<p>While I agree that having some sort of standardized rules allow some administrators “cover” when they have to expell a favorite student or athlete for a seriously bad incident. They get to point to a rule so that they’re not the “bad guy”. And, that’s ok.</p>
<p>But the standardized rules have to be sane.</p>
<p>my2sunz, I read the article you cited. What happened to that student is heartbreaking. I also read the letter from representatives of the parents. The observation “Zero tolerance rules make life easier for bureaucrats and lawyers, but they make no sense in the jumbled world of teenagers” is right on. A one-size-fits-all approach is not justice. It will only be possible to change this if families are willing to accept flexibility (restoring trust in the authorities is key) in discipline. Fear is what put these policies in place, and I don’t see the fear diminishing any time soon.</p>
<p>It is crazy when we see schools with zero-tolerance for things like aspirin and butter knives, but then other schools will tolerate physical violence against gay teens, repeat offenders with groping, etc. Schools love to say that they can’t stop the bullying, but I don’t see most of those kids getting expelled.</p>
<p>I am trying to decide if this woman is my hero, or if I am horrified! I think this type of action works with only some kids, not all. Since mom instituted the punishment, I am assuming that she knows her daughter well enough to know the impact of her actions. </p>
<p>[‘Hide</a> your money, I’m a thief’: Mother forces daughter to wear humiliating T-shirt after she is caught shoplifting | Mail Online](<a href=“'Hide your money, I'm a thief': Mother forces daughter to wear humiliating T-shirt after she is caught shoplifting | Daily Mail Online”>'Hide your money, I'm a thief': Mother forces daughter to wear humiliating T-shirt after she is caught shoplifting | Daily Mail Online)</p>
<p>OK, so I was told last night that “officially”, students are not allowed to carry chapstick. Especailly at the elem. level because they are afraid of sharing between students and the germs. If a student needs chapstick, parents have to get a note from the MD for administration of over the counter meds so the school nurse can give it. No incidents of any type of penalty to any students that I am aware of, but still…</p>
<p>These are the same people that have students all hang their coats in the same closet touching each other (which is a huge way that lice are spread- if you are wondering why that is annoying).</p>
<p>Zero-tolerance rules + Lit teacher who was enamored of assignments in which the students dressed up as various literary characters = Pozzo from Waiting for Godot with a pipe completely filled with clay, to make it clear that it could not be used + Hippolyta from Midsummer Night’s Dream “armed” with an 8-inch plastic bow and very flimsy arrows tipped with suction cups (in both cases, a member of my family). </p>
<p>The really scary thing is that there are probably school districts where neither of these would have been tolerated.</p>
<p>Chapstick is a gateway drug. What if it’s tinted? . . . gloss? . . . mandatory 1 week suspension.
Maybe the OBMs (my BIL’s acronym for overbearing mommies) could just tell their own kids not to share chapstick.</p>
<p>QuantMech - back in elementary D had (for 1 blessed year) a pullout gifted teacher who actually took seriously her mission of teaching the kids critical thinking skills. They were studying Macbeth and put on a performance for the school. She had it approved by the principal “in theory” without detailing the nuances of the performance. D supplied the plastic swords and daggers from our dress-up bin as well as a mask for one of the robbers. There was fake blood in the form of ketchup. The kids did the script editing, acted, directed, did costuming etc. It was a great, authentic production and the teacher was not back the next year.</p>
<p>It’s too bad when great teachers are discouraged, or even forced out, due to short-sighted school policies.</p>
<p>Since no one has defended zero-tolerance at all–and this is cc, after all–I will say that I think the policies originated from good impulses (probably), but that insufficient thought was given to the likely consequences of their implementation. There are some actions that we would generally like to discourage (good impulse). Also, I believe that there was a concern for fairness, that the same actions should lead to the same consequences, independent of the student or the student’s background (mostly good impulse).</p>
<p>But then the implementers didn’t seem to realize that draconian measures are not needed, to indicate a lack of tolerance for behaviors. Also, ironically, the attempt at fairness was completely subverted, as a result of the policies themselves–as pointed out above, no one wanted to come down harshly on a favored student, and so nothing could happen. Bad outcome.</p>
<p>The zero-tolerance policies went viral before awareness of the consequences of the policies went viral. If a neighboring school district went “zero-tolerance,” there was probably a significant level of pressure on other districts not to seem less concerned about bad behavior. Also, once the policies are in existence, it’s probably harder politically to get rid of them than it was to implement them. </p>
<p>More to follow, but this post has become fairly long.</p>
<p>Aside from the issues I mentioned above, I think there are several other circumstances that led to the zero-tolerance policies:</p>
<p>First, there is the the Barney Fife “nip-it-in-the-bud” impulse (from the Andy Griffith show). “Well, today’s eight-year-olds are tomorrow’s teenagers . . . First sign of youngsters going wrong, you’ve got to nip it in the bud . . . You go read any book you want on child discipline and you’ll find every one of them is in favor of bud-nipping.” On the show, of course, this was a joke.</p>
<p>Second, the thoughtful cultivation of good behavior takes a lot of patience and energy on the part of adults. It seems to me that patience is in short supply in some of the local communities. While there’s plenty of immediate-action-directed energy, there is sometimes a shortage of the kind of energy needed to take a more effective, but often more time-consuming approach to encourage good behavior; and the more effective approach may also be more draining, for the adult.</p>
<p>Spouse advises me that my recollection was wrong, and Hippolyta left the bow and arrow at home for obvious reasons (despite their flimsiness).</p>
<p>Again, maybe I’m teaching the wrong lessons at home, but back in the Lord of the Rings heyday D was Legolas for Halloween on year and carried the plastic bow and an empty cardboard “quiver” on her back with no actual arrows. The plastic bow alone is not a weapon and doesn’t look scary or dangerous. Of course, she was my “pleasure to have in class” kid not my “student can be a distraction to others” kid so maybe it was selective enforcement. DS would probably have been in the principal’s office for the same costume . . . good thing he was Frodo that year.</p>
<p>I bet you sent her to school with chapstick too, didn’t you, saintfan? LOL
Kids can’t even play cowboy and indians, cops and robbers, dodge ball, or king of the hill anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, in the movie, Legolas’ quiver was a magic one that always had arrows in it (to allow shooting off infinite numbers of arrows at orcs and other enemies).</p>
<p>Yes, but in this case the magic would only be implied because the quiver was cardboard. Can one be given detention for an implied magical quiver?</p>
<p>depends on how well the administration knows their spells.</p>
<p>Yikes, I remember when it was possible to buy a “terrorist” Halloween costume in one of those plastic bags…</p>
<p>In the 1984 movie “The Breakfast Club,” the nerd character is in a saturday detention for bringing a gun to school.</p>
<p>In 7th grade my son was given an ISS for naming his group the “Black & White Penguins”</p>
<p>his response to the teacher “if I had called us the Blue and Green Penguins I would have gotten an F”</p>
<p>^^^^Maybe he was supposed to call his group “the black and white and brown and yellow and red and rainbow, thin-lipped, fat-lipped, wide nosed, narrow nosed, long nosed, short nosed, various different shaped eyes, skinny, fat, tall, short, intelligent, average, rich, poor, artistic, nerdy, musical, mathematically gifted, athletic, ADD, developmentally disabled, hearing impaired, visually impaired, physically challenged, immigrant, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, athiest, agnostic… penguins” so as not to exclude anyone. I’m sorry, did I leave anyone out?</p>