Public school zero tolerance policies.

@ossobuco,

Where I learned, naturally, to bake brownies, make popovers, make pralines, make fudge.. sew an a-line skirt. Not positive that skirt was g/s, but think so - in any case, it involved NEEDLES.

1 Reply

The problem with "zero-tolerance" policies is the same as the problem with the Eisenhower administration's "Massive Retaliation" nuclear strategy: it takes away your options in such situations and you are faced with either overreacting or having a big, empty threat. Neither are ideal.

And like in the case of nuclear game theory, where Kennedy's "Flexible Response" strategy replaced Eisenhower's "New Look", an approach that allows you more strategic options once you actually know what you are facing is far superior. You gain very little other than inflexible response options through "zero tolerance" policies.

Having "zero tolerance" for the bad is good, but you can't perfectly codify the bad, so don't try to codify your reactions to it too inflexibly. There should be a range of appropriate responses available to you because there is a range of severity in terms of the infraction being responded to. "Zero tolerance" should mean that we have zero tolerance for what we are actually trying to prevent (the violence) and not that we have zero judgement and zero ability to formulate appropriate reactions to things.

3 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco!! Don't give the no tolerance fetishists/admins any ideas! From sewing needles, they progress to hair barrettes. From hair barrettes then they take away pencils and pens. You can poke an eye out with pen. Let alone turn a pen into a makeshift shiv.

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/pen-weapon-450x284.jpg

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

But it was an interesting question to me, given the number of times "zero tolerance" policies have been discussed & criticized in discussions about schools here. I would have been interested to hear your views about whether, in some circumstances, zero tolerance policies might in fact be appropriate.

I think that depends on what it means. I support "zero tolerance" of weapons or violence in school, but I don't support zero common sense when it comes to determining what is a weapon or not, and I don't support inordinately inflexible responses. Those details are huge in practice because in practice what just happened was punishment for something that is simply not a weapon.

They can have zero tolerance for weapons without throwing common sense out the window as to what constitutes a weapon. They also don't have to lock themselves into inflexible ranges of punishment. They should give themselves more leeway for interpreting their own rules using common sense.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

The problem with "zero-tolerance" policies is the same as the problem with the Eisenhower administration's "Massive Retaliation" nuclear strategy: it takes away your options in such situations and you are faced with either overreacting or having a big, empty threat. Neither are ideal.

Robert, but what are your suggestions for how schools could realistically approach the very real problems caused by the presence of knives in schools? (I'm not just talking of a few isolated incidences, either. It's a growing problem in the whole community which has spilled into schools, sadly.)

I confess I'm not really all that familiar with similar issues in US schools & their policies in regard to such things, I'm talking pretty much from the situation I know best & work in. But as a general sort of approach (& given the state's "duty of care" (safety) legal responsibilities that schools must exist within) how do you think the problem would be best approached?

There has been talk here of schools installing metal scanners, or introducing security guards & such. These sorts of potential developments are a very new idea to us here in Oz. It saddens me enormously we might be expected to resort with such measures. It would, as I see it, make our schools less friendly places for both students & staff to exist in.

3 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

There has been talk here of schools installing metal scanners, or introducing security guards & such. These sorts of potential developments are a very new idea to us here in Oz. It saddens me enormously we might be expected to resort with such measures. It would, as I see it, make our schools less friendly places for both students & staff to exist in

I should think that the more pressing concern is that such operations are tremendously expensive. Schools have limited resources, what are you willing to cut to pay for guards and detectors??

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I personally cannot see any pressing reason for any student to bring a knife to school & support a zero tolerance.

I'm not sure I'm following the logic of your argument here. Are you saying that you as a teacher are owed a pressing reason for students doing something, or else you support a zero-tolerance policy against their doing it? If so, I don't see how that's compatible with making "every attempt to treat young people with appropriate respect."

***

When I was in elementary school, I always carried around my my Swiss army knife. You could use it for all kinds of things, and I wouldn't have occurred to me to take it out of my pocket when I went to school. A zero-tolerance policy here wouldn't have made the school any safer, and would have deprived me of plentiful tinkering opportunities.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I should think that the more pressing concern is that such operations are tremendously expensive. Schools have limited resources, what are you willing to cut to pay for guards and detectors??

yes, enormously expensive, I know.

However (sigh) if such measures are deemed to become an "essential requirement", do to the ever worsening extent to the problem, schools might be "required" to do it.

I would hate for that to happen, though. I think schools are far too institutionalized already. Also I doubt many teachers welcome the idea of acting more like police than teachers, should tougher measures be deemed to be necessary.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I'm not sure I'm following the logic of your argument here. Are you saying that you as a teacher are owed a pressing reason for students doing something, or else you support a zero-tolerance policy against their doing it? If so, I don't see how that's compatible with making "every attempt to treat young people with appropriate respect."

No & working within an institutionalized system, I'd probably have little or no say in it anyway.

