<p>Back in the day when I was in high school there was really an anything goes mentality. The pendulum has now swung to zero tolerance for anything. There seems to be no middle ground. This not only applies to drugs, tobacco, alcohol and weapons but language, pranks and other gray areas. In cases that I've seen personally and recent threads on this forum it seems to lead to either penalties that seem too harsh for the infraction or lack of enforcement (turning a blind eye) so as not to disqualify a budding athlete or other student for whom a disciplinary action would sink future plans. It also leads to students not being willing to "rat out" a problem kid on a team so the same kids have repeat infractions which seem to go unaddressed.</p>
<p>QUESTIONS:
Assuming no change in laws or legal ages, should schools and/or school districts back off from zero tolerance and adopt more staged disciplinary policies so that kids who cross the line do have penalties that administrators aren't afraid to enforce?</p>
<p>Are kids being let off the hook more rather than less because there is not staged discipline and learning that they are untouchable?</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes. Zero tolerance policies = zero tolerance for children. We need trustworthy people running schools, and then we need to give them the freedom to look at all the circumstances and make a judgment about what’s best for that child and the school overall. We end up suspending or kicking out a lot of kids who aren’t incorrigible, which makes it a lot more likely that they’ll never finish HS.</p>
<p>Instead of giving out appropriate consequences and letting kids learn about how to live in our culture, we either “pretend” nothing happened, because the only available consequence is far too harsh and life-altering, or we decimate kids for something they ought to be allowed to learn from.</p>
<p>zero tolerance=zero opportunity to learn.</p>
<p>It’s the worst possible way to handle anything short of actual harm to others.</p>
<p>Zero tolerance policies are not working well.</p>
<p>I think they should be replaced with penalties appropriate to the infraction. For first offenses or relatively minor repeat offenses, students should be punished with consequences that mean something to them now but do not affect their futures (detentions, loss of privileges such as the freedom to go off campus for lunch, lengthy hours of boring community service, etc.) This seems more reasonable than drastically punishing misbehavior that is a normal part of adolescence.</p>
<p>Why did zero-tolerance policies arise in the first place? Was there a perception that things were out of control? Was it because of school shootings?</p>
<p>They seem similar in motivation and effect to some policies in the criminal justice system, such as “3 strikes and you’re out” and mandatory sentencing. And, for that matter, trying children as adults.</p>
<p>Zero tolerance rules assume that the principal isn’t intelligent enough to decide whether something is serious or not.</p>
<p>There was a case where a student had a picture of his soldier parent, who was stationed in Iraq, and the kid was expelled because the picture showed his dad who had a gun on his person. Crazy. So, a kid with a pic of his dad in his police uniform (with gun in holster) would also get in trouble? Nuts.</p>
<p>Zero tolerance policies don’t allow teachers and administrators to use their common sense, assuming they have any. OTOH, having NO set policy allows administration to wink at the foibles of their fav students (athletes, top performers, etc.). School districts should adopt sensible policies with reasonable means for appeal that allow room for judgment but severely discourage favoritism.</p>
<p>I would love to see an outbreak of common sense all over the nation…sure, if you bring a switchblade to school there should be consequences, if a butter knife accidentally got left in the bed of your pick up after you helped your Grandma move, non-issue.</p>
<p>My face turns red when i hear about the K-1st student that is expelled for kissing a girl, or a middle school student who is expelled for having tylenol on their person. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance has very much lead to the increase in students not taking responsibility for their actions, and parents assisting with that effort. If the consequences of taking responsibility for a small infraction may ruin the rest of their lives, who can blame them sometimes? </p>
<p>And there is a good reason for some actions a child takes, including being involved in a fight to try to break it up, or to stand up for another child. However, kids in our district are told that student that retaliates or “joins in” for any reason will be punished at the same level as the instigator. </p>
<p>Oh, and possession of cigarettes carrys the same punishment as possession of cocaine. </p>
<p>I hate zero tolerance. </p>
<p>I have had many discussios with my son about staying out of trouble,even a possible connection to trouble. It just takes one person to see something and it can be a real mess for students. They do not get due process, and the school system does not follow the law about interviewing students about crimes either. They will have the school resource officer “interview” (term used instead of interrogate) without a parent present. Outside of school, that would be a big no-no.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is happening even with zero tolerance policies. Probably more so. Even the admins do not want to put a devestaing black mark on their favorite students, so they cover up big things for some students, and blow small things on other students out of proportion.</p>
<p>exactly. zero tolerance leads to both leniency and harshness, in inappropriate measure, and this is always discretionary.</p>
<p>I mean whatever happened to “I will not call Johnny a bad name” written 1000 times and an apology?</p>
<p>Or, clapping the erasers?</p>
<p>Or, just having to go sit in the principles office and wait for that horrible meeting when they called your parents, who, since everyone was in agreement you should have a reasonable consequence wasn’t going to immediately start to defend you so you didn’t get expelled for being less than stellar one day?</p>
<p>Zero tolerance is always a politician’s kind of solution: “This is an outrage! We should have zero tolerance for [whatever the problem du jour is]!” That, and its first cousin mandatory minimum sentences, have never been a good idea, but because it’s impossible to have a political discussion beyond a third-grade level in this country, they continue to be wildly popular with voters who can’t imagine they themselves would ever run afoul of the rules. Until their grandson is “caught” bringing a pair of scissors to school.</p>
<p>As stupid a policy as it is, though, one has to acknowledge that it is rooted in a profound failure of trust in the existing institutions. We don’t trust principals or judges to apply the values we care about when they consider punishments, so we try to take away their flexibility.</p>
<p>When my son was a fourth grader in the Cub Scouts, he was rude and disruptive during a ceremony at a pack meeting.</p>
<p>The Cubmaster spoke to me later and suggested that an appropriate consequence would be for him to miss the next pack activity, which was a very enjoyable special event.</p>
<p>I agreed immediately, and I was very pleased with the Cubmaster’s idea. </p>
<p>My point is that when authorities have appropriate, reasonable consequences available as tools, parents typically don’t object to their use. In fact, these tools provide an opportunity for the parent and school (or in this case, Scout) authorities to work together toward the same goals. </p>
<p>Zero tolerance policies don’t do this, though. They place the parents and authorities on opposite sides. If the Cubmaster had tried to expel my son from the pack for this one infraction, I would have fought it, even though I agreed that my son’s behavior had been unacceptable. And that would have helped nobody.</p>
<p>I mean whatever happened to “I will not call Johnny a bad name” written 1000 times and an apology?</p>
<p>========</p>
<p>I agree…but did you know in some states it is a crime to have a child write sentences for a punishment. Maybe not 10 sentences, but say 50 or 100. </p>
<p>Can you imagine? In some states it is illegal to have a child write, “I will not talk out of turn in class” …maybe 50 times. It’s even illegal for a parent to have his child write, “I will not hit my brother,” maybe 50 times.</p>
<p>Yes. There is no evidence that zero tolerance policies are effective in reducing serious discipline issues, and some evidence that they may be iatrogenic (harmful).</p>
<p>Kind of like putting everyone in jail/prison, psych. Jail is the best place for someone to go if they want to make bigger/ better contacts and get better at being a criminal!</p>