<p>My eldest attended bs and never had a problem, nor do I expect a problem from my youngest. Just because my kids "took the high road", I am not going to put them on a pedestal. No matter how mature and intellectual a teen might be, he or she is still not fully mature and can be expected to have a "lapse". It is unrealistic and inhumane to think otherwise.
I don't think "zero-tolerance" is the norm; I still think if it is in place, it is truly indicative of prior problems.</p>
<p>"Zero tolerance" is fine as long as it is coupled with rational decision making. The problems that I see with "zero tolerance" are the lack of discretion vested in faculty and administrators when it comes to interpreting when a violation has occurred. The problem occurs when the entire process -- from whether to report facts to whether to classify it as a colorable offense under a drug or weapons policy -- is designed to arrive at one result.</p>
<p>This happens in public school settings where the rules are made by people other than the faculty and administration...as in the state legislature. But if a school institutes a "zero tolerance policy" for certain events/offenses and the school retains "prosecutorial discretion" then I can't see why it wouldn't work.</p>
<p>"Zero tolerance" produces absurd results when the faculty and administration are under an obligation to report offenses or risk incurring a penalty (such as job loss). And once reported, the alleged infraction takes a life of its own. These situations are what I call "Zero discretion policy" -- where the 11 year-old girl's Tweety Bird chain gets her suspended for violating the school's "weapons policy."</p>
<p>(Note that that occurred pre-9/11, so it's not like people have lightened up since then.)</p>
<p>Then there's the suspension of an honor student who accepted two Midol tablets from a friend: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/03/midol.suspension/index.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.cnn.com/US/9610/03/midol.suspension/index.html</a></p>
<p>And we all know examples of absurd results can go on and on and on.</p>
<p>But if there's sanity coupled with the process so that the allegation doesn't rise to a drug offense because school officials (along with the rest of the free world) know better...why not have a "Zero Tolerance Policy?" And if there's a drug or weapons policy that rises to the level of warranting discipline, then why not have serious consequences automatically imposed?</p>
<p>Well, the one reason that concerns me is that a severe consequence will raise the bar too high for people who exercise discretion as to when to report an offense. Maybe someone with discretion decides that a little bit of pot shouldn't be reported at all because it would destroy a kid's high school career -- when the allegation would be made without hesitation if someone else was charged with making a fact-specific punishment determination. This concern is overcome when there's a separate adjudication to classify the offense. That removes the problem of making accusers the sentencing authority simply by reporting facts. There would be technical offenses that fit within the ambit of the drug or weapons policy...and then there would be serious infractions that will lead to one and only one outcome if the allegations are proven to be true. Zero tolerance...without zero discretion.</p>
<p>Having had two children already attend boarding schools, I can tell you that it is more complicated than it is being presented here. For example, at the schools my children attended, there was no punishment for abusing substances for example, if the individual sought help. And kids are not to be punished if they call for help if they see someone in trouble etc.</p>
<p>I know that in the 1800's, there was a "black list" (or something) at Exeter, which listed all of the girls in Exeter, NH that Exonians were not allowed to be seen with. If they were caught walking down the street with one of the girls listed, they were expelled without further question..</p>
<p>Maybe this was because the boys were too busy around town?</p>
<p>I tried to find my source and I couldn't.. I know it's somewhere!</p>
<p>Also.. students weren't allowed to wear silk! I guess this is because they wanted it to be a place of learning, and not.. a ballroom? Just to focus on learning I guess.</p>
<p>1798 Sep 10
Trustees vote that "No student shall wear silk of any kind" and that dress of students be less expensive.</p>
<p>Since this thread on Kent (a good school) has moved onto a Zero Tolerance debate, I'll add my $.02.</p>
<p>All schools will encounter children with problems (drug, alcohol, psychiatric, etc.). Admissions personnel try to filter out problems the schools don't want to deal with, but don't have a perfect filter and never will.</p>
<p>So every school is left with some students who present problems. Some schools are more agressive (or at least appear to be) in monitoring their students than others.</p>
<p>Now what to do with the students and the problems that are presented???</p>
<p>There seems to be a common occurrance of "high rollers" (large contributors, other political connections to the school) who have problems. Often this is because the Admissions problem filter is compromised (blinded by the money/connections/etc) allowing the child with unmanaged problems to enter the system.</p>
<p>Of course there are the normal admits with problems, but they are easier to handle.</p>