No, I am simply saying I'm aware of the growing problem of knives. I've seen evidence of it it in my own school. It is a serious & growing safety issue.

I assure you, Thomas, that I do make very effort to treat the students I come into contact with, with respect & fairness. You can choose to believe that or not.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Robert, but what are your suggestions for how schools could realistically approach the very real problems caused by the presence of knives in schools? (I'm not just talking of a few isolated incidences, either. It's a growing problem in the whole community which has spilled into schools, sadly.)

I know the problem well. I briefly attended a rough school in Colton, California that had dedicated cops on campus (I still have his business card, as I was a frequent "snitch" about the gang violence) and an anonymous hotline to report weapons.

I saw knives and guns being sold in classrooms and had a friend killed in front of me walking home from school by a total stranger (both 14 years old) as a part of a gang initiation rite. Hell I reported one gun sale to the "anonymous" line, but it rang to an answering machine in the principal's office and the guy's cousin was there at the time and they attacked me a week later. My last day in that school I was knocked unconscious by an aluminum baseball bat in a robbery.

I think after that very violent school experience I know school violence very well, and I support no tolerance for it. But that doesn't mean that there should be no interpretation as to what constitutes a weapon and I don't want some kid who eats his apple into the shape of a gun to be treated like the kids who actually brought guns to our school and would shoot at us. These are very dissimilar cases and all I am really saying is that this should be reflected by very dissimilar reactions.

The school in question banned things like wallet chains, that's fine, people were using them as a weapon. They'd ban all sports logos, also fine, the gangs were using them as colors. I had to go home one day because all I had to wear was a t-shirt from the salvation army that had some kind of sports logo on it but I understood the reasoning behind the rule as I'd been attacked on Halloween for wearing Chicago Bulls logos that apparently were not appropriate to my side of town. But if they were to take a once centimeter weapon shaped piece of plastic and treat it just the same as the guns and knives I was seeing and punish it just as harshly, then there is simply a problem in either the rule or its application.

Quote:

But as a general sort of approach (& given the state's "duty of care" (safety) legal responsibilities that schools must exist within, how do you think the problem would be best approached?

I think the best approach is zero tolerance for what you are actually trying to stop. But we need to ask ourselves: is what we are trying to stop the scenario where a tiny kid takes a one-centimeter bit of plastic that is shaped like a gun to school?

If that isn't the situation we want to have zero tolerance for then it makes no sense to formulate the zero tolerance rules in a way that prevents us from reacting to this kind of situation differently than the real things we want to stop.

I understand that we can't always judge intent, and that schools should probably err on the side of caution (the kid being suspended is better than being killed) but I just think that in practice when people say "zero tolerance" that usually means they intend to start overreacting.

What I advocate is no tolerance of weapons but also no forfeiture of common sense. So if the item in question is not legitimately threatening to anyone I don't think it should be treated the same as a weapon. And if a kid brings a t-shirt to class (perfectly within the rules) and begins to choke someone with it then I think it should be treated as a weapon.

So in practice, I'd recommend that schools not try to pre-define all weapons. Anything can be a weapon. And I'd recommend that they open a range of responses so that they can punish the kid that brings a loaded gun to school differently than the kid who brings an action figure's gun to school.

Of course, this means they'd have to use their own judgement, and as roger points out this would represent taking responsibility that I can see the appeal of shirking.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I think after that very violent school experience I know school violence very well, and I support no tolerance for it. But that doesn't mean that there should be no interpretation as to what constitutes a weapon and I don't want some kid who eats his apple into the shape of a gun to be treated like the kids who actually brought guns to our school and would shoot at us. These are very dissimilar cases and all I am really saying is that this should be reflected by very dissimilar reactions.

First can I say I entirely supported boomerang's position on "pretend weapons".
Secondly it is often actually not up to ordinary classroom teachers to have the luxury of such "interpretations". They get stuck with carrying the policies out. And sometimes it can be quite a mental juggling act between what you'd prefer & what is imposed on you by state authorities.

Quote:

I think the best approach is zero tolerance for what you are actually trying to stop.

Indeed.
So if if you are trying to stop knifings, mightn't it make some sort of sense to remove knives from the school environment?

Quote:

What I advocate is no tolerance of weapons but also no forfeiture of common sense.

I totally agree with that approach, too. I don't believe I have argued otherwise.

Quote:

And if a kid brings a t-shirt to class (perfectly within the rules) and begins to choke someone with it then I think it should be treated as a weapon.

I think the student should be disciplined for totally inappropriate & dangerous behavior .... endangering the safety of others. I doubt the fact that he did it with a T shirt is terribly relevant.

Quote:

So in practice, I'd recommend that schools not try to pre-define all weapons.

