Interview by Hannah Grieco
An important election this year is for the Commonwealth Attorney, which directly impacts Arlington students. We invited the two candidates, Theo Stamos and Parisa Dehghani-Tafti, to answer a list of questions that parents have expressed concerns about related to disability and education.
These are their responses.
1. What do you think the court’s role should be regarding restraint and seclusion in schools?
Theo Stamos:
Restraint and seclusion in schools is something that should never take place. To the extent that it is ever used, the courts must be extremely watchful to ensure its use is only to protect the safety and well-being of a child.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
The legal system should not support or justify in any way restraint and seclusion in schools. The use of restraint and seclusion in schools poses a number of risks, including but not limited to, students being injured while being placed in seclusion or restraint, untrained staff administering seclusion and restraint in ways that compound the original problem behavior on the part of the student, and seclusion and restraint being used in lieu of actual treatment and other positive interventions. According to the Office for the Department of Education, 99% of public school districts in the nation report using some form of seclusion and restraint on students. The office also reported that students with disabilities were subjected to restraint and seclusion at a far higher rate than students without disabilities. Specifically, while students with disabilities served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) represent 12% of the nation’s student population, they amounted to 67% of those subjected to seclusion and restraint in public schools. In other words, the practice may well raise potential violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
2. Do you support eliminating subsection 2 of the Virginia disorderly conduct statute, which criminalizes disruptions to instruction at school?
Theo Stamos:
No child should ever be prosecuted whose disability has led to a classroom disruption. I support the careful and judicious use of that section of the code. I believe that the code section should remain a tool for individuals who willfully choose to disrupt a school proceeding thus interfering with the ability of others to learn in a peaceful and safe environment.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
I do. We should not be criminalizing disruptions or any student code of conduct violations. We know that between 2013-14, and 2017-18, there were more than 7000 disorderly conduct complaints lodged against Virginia children and that at least 2 out of 5 of those disorderly conduct charges originated from school behavior. While these charges are categorized as misdemeanors, the danger lies in the risk that they serve as gateways into the school to prison pipeline. To be sure, all parents want their children to learn in a safe environment, and school officials have both the right and obligation to foster that environment by disciplining students who would otherwise disrupt the classroom. That said, criminalizing school discipline problems is not the solution. In January 2019, Delegate Jeff Bourne, D-Richmond, and Senator Jennifer McClellan, D-Richmond introduced a bill that would have, among other things, eliminated subsection 2. The bill was killed in sub-committee due to the efforts of the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, who testified that the school-to-prison pipeline is “a myth.” I would have supported passage of the bill and, as Commonwealth’s Attorney, I pledge to not prosecute disorderly conduct cases that originate in schools and involve ordinary discipline issues.
3. What is your position is on using scarce ACPD funds to place SROs in APS schools and how effective that’s been?
Theo Stamos:
I support the use of SROs in the schools. As a parent of two sons who went through APS from kindergarten to high school, I found the presence of the SROs re-assuring and helpful. In my work as a prosecutor – especially my years prosecuting child sexual assaults – it was the calm presence of an SRO that provided a place for a young girl to disclose abuse being perpetrated upon her at home.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
I am encouraged by the revised MOU between APS and ACPD that clarifies that SROs are not to enforce school conduct policies, but I continue to have concerns about the role SROs play in our schools. Research on SRO effectiveness is limited and doesn’t provide any clear conclusions on the upsides and downsides of SROs. In particular, students with disabilities and students of color can have more negative interactions with SROs, which is highly problematic. I think we need more research and more data to tell us if SRO funding should be a priority for ACPD. What is clear is that SROs need to be aware of students’ IEPs and any additional funding is better spent on school counselors.
4. What is the primary role of Arlington’s School Resource Officers? How can we improve the way they are utilized in schools?
