<p>
</p>
<p>This has the distinct odor of Limbaughesque folklore. I have done no research, but I would be shocked to learn that this was true, or almost true, or anything in the ballpark of true, in any state, much less more than one of them.</p>
<p>Please give cites.</p>
<p>At our school there have been issues with baseball (and other sports) and chew on the team bus. Again, when the guy who might get a scholarship is involved will the rest of the team give him up under a zero tolerance policy . . . no. What does that kid learn? He learns that he is more special than everyone else and is untouchable. Because the official consequences are too harsh when addressing the early offense they often aren’t enforced. The behavior has gotten worse over the years rather than better as kid sees a pattern of sweeping it under the rug. We shouldn’t then be surprised when these kids carry their untouchable attitude into their college and professional lives.</p>
<p>Whenever DH tells high school stories about pranks (not involviong vandalism or personal harm) that he and friends used to pull we now have to preface with the reminder that if you do this today they won’t let you get your diploma.</p>
<p>You KNOW it’s a bad policy when you can’t get one person on CC to take the other side… :p</p>
<p>JHS…</p>
<p>My sister told me this. She’s a director of a foster-care agency and she is well-versed in what is considered “child abuse”. And, yes, there are states that say that having kids write sentences is “abuse”. She doesn’t think so, but she has to tell her foster care parents and others that they cannot use that as a punishment. This wasn’t something from a right-wing or left-wing or any-wing website/broadcast.</p>
<p>I don’t have to give cities…the entire state of Calif is such a state.</p>
<p>Edited to add…it’s because it has been defined as: “corporal punishment.”</p>
<p>OK, you force me to do the research, I did the research (at least a fair amount of it).</p>
<p>This meme seems to stem from a blog post here in Philadelphia a few years ago, involving a principal firing an assistant principal at an elementary school on the theory that assigning hundreds of lines of writing was corporal punishment. For anyone from Philadelphia, it was immediately clear that this was a story about racial conflict, not the legality of disciplinary methods. Meanwhile, the principal supposedly faced a virtual riot by parents objecting to the firing.</p>
<p>Out in the real world, I could find no other evidence of this policy, anywhere. In fact, opponents of corporal punishment in schools frequently cite writing lines as an appropriate alternative to corporal punishment. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not categorically forbid corporal punishment in schools. 27 states have enacted some form of ban on corporal punishment in public schools (and only 2 have extended it to all schools); some other states permit, but do not require, individual districts to ban corporal punishment. The language of these statutes defining corporal punishment leaves no doubt that writing lines is far, far outside the statue. (At least in ordinary circumstances – making kids write lines while being stretched on a medieval rack would probably be covered, or threatening to burn them with a cigarette lighter if they didn’t write fast enough.)</p>
<p>Here is a site that would let you download the flagship study used by the anti-corporal-punishment team: [Effective</a> Discipline for Children](<a href=“http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/community/injury-prevention-center/effective-discipline.html#The_Report_on_Physical_Punishment]Effective”>http://www.phoenixchildrens.com/community/injury-prevention-center/effective-discipline.html#The_Report_on_Physical_Punishment) This is, as best I can tell, the semi-official PC position. It is 100% clear that writing lines would not be considered physical punishment by the author and her blue-ribbon reviewers.</p>
<p>I wonder where the bball coach confiscating the spit cups and making the perpetrators swallow would fall on the scale of corporal punishment? I don’t think it solved the problem long term, but it did make an impression.</p>
<p>saintfan, I like that coach! Almost lost my dinner when I read that, but it was the perfect “natural consequence”…Zero tolerance policies DO NOT WORK. We’ve all heard the ridiculous examples of kids facing extremely harsh penalties for normal kid behavior. We faced the horrible anti-fighting policy when S was in HS. Zero tolerance for fighting is a bully’s dream come true! Pick your target, and because you yourself don’t care about being suspended, you attack the victim and get him to retaliate, then your goal is achieved! You BOTH get punished-----And the victim has no recourse. He stood up for himself and must pay the price. Even when the eye-witness accounts confirm everything the victim says, well, we must stick to the “zero tolerance policy”…JHS, you’re right. Trust has been severely damaged. Let’s hope common sense returns SOON.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably a combination of that and the actual or perceived greater likelihood of corruption when there is more discretion in punishment. If there is more discretion involved, it could be easier for there to be actual or perceived favoritism or other unfairness in how different students are punished for what appear to be similar violations of the rules. Of course, zero tolerance does not completely solve the problem, in that it may leave the choice as “all or nothing” where corruption can lead to some students getting no punishment while others get severe punishment for what appear to be similar violations of the rules.</p>