Well I don't think they are doing that. But, given that knives are brought to schools to be used as potential weapons, should "the need arise", or if a particular student wants to settle a score with someone else? That's generally why they're brought to school, or carried around in the streets, anyway. For some reason I'm not clear about, knives have become the weapons of choice of youth gangs & a growing number of young people. I don't actually think it's a matter of redefinition, it's more an acknowledgment what's actually going on in our community.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

my understanding is the weaknesses in the legal system plays a big role in the codification of banned items as well as removing discretion. I think that you will find that where the rules are not written out before the event, as well as when some people are punished for breaking the rules and other not, that the courts have not allowed administrators to punish those in need. I know in my district both parents and students must sign the rules, and if the parent refuses the student can be barred from entering the school. It runs nearly 20 pages. There is another rule book for athletics, signatures required.

Our broken legal system kills us with a thousand little jabs.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

OK.

0 Replies

I hate it when I'm away and interesting things happen. It can take me forever to get caught up.....

Quote:

I can only respond with my knowledge & experience of how young people are treated in the education system I know. (ie Victoria, Australia)

And I believe there is every attempt to treat young people with appropriate respect. Sometimes in very trying circumstances, in some of the more 'troubled" schools..

Apart from anything else, I don't that it's appropriate to treat say, 12 year olds, as adults. Because they aren't adults. But I do believe it is appropriate to treat them with fairness & respect. And to involve them in discussing & formulating policy decisions which affect their school lives.

I am TOTALLY with msolga on this. I don't want Mo or any other kid treated as an adult. Respect and fairness is right and proper.

Mo has had a few.... uhhhhh.... mishaps.... at school and he has been terrified by them.

At the risk of sounding like I'm over-reacting, if this kind of misunderstanding happened to Mo I'd be lucky if I ever got him to go back to school.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Robert, but what are your suggestions for how schools could realistically approach the very real problems caused by the presence of knives in schools?

I'm not Robert, but my first suggestion would be to remember that knives don't injure, people do. I think it's much more important that schools enforce policies against bullies than policies against knives. A bully without a weapon can still intimidate class mates with fists or even just speech. By contrast, a regular student with a knive is not a danger to anyone. The core problem here is intimidation. It isn't the tools that intimidators happen to use.

Hence, my default policy would be "don't ask, don't tell" for every knife with a blade shorter than x inches, for some reasonable value of x. The default policy would apply to every student who hasn't been convicted for bullying over the last calendar year. For bullies, and for knives with blades so long their primary use would be as a weapon, I would consider tougher restrictions, including zero-ish tolerance.

The suspension in Boomerang's school is indefensible under any reasonable policy. That's why zero-tolerance, conceived literally, is off the table for me.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

I agree on that. I think - if I were in the school system as a teacher or administrator, that simplicity would be attractive. Which could be fools' gold.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

The suspension in Boomerang's school is indefensible under any reasonable policy.

And I have totally agreed with that.

Quote:

I'm not Robert, but my first suggestion would be to remember that knives don't injure, people do. I think it's much more important that schools enforce policies against bullies than policies against knives. A bully without a weapon can still intimidate class mates with fists or even just speech. By contrast, a regular student with a knive is not a danger to anyone. The core problem here is intimidation. It isn't the tools that intimidators happen to use.

Agreed on the bullying. I brought it up earlier.

Sure it's people using knives that injure other people, but can you not understand, Thomas, that knives are are being carried by more & more young people to be used as a weapon either to attack, or for protection? It is not a great combination aggression & knives. It's a very real problem our community is trying to find solutions for, not just schools.

Can you also not understand that today is a whole different ballgame than when you innocently carried your pocket knife with you to school? I wish we were living back in more innocent times, too.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Ok, I agree with that.
I admit such a policy in a school or for those boarding an airline can be a target for how to broach security.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Sure it's people using knives that injure other people, but can you not understand, Thomas, that knives are are being carried by more & more young people to be used as a weapon either to attack, or for protection?

I can and do understand that; I simply disagree with you about the implications. I have nothing against knives carried by non-bullies for their own protection. If a well-muscled bully preys on a weaker student, I don't care if the victim pulls out a knife and stabs the attacker. Teachers can't be everywhere. In fact, they shouldn't be everywhere -- school, after all, is not a prison, and teachers aren't prison guards. Therefore, violent self-defense will always be part of deterring schoolyard bullies. If non-aggressive students carry pocket knives for this purpose, they have my blessing. Limits on knife-carrying are a matter of degree for me, not a matter of prohibition.

MsOlga wrote:

Can you also not understand that today is a whole different ballgame than when you innocently carried your pocket knife with you to school?

That's what people said when I went to school in the seventies and eighties. So although I am capable of understanding it -- thanks for asking! -- I don't know that it's generally true.

1 Reply

Robert has this right:

Quote:

I think the best approach is zero tolerance for what you are actually trying to stop.

Violence is what we want to stop. If kids are punished for tiny GI Joe guns are we really teaching them that?

I don't think so.

1 Reply

Public school zero tolerance policies.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know