Zero Tolerance Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nolo

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,624
Location
Galveston, TX
I'm writing an editorial for my school's newspaper on the fallacy of our school's and others' Zero Tolerance policies, and I was wondering if there was anything that you think that I should cover that may not get much attention, any effects, concerns, anything. Also, articles on people who were unjustly harmed by ZTPs would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
-Nolo
 
Zero Tolerance policies are just a scapegoat for administrators to justify overeacting and imposing punishments that don't fit the offence. Instead of relying on good judgement, they just slap on a zero tolerance policy and forget about it.

zero tolerance = zero brains
 
If you use this forum's search feature (found at the top of the page in the green bar) and the key words "zero tolerance" you should be able to find plenty of examples, usually with cites. Also try "suspended" and "expelled."
 
Zero-Tolerance policies are a product of our society's desire to hold someone responsible for someone else's actions and the need to be paid if we are the victim of a tragedy. For example, most place that have no gun policies aren't anti-gun, they were simply advised by their insurance company that if someone goes crazy and shoots up the place they will likely be sued. The problem is that, even though the company had nothing to do with the crazy person, and shooting people is against the law, courts have ruled that companies are negligent if they don't have policies stating: "Breaking the law is against company policy.":rolleyes:

Now this level of idiocy had been the norm for a while, but more aggressive lawyers and idiot judges have pushed us to the point of "zero-tolerance". Before, it was up to the administrator to determine what violated a school's no weapons policy: Exhibit A: a pellet gun=yes, Exhibit B: a pink water pistol=no.
But there were two dangers in this system in todays courts. An error in judgment by one idiot administrator would leave the whole district liable. Also, bleeding-heart idiots started claiming that the harmless water pistol in exhibit B created a "culture of violence" whatever that means.:confused:

So to silence the bleeding-heart idiots and protect themselves from a lawsuit following an administrator's lapse in judgment, school officials to remove all chance by banning both exhibits A and B. That is like amputating an arm because the paper cut on your finger might get infected.

However you can't really blame the schools for this idiocy as long as judges are willing to hold responsible anyone even remotely connected to the actions of a lone crazy.
 
Point out that areas with high concentrations of guns are less likely to have a violent shooting. While shootings have occurred in these places, police stations, military bases, gun shows, gun shops, and shooting ranges are rarely in the news with shenanigans like that.
 
Nolo,

Considering some of the zero tolerance stories I've heard about, I'll be happily surprised if your school "tolerates" your article enough that you don't get suspended for writing it.

That's cool you're doing it. Be sure to post it when you're done.
 
Exhibit A: a pellet gun=yes, Exhibit B: a pink water pistol=no.
But there were two dangers in this system in todays courts. An error in judgment by one idiot administrator would leave the whole district liable. Also, bleeding-heart idiots started claiming that the harmless water pistol in exhibit B created a "culture of violence" whatever that means.
Click to expand...

Actually, the pink water pistol is *more* dangerous because it flies in the face of the argument that all guns are evil. In doing so, it thwarts their indoctrination policy. :barf:
 
Zero Telerance Policies are the answer for whiny parents who think there kids were unfairly punished and/or discriminated against.

In some cases I think it's a good idea, but it relieves the burden of the administrator from doing a good job, and making critial judgments... and turns administators into robots... there is no longer a need for good training or good judgement... something that would eventually lead to that person's promotion... or firing... it also creates the possibility of implementing a social or moral agenda... and no recourse for parents... well except for homeschooling... which we do.
 
Such policies are ultimately grounded not in preserving public safety; they are consistent with the desire of most schools to institutionalize their students.

(off topic for the moment: I would argue that the purpose of public schools is not to educate, it's to create an institutional mindset more conducive for the production of obedient, submissive laborers.)

Zero tolerance drug policies have led to student suspensions for carrying a roll of antacid (Tums, Rolaids) and Midol, not to mention the well publicized stories of discipline for harmless drawings of water pistols. Surely not the intent, but zero tolerance means just that. Another example of words mean things.

Edit to add: Google zero tolerance policy and you'll come up with a disturbing number of similar anecdotes. Here's one too rich to omit: http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/08/29/zero_tolerance/
 
Another good resource.

Texas Zero Tolerance

http://www.texaszerotolerance.com/

Texas Zero Tolerance is a Texas-wide group dedicated to reform of disciplinary codes within public education. We adamantly support the concept of safe schools and the need for a strong and proactive discipline policy to assure safety in our schools. But the current discipline system in Texas schools is in need for a drastic overhaul.
 