<p>I think zero tolerance arose when people were arguing about “amounts” and what deserved expulsion…like one joint vs a baggie full of pot…or a small knife vs a larger one. </p>
<p>The problem is that it began including pictures of weapons (including pictures of dad in the military) or crayon pics by kids of “cowboys and indians”.</p>
<p>And, what about that super kid who participates in one of those “rifle drill teams” with the fake guns (you know, they twirl them and stuff at competitions). The kid was supposed to be expelled because she had this “non-weapon-but-looks-like-one” in her car for practice. I don’t know if she ended up being expelled.</p>
<p>I cannot tolerate zero tolerance policies. I have railed against that term for a long time. Same thing with minimum sentencing, or 3 strikes and your out. They are all copouts for people lacking in judgement.</p>
<p>My kids always pushed as close to the edge as they could for Halloween costumes - e.g. plastic scabbard hanging on belt but w/o plastic sword inside. It suggests a fake weapon that no elementary kid would actually bring to school without actually being a plastic fake weapon. Then there’s the light saber . . . is a fake imaginary weapon actually a weapon?</p>
<p>I see the concern with airsoft and BB guns that really look like real guns and shoot pellets that can hurt, but when it’s extended to party store imaginary weapons it really does make one want to storm the principal’s office with pitchforks (are they weapons or farm implements, and if a kid dressed up as a farmer for Halloween could they bring a plastic pitchfork to school?)</p>
<p>Finally, the solution for the “What else could we all agree on?” thread!</p>
<p>^^^^^ that’s what I thought! :D</p>
<p>Zero tolerance (for fighting) is incredibly stupid. </p>
<p>Schools worry way too much about nonsense and that is why this country sucks at the elementary/middle/high school level in education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes! CC nirvana!!! :D</p>
<p>Schools worry way too much about nonsense and that is why this country sucks at the elementary/middle/high school level in education.</p>
<p>this reminds me of a time when a (stupid) ass’t principal was giving my older son a detention because she felt that the ribbing on his socks wasn’t high enough. The rule was that the ribbing had to be 2in and these were (I had even brought them to the office for approval before I had him wear them.) These socks weren’t “no shows”, they were “quarter socks” and they had 2 inches of ribbing!</p>
<p>When my H confronted her and she tried to justify the detention. Then my husband asked her, “What is your vision for this school?” She was dumbfounded. She had no vision. She saw herself as some ninny running around looking for the most minor uniform infractions. When she realized that she had no answer, she ripped up the detention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Consolation, I imagine it was because no school wants to find itself in the national news for a shooting, or a bullying-induced suicide.</p>
<p>mom2: I was scanning through and saw this. On first read my eyes eliminated the ‘t’ and I though, “Wow, mom2 is really bustin’ out on this topic with the name-calling!”</p>
<p>Quote - "this reminds me of a time when a (stupid) ass’t principal . . . " </p>
<p>It gave me a good chuckle when I reread it to be sure 
I vote to eliminate the ‘t’ and the parenthesis and add a hyphen.</p>
<p>Maybe one reason that Zero Tolerance began was because there were cases where a child did do something serious (like dealing drugs on campus) and it was revealed that the same child had been caught with a small amount of drugs earlier and hadn’t been properly dealt with??? </p>
<p>But including “pictures of weapons”, cheap halloween stuff, fake drill rifles and Tylenol is just crazy. </p>
<p>Seriously, these people aren’t thinking about how these expulsions will long affect an innocent child’s life. It’s really child abuse. If we heard of parents giving 6 months of grounding for leaving dirty socks on the floor, we’d think the parents were unsound and abusive. This is no different.</p>
<p>And…Saint…that is very funny about the ass’t. Actually she’s just dumb; not a “you know what.” I don’t know why certain petty, vision-less people get promoted into school administration. If we wanted schools run strictly by narrow rules, we could replace their high-salaried fannies and stick a Student Handbook in their chair for free.</p>
<p>It is totally ridiculous. It allows the administrators to abdicate all responsibility and judgment for any student actions. Not only doesn’t it teach the child anything, it sends the totally wrong message to them. I do believe, though, that there are many good administrators that wish this policy was not in place. I remember a couple of years ago hearing about a student that was nearly expelled for bringing a LEGO gun to school…it was about 2 inches big!
[Student</a> Nearly Suspended Over LEGO-Sized Gun: Gothamist](<a href=“http://gothamist.com/2010/02/03/student_nearly_suspended_over_lego-.php]Student”>Student Nearly Suspended Over LEGO-Sized Gun - Gothamist)</p>
<p>Much sadder was this story:
[Family</a> of Fairfax teen suicide victim wants changes in school disciplinary policies](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022104302.html]Family”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/21/AR2011022104302.html)</p>