disability under the ADA. Only individuals who are addicted to drugs, have a history of addiction, or who are regarded as being addicted have an impairment under the law. In order for an individual's drug addiction to be considered a disability under the ADA, it would have to pose a substantial limitation on one or more major life activities. In addition, the individual could not currently be using illegal drugs. Denying employment to job applicants solely because of a history of casual drug use would not raise ADA concerns. On the other hand, policies that screen out applicants because of a history of addiction or treatment for addiction must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that the policies are job-related and consistent with business necessity. If safety is asserted as a justification for such a policy, then the employer must be able to show that individuals excluded because of a history of drug addiction or treatment would pose a direct threat -- i.e., a significant risk of substantial harm -- to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. Again, individuals who currently use illegal drugs, even users who are addicted, may be denied employment because of their current use."
In other words, you don't have to be disabled by drug addiction in order to have certain employment rights protected under ADA.
Helen Schinske
Never said it was. I said "Mental illness, if severe enough, can most certainly be a disability under just about every disability regulation I've ever heard of." Note the IF SEVERE ENOUGH.
Helen Schinske