<p>Schools with a "zero-tolerance" policy risk complete breakdown in processes of monitoring and adjudicating when the same forces that blinded admissions are at play in the discipline process. When a sugar daddy's kid gets off on a technicality or a lighter than normal punishment, "zero-tolerance" becomes an inside joke that means misbehave with the right kids and you're covered. </p>
<p>Teachers and other staff stop bothering those kids and the inmates run the asylum.</p>
<p>Schools offering redemption (for a lack of a better term for flexibility in discipline) run the same risk of breakdown of institutional monitoring and adjudication if the redemption is perceived as a shallow cover-up. Redemption is only as good as the future behavior of the recipient of the opportunity. The behavior of the recipient is only as good as the treatment and followup provided by the school and supporting institutions (family, rehab centers, legal systems).</p>
<p>When I heard that the VA Tech shooter (I don't believe his name should EVER have been published - that's another debate) had been ordered for a mental evaluation by a court that saw he was an imminent danger and yet he somehow was back in the system unregulated (from what I've been able to gather), it made me wonder whether a redemption system can work in a large institution where many are strangers, as clearly something broke down.</p>
<p>However, at a small boarding school where everyone knows everyone and there should be adequate adult oversight of student behavior, I still believe that there can be enough follow-up to redeem kids who present a problem. Of course, this requires a high degree of integration of internal (counseling) and external (parents, rehab, etc.) systems and more importantly a high level of accountability for decisions and no political interference. The political interference comes at a price. Sometimes Sugar Daddy's money has to be turned down, sacrificing that wonderful new building for another day. </p>
<p>It hurts in the short term to do these things and often that is where a headmaster's tenure comes into the equation. Ultimately, the fish rots from the head and if the headmaster allows unmanaged problems to persist, he may well have built a legacy of great buildings and unseemly scandals.</p>
<p>Getting off my soapbox (do I ever really do that?)...</p>
<p>No offense, but in the BS community Kent is known for being the place where kids from top tier schools go when kicked out.</p>
<p>No offense taken. My D does not attend Kent.</p>
<p>However, does the fact that Kent takes on kids who have had problems elsewhere make it a bad school? Or for that matter does it say those are bad kids?</p>
<p>They may have poor self discipline and issues to work out. In all likelyhood, they are not getting the help they need.</p>
<p>I've learned that rich people have problems and poor people have problems. The difference is that rich people can afford more exotic problems. We can all improve with the right attitude and the necessary support. The question is do they get the right support at whatever school they go to?</p>
<p>I'm glad that it's not my S who sent in an acceptance to Kent and is reading this. That would suck...being that kid...reading all the negativity...now, instead of a month ago when the accusations made here could have been explored firsthand and, if believable, could have been acted upon. At this point, though, it's pretty much a big bummer and nothing else.</p>
<p>I am a parent of a child in the Class of 2007 at Kent School. Kent is a very solid place - the teachers are very good and approachable, the campus facilities (with the exception of the auditorium) are first-rate, and the moral environment quite strong. No BS is perfect, but Kent has proven to be a great choice for our child. </p>
<p>It is a fairly serious place - the no-tolerance policy is rigidly enforced, and they are in chapel three times a week, along with a strict dress code. It is a place with a lot of tradition, very similar to other Episcopal schools like SPS, St. George's and Groton. The kids are great, and they really seem to love it there.</p>
<p>I have another child who graduated from St. Mark's a few years ago, and there is simply no comparison between the schools - I think the Kent experience for our child has been much better academically, athletically, socially and spiritually than that experienced at St. Mark's by my other child by an order of magnitude.</p>
<p>D'yer Maker, you were on the ball with your post....
Is this thread attacking Kent or what? Drugs and problem prone rich kids?
This thread is very disillusioning and I will ask around if these accusations have any truth to them.
I sure hope these supposed facts are not true, I have visited the school many times and really like it, the kids I met are very polite as well.........
Well at least now I have been warned, if there was any reason for it.........</p>
<p>Bump........I want more opinions and leads to go on, lol</p>
<p>We visited Kent and thought it was very nice. My D chose Tabor instead because she fell in love with it. The fact that Tabor isn't "top tier" didn't hurt her at all...it still had all the APs you could ever want, and she was accepted SCEA to Stanford and a finalist for the Morehead at UNC. I think what is more important is what you do with what you have......especially in high school.</p>
<p>I read the title to this thread quickley and got really excited for a second</p>
<p>Did you apply to Kent?
Oh and it's true some dorms are pretty gross and disorganized, atleast the freshmen dorms...lol</p>
<p>no</p>
<p>d'yer maker would get it</p>