NoLo:

As I have posted previously, I was a public school administrator. Now I am a Graduate Professor teaching teachers and administrators.

Fact is many administrators do not fully understand school law, and yet other administrator cave to "politically correct" pressure. I posted in a recent thread the Zero Tol requirements. You can search my nick combined with zero tolerance and "posts" to find it. It was posted yesterday. The important parts are in blue text. Here's the link:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=310640&highlight=Tolerance

v35 said:

Such policies are ultimately grounded not in preserving public safety; they are consistent with the desire of most schools to institutionalize their students.
Click to expand...

Of course. That is because schools, like the families, and churches and clubs are "maintenance institutions". They serve one purpose: educate in order to stabilize and perpetuate society. Schools do this by imparting knowledge and skills, both academically and socially. The problem is not the schools.

The problem is Federalism. What is happening is unconstitutional, period! But people are even more apathetic about their rights regarding education than they are about their rights of speech, firearms, etc. It rather demonstrates the breakdown of the school as a society-directed maintenance institution and demonstrates what happens anytime we step back and allow the "government" to do our bidding and raise out kids. Can you say Nanny State?

The problem is not the schools. The problem is not the administrators. The problem is not the teachers. Do you want to guess who the problem is? Society! If you don't like your Board of Education, recall them. Replace them. Change the district's policy and procedure.

Doc2005
 
Zero tolerence is ultimately about teaching people not to think, but to blindly follow rules. At one time, people in authority were expected to use something called judgement. Now they are expected to enforce rules without question.

This is particularly important in a totalitarian society. You can't get soldiers to put Jews in ovens if they start thinking for themselves, rather than 'just following orders'.
 
Wrong!

Zero Tolerance is a fantastic law when applied properly, by people with common sense. It provides for expelling a child who 1) knowingly brings a 2) genuine weapon with the 3) intent to kill and seriously harm anyone else.

How is that bad? It isn't. What is bad is the 1) abuse of the law, or the 2) failure to apply it properly, including a 3) Due Process Hearing to assure both substantive and procedural due process.

Let me clarify as to the "why" Zero Tolerance was brought in. Some schools failed to expel such students because they were "special education". The teacher with a protective bias (for whatever unstated reason) would say, "This is a manifestation of the student's handicap! You can't expel!"

Oh a handicap my posterior! LD (learning disabled) doesn't mean the child could never learn or understand that, in schools, guns cannot be in the students' hands and that people should not kill other people. See, that's an abuse. Too many abuses, and eventually folks cry for mandates.

Please, educate me as to the improperness of this law's intent.

Doc2005
 
Legally, there isn't even a zero tolerance policy for homicide. Killing a person can be self-defense, manslaughter or murder.

Drawing a picture of a gun while at school is considered a crime regardless of circumstances (i.e. "zero tolerance"), so is it an intrinsically worse action that homicide!?
 
Zero tolerance = No tolerance
No tolerance = intolerance
Intolerance = Bigotry

Look em up in the Thesaurus if you don't believe me.
 
zero tolerance policies are actually understandable...

Take the Jena 6 story for example. The superintendent of the school intervened and look what happened. The administration is handcuffed by "over active parents" and "legal liabilities". It is much easier to just turn the kids over to the police.

Obviously it is taken to far with kids getting suspended at 5 years old for sexual harassment and drawing pictures of guns.... But I bet we wish we could have gotten a hold of a 5 year old Hitler...

I will say this...

No tolerance means zero innovation!

And The ever quotable Capt. Picard - "There can be know justice so long as there are absolutes..."
 
mbt2001,

And he would have just added teachers to KZ rolls later on.

Unjust treatment would lead directly to sabotage and worse. I know that from experience. So a kid suspended and prosecuted for drawing a gun would consider all involved his enemies and try to harm them for real, be sneaky about it AND be justified at least in some eyes.
 
I outlined the criteria for suspending under Zero Tolerance in another post.

Even if a child knowingly brings an actual weapon with deadly intent, there must be a due process hearing. The child has a right to have an attorney at the hearing. The school cannot legally simply suspend...that violates due process.

The school failed all 3 criteria re: the child did not 1) knowingly bring, a 2) genuine weapon, nor did the child have 3) intent to harm. As the school did not hold a hearing, the school did not follow substantive or procedural due process. The school was wrong for violating the Zero Tolerance law, and for violating the child's constitutional rights to due process.