Theo Stamos:
The primary role of the SROs is to provide for the safety and security of APS students and staff, to prevent crimes from occurring, (i.e. keeping drugs out of our schools, protecting students from bullying) and to engage with students, their parents and guardians in a positive and productive manner that helps build relationships. One suggestion for improving the way SRO’s engage in the schools is to provide better support for the APS/ACPD Cares program – a collaborative effort whose goal is to promote safety, awareness of the justice system, and better communication between police and the school community.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
In an ideal scenario, SROs would have three primary roles: to educate students about crime and illegal drug use awareness and prevention; to develop community justice initiatives with and for students; and to train students in conflict resolution, and restorative justice. To that end, I’m again encouraged by the terms of the MOU between APS ACPD, stating that unless there is a clear, articulable and immediate threat to public safety requests from school staff for law enforcement assistance should be channelled through a school administrator. I’m equally encouraged that the MOU makes it clear that school officials and teachers are responsible for school discipline and not SROs. I’m aware of the resistance to having that language inserted in the MOU, and am disappointed that it was such a battle. Hopefully that does not impact the implementation of that language, but we should be vigilant. One area of improvement that I would work on as Commonwealth’s Attorney is to have clear lines of communications with ACPD and its SROs that the default policy of our office is not to prosecute referrals that originate from school disciplinary issues
5. Children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to sexual, physical and verbal abuse in institutional settings. How can these risks be reduced?
Theo Stamos:
I strongly believe that SRO presence in the schools, well-trained, engaged staff and faculty as well as regular training that helps identify signs of abuse, neglect, bullying and other forms of harassment are key in reducing these risks.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
We need to keep all children, and especially those with disabilities, safe, and the primary way to do that as a CA is to prioritize diversion programs when there is an interaction with the criminal justice system. That’s one of the main reasons I’ve advocated for a mental health docket. We should treat kids like kids, and get kids who need help the services they need. We also need to take into account disabilities when making decisions on how to address criminal justice matters.
6. Do you believe it is appropriate to consider age, disability and mental illness when pursuing criminal charges?
Theo Stamos:
Yes.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
Absolutely. We shouldn’t be charging children as adults, but that is not where considerations of brain development, age, mental health, and disability end. My opponent continues to defend the charging of two ten-year olds were with felonies for putting hand sanitizer in their teacher’s water, despite the evolution of brain science over the course of the last 20 years. Recently, she charged a 14 year-old with no record with attempted breaking and entering for jiggling a door handle at the county fair, and personally argued (successfully) to have a 16 year old detained on misdemeanor charges despite the fact that his parents were present and willing to take him home. I’ve heard numerous stories of children and adults with disabilities being charged with crimes with no regard for their disability or how that impacts their behavior. I support diversion programs that would prioritize treatment over incarceration for kids, people with disabilities and mental illness.
7. Under what circumstances do you support “home arrest” for minors – also known as the “detention diversion program.”
Theo Stamos:
I support the use of DDP in almost all circumstances unless there is a serious public safety concern that would militate against its use.
Parisa Dehghani-Tafti:
I support any measure that prioritizes keeping kids in a safe and supportive home environment with their parents or guardians instead of being detained in a Juvenile Detention Home. Indeed, my platform is one that supports broad diversion rather than criminalization and incarceration for kids. In many ways, the criminal justice system has not fully caught up with the science that kids’ brains are not fully developed and, as such, incarceration — even incarceration in the form a Juvenile Detention facility — is likely to have deleterious effects on the child development. Therefore, provided that it is a safe environment, that the parent or guardian does not pose a threat to the safety and welfare of the child, or that the child does not require treatment for a mental condition best addressed in a medical facility, the child should be kept with the parents/guardians as much as possible.
8. What is the biggest disability-related issue facing the criminal justice system?
Theo Stamos:
The biggest disability issue facing the criminal justice system is the need for more robust services for victims and witnesses with disabilities. Coming forward to report a crime can be a challenging prospect for anyone, let alone an individual with disabilities. Making sure that victims are heard and supported is a cornerstone of the work our office does. But we can’t do it alone. We will continue to partner with our public and community-based partners to ensure that all victims and witnesses are able to seek justice.
Parisa Deghani-Tafti:
There are two pressing issues facing the system here in Arlington and the City of Falls Church: First, 60% of our jail population is being treated for serious mental illness. We cannot continue to allow our jails to be de facto mental health treatment facilities because we lack community beds and better ways to help people. I support the creation of a mental health docket (or better yet, a Mental Health Court), and diversion programs for the mentall ill. Second, we have to keep kids with disabilities from ever being caught in the criminal justice system, which can cause a lifetime of problems for them. Every available research tells us that a child with a disability is likely emerge worse off coming out of the system than they were going in. I, therefore, support diversion programs, taking into account disability status when charging, and not prosecuting school conduct violations as criminal infractions.
Leave a Reply