[quote]
The Schools policy, referred to by members of the School community as the no-chance policy, states unequivocally that a student will be dismissed if he or she is in possession of or uses alcoholic beverages, or is in possession of or uses drugs, inhalants, chemical substances, or drug paraphernalia, except as specifically prescribed by a physician
[/quote]
.
Do you think more schools should adopt this? Or is it way too drastic?</p>
<p>I think it’s way too harsh. People make mistakes. I prefer the approach where the school provides a one-time sanctuary policy for students who find themselves in trouble, and where the school works with the student after the first infraction to try to ensure it doesn’t happen again. I agree that the harsh approach makes sense for repeat violations.</p>
<p>I am not a big fan of that policy either. Too unforgiving and I suspect not applied evenly. What do they do when a member of the family who has built half the campus gets caught with a beer in their room? Immediate expulsion? Doubtful.</p>
<p>Teenagers are teenagers and these years are meant for experimentation - the good and the not so good. I am a believer in second chances. After that, they have to live with the consequences of their actions no matter how harsh.</p>
<p>When I first began the search for a school, I was a big fan of the one strike idea. Then I gave it a bit more thought. Kids make mistakes, and even “good” kids do so. The problem with the “one strike” idea is that there is no way for the school to apply common sense to any given situation. Such a specific rule means that there is no room for taking all the facts into account… as such, I have amended my stance. That does not, however, mean that there should be 20 strikes! I just like a school to be able to do the right thing in each case… vs. an automatic, mandated expulsion.</p>
<p>If you ask kids at Hotchkiss, many of them say that they actually like the one strike policy. First of all, it gives them a clear rule, which they know will be enforced. They can’t talk themselves into thinking “eh, it’s only a little bit of booze, even if I get caught, I’ll probably only get suspended.” Second, it gives them ammunition to resist peer pressure – they don’t feel as uncool refusing to drink if they can say “I totally would, but my parents will kill me if I get kicked out of school” and other kids can understand that.<br>
Also, to be clear, there is a safety exception to the rule. If a student is so drunk that he or she needs medical assistance, the student or the student’s friends can invoke “the infirmary rule.” This means the student can go to the infirmary with no disciplinary consequences to the student or the friend who seeks help. The student will then be treated as necessary at the time, plus receive any appropriate follow up counseling, but without having to worry about being kicked out. Obviously this exception can allow for a little gaming of the system (ie, if you realize you’re about to get caught, a kid suddenly needs medical assistance), but still I think it’s a pretty good balance to strike.</p>
<p>Twinsmama, I’m in your camp.
Last year we visited a school where this topic was raised in a group of families who were meeting with the headmaster. It was not a one-strike school, and a parent was trying to get a clear answer on just what the policy was. It finally came out that their philosophy was that kids make mistakes, and sometimes more than once, before they learn their lesson around this… that they are reprimanded, but that expulsion would only occur if a kid was charging for the goods. D asked “Do you mean that kids who bring drugs to campus and give them to other kids won’t necessarily have consequences, unless they are making a profit?” The answer was, well, yes. Hmmm. We crossed that school off our list.</p>
<p>Another unintended consequence of this policy is that it can create a culture of “off-campus” partying. Many students like the one-strike policy but there is a sizable group that leaves campus for NYC or local 2nd homes to have reasonably large parties, sometimes hosted by the parents who provide a “safe” place for their kids to “blow off steam”. The issue for me is that the students who participate tend to be from wealthier families and this cultural division doesn’t simply exist off campus but can create divisions on campus as well. I have experience at both single strike and double strike schools and very much support the idea that kids can make and learn from mistakes. HarvestMoon1 makes a good point, “Is this rule applied evenly” unfortunately…no. I agree that the policy makes good sense on paper (perhaps) but I’ve seen it fail too many students who were simply too young/naive/impressionable/insecure to be held to such a high standard when faced with significant peer pressure. A great topic for conversation!</p>
<p>A more serious side effect is the number of suicides that occur due to the “one chance” rule. I know Groton had one recently as have several other schools. I think we should ask ourselves why the gaping precipice of “one chance” rather than a tough but graded approach specific to a given situation and child? If the child was worthy of entry, aren’t they worthy of “chance two”…though with serious consequences and some tough love?</p>
<p>My prep school years were marred by a tragedy with a younger sibling to a straight-A gal in my class. Her parents were some of the nicest and most active folks in the community, all three kids driven over-achievers, their home a second one to many of us in school. The 14-year old younger brother was caught at a school dance with a drug, told by the headmaster he would be cashiered from school the following Monday, and that the police would be involved. He went home in panic and ended his life. Aside from his one mistake, a nicer kid with a brighter future would have been hard to find.</p>
<p>Know before you go. I asked every AO the school policy directly when interviewing. If you are cool with the “one strike” lesson, even if it will be applied to your kid, no problem.</p>
<p>We discuss so much in this forum about choosing a school that is the right fit for the child. Parents should also pause to consider whether the school is the right fit with respect to their parenting philosophy. </p>
<p>I haven’t been here in a while, but this is an interesting discussion! Do you think there are any schools that truly are “one strike” schools? I kind of doubt it. I know that most schools have a completely different view of using and dealing…</p>
<p>No-chance is too harsh. A kid expelled from school and forced to adapt to a new school and also to explain on college applications could have his or her whole future affected by a single bad decision. That is just cruel and unusual. Curiosity is something we try to inculcate in these kids. Who among us got through high school without even tasting alcohol? </p>
<p>One strike is OK however… repeating shows that you did not learn anything. </p>
<p>I would hope Hotchkiss has the flexibility to apply judgement and bend its own rules where the kid is briefly foolish rather than persistently self-destructive, in which case saying the policy is no-chance might be fine.</p>
<p>When I was at bs several decades ago there was a two-strike rule - first strike you go home for 2 weeks regardless of where you live (and are responsible for all the work you miss) 2nd strike and you were expelled and no wiggle room. You might think 2 weeks at home is too soft but I dont think many of the kids who found themselves on a plane home to angry parents really wanted to repeat the experience.</p>
<p>Of course, there are red lines: drug dealing like Parlabane said, beating of another student or teacher…those sorts of things. But, outside those red lines, were we to be sitting together and discussing the issue, I’ll bet we could almost always come up with an example of why a second strike policy is both appropriate and humane. I guess, for that reason, I would default to a two-strike policy, an individual case basis review.</p>