That is not the law's fault. Let me ask this: Someone drives through a stop sign, killing the on-coming driver. Was the stop sign law flawed? No, the law was fine. The driver who violated the law was at fault. Same applies here.

mbt 2001 said:

I will say this...

No tolerance means zero innovation!
Click to expand...

Actually, this all lies within the Due Process hearing. There are dozens of options. What is broken is that people are buffaloed into believing that there are no options. There are.

Fact is, this child did nothing wrong.

But, how many even in this thread know that you have the right to say, Due Process Heraing before you enact the suspending. If the superintendent says, "No, the suspension stands." then go to the court for an injunction. There was no eminent threat. They would have grant it. Take the picture and ask the judge, "Does this scar the Hell out of you?!" No?! Then grant the injunction for a due process hearing to be held first.

Does all of that sound like options? That's options! That's due process.

Then, the Board of Education by law must hold a Due Process Hearing with in either 36 to 72 hours (some states vary).

The child has the right to be represented by an attorney.

The child or rep can call own witnesses.

The child or rep can present evidence.

The child or rep can question school's witnesses and submit professional testimony.

Etc, etc.

This is due process. If you don't like the Board's Decision, go back to court and sue. As Oleg said, even murder has process. So does school law.
 
If the superintendent says, "No, the suspension stands." then go to the court for an injunction.
Click to expand...
And by the time you get the injunction the student has already served his/her suspension.

And just how many people are going to go to the expense of hiring an attorney and spend the time necessary to immediately prevent the school from implementing the suspension? When the school says suspended that's it; the kid doesn't come back until it's over or until you get that injunction. Good luck getting your injunction before the implementation of the suspension becomes moot.

Fine advice in theory - not practical in reality.
 
No, this can move very fast! Re: an attorney and expense, there are lawyers who do pro bono. Also, you don't need an attorney. That is optional. Get a 1 hour pro bono meeting to get the facts planned.

That fact should be outlined in the School Board Policy and Procedures. The prcedrues should protect the child and state explicitly the child has a right to a hearing. That fact is the due process.

But, PLEASE be proactive on that. You need a copy of the student handbook detailing this, and you need to ask the Brd of Ed what is their stance. The Board Members are from your own communities. Call them. Also the court is local. Ask for an emergency hearing. It need not take time.

I dealt with this for 7 months and defended a child the whole year against this. Believe me when I say there are administrators who do the right thing. I worked as a principal with zero tolerance. Why did I never have to expel a child? Here’s why:

Check list:

1) Do we have a genuine “weapon”? If, No, stop and send back to class. Call parents advise them and ask that they speak with the child. Many times wrongly accused kids are traumatized by that experience. Assure them they did no wrong.

2) Was the weapon knowingly brought to school? This assumes a genuine weapon at level 1. However, If No regarding knowingly brought to school, then stop and send back to class. Call parents advise them and ask that they come to school to pick up “weapon” and take “weapon” home. Ask that speak with the child. Many times wrongly accused kids are traumatized by that experience. Assure them they did no wrong.

3) Did the child 3a) knowingly bring the 3b) genuine weapon with the 3c) intent do kill or seriously harm someone? If No, then stop and send back to class. This also assumes a genuine weapon at level 1. Again, if No regarding knowingly brought to school, and if No regarding intent to murder or seriously harm, then stop and send back to class. Call parents advise them and ask that they come to school to pick up and take “weapon” home. Ask that speak with the child. Many times wrongly accused kids are traumatized by that experience. Assure them they did no wrong.

Also, I offered every child to have their parent or guardian present even before starting questioning.

Check your district's policy and procedures.
 
I have absolutely no tolerance for Zero Tolerance policies. None. Zero.

Doc2005, you're obviously a decent human being with concern for the young people entrusted to your care.
 
Zero tolerance doesn't take into account due process of law by its very nature, Doc. It is Zero tolerance, meaning their will be no tolerance for any person who brings any semblance of a weapon into school, knowingly or unknowingly, with intent to do harm or without intent to do harm.
I was arrested, suspended for 10 days and assigned to 25 days in a "Interim Alternative Education Center" (read: Student Wastebin Created by No Child Left Behind, also note that I only served 2 days of that because of a car accident) because of my bringing in a buck knife on accident with no intent to harm. Nevertheless, the smallest punishment they could give me according to the Zero Tolerance policy was what I got, which is the maximum short of expulsion. "Zero Tolerance" means no flexibility. It is the analog of nuking an entire region to kill one person. It is not worried about the casualties it might cause, only what it might prevent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top