I love the Op-Ed section of the paper. I believe we all need to write at least one letter on something we’re passionate about in our lifetime. In saying that, I applaud this reader
Re: “State of WA schools: Too many kids are absent, too many on phones” (Jan. 16, Opinion):
We have the authority to ban phones in classrooms, but we hesitate to do so because enforcement would require disciplining students who refuse to comply. That discipline could escalate to suspensions for repeated defiance, and school leaders remain deeply concerned about contributing to the “school-to-prison pipeline.”
Similarly, state law allows courts to fine parents for chronic truancy, yet this tool is rarely used, largely due to concerns about racially disparate impacts.
These concerns are well-intentioned, and the desire to avoid racism in school discipline is understandable. But intent and outcomes are not the same. When policies designed to avoid inequitable punishment lead schools to tolerate absenteeism and in-class disengagement, the result is that many minority students miss instruction, fail to master core skills and graduate less prepared to compete academically or in the labor market.
A system that avoids uncomfortable enforcement today but produces predictably worse outcomes tomorrow should be judged by its results, not its intentions. Avoiding disparate discipline cannot come at the cost of accepting disparate outcomes.
