Zero tolerance in schools-good or bad?

[frank raud]

This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.

Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.


Thoughts?

 

[Makalakumu]

Most schools only punish for the blows that fall. They don't take into account the escalation. This is where people fall through the cracks with no-tolerance policies. Violence in schools is rarely one on one or two on two, it resembles a web and the causes of fights are complex.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.

Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.


Thoughts?

Thoughts?

I agree with you entirely and it is a point of great frustration to me that school administrators, while recognizing their own personal rights to self-defence, ignore the rights of students who are the victims of UPROVOKED aggression. Good thread.

Lest others think that my scenario of the "unprovoked assault" is contrived; I assure you I lived it during the majority of my high school and junior high school years. It sucks, and I lost all respect for persons in authority who took the path of least resistance and held all responsible for any incident regardless of culpability.

Great thread! You ask great questions.

 

[Jade Tigress]

What has happened to discernement and common sense? Zero-tolerance can work for drug use and bullying...but c'mon...my high-school daughter cannot bring Advil to school for a headache..she is an honors student. She has never been in any trouble and her teachers know her. To suspend her for bringing Advil to school (this hasn't happened because she doesn't bring it due to the zero-tolerance policy) is ridiculous.

My son dealt with bullies before we moved. He is a special ed student. A great kid who gets along with everyone. His teachers know him. To suspend him for defending himself against a bully...a child whom teachers know has a history of bullying...is ridiculous.

Zero-tolerance in theory is a good idea. You get busted with drugs..you're suspended...no second chances. You bring a weapon to school...you're suspended. You assault someone...you're suspended. BUT it needs to be balanced with common sense to truly be effective, otherwise the innocent are punished along with the guilty.

 

[Kreth]

Zero-tolerance in theory is a good idea. You get busted with drugs..you're suspended...no second chances. You bring a weapon to school...you're suspended. You assault someone...you're suspended. BUT it needs to be balanced with common sense to truly be effective, otherwise the innocent are punished along with the guilty.

I remember reading a story a while back where a student was suspended for pointing a chicken nugget at a friend and saying, "Bang!" In theory, zero-tolerance works, but the implementation often leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[bydand]

Wow, how timely! My oldest son (8 years old) had a little altercation this week at recess, and I had a meeting with his principal this morning about this very subject. The school has a zero tolerance policy about violence in school, but also has the common sense to realize that there has to be a definition between "violence" and "self-defense." The kid who smacked him in the side of the face, was punished; my son, for knocking him on his butt and going to an aide, wasn't even talked too about his actions. I talked to the principal to let him know I appreciated the schools stand and follow-through. I have always told my school age children: "walking or running away are the best thing to do, BUT if that isn't an option; stand up for yourself and fight until there is no more threat, Daddy will back you up and while you may get in trouble in school, you won't at home." They also KNOW that if they pick a fight, the trouble at school will pale to the trouble at home. LOL it worked on me and it seems to be working for my kids.

So, I guess that I would agree with a zero-tolerance policy, as long as they are administered with a bit of brains and forethought.

 

[Grenadier]

"Zero tolerance" in a school system can work, BUT...

It must be administered with several grains of salt. To adopt a uniform code that automatically suspends (or even expels) someone for something completely harmless is just plain silly. Furthermore, the application of such a policy should be geared towards genuine troublemakers, and allow for legitimate, justified self-defense. I guess that when you add in all of these exceptions that I propose, then it's really not a "zero tolerance" policy, but rather one of a "strict guidelines with reasonable exceptions" policy.

There are many, many examples of "zero tolerance" gone awry. The suspension of a student for possessing an ibuprofen tablet, the suspension of an Eagle Scout who had left a small camping hatchet in the trunk of his car, the suspension of a student who had a small plastic sword in his lunch box (to hold the sandwich together), or even the suspension of a student on grounds of knife possession simply because she had a plastic knife in her lunch bag to spread peanut butter.

Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids"). Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles. Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.

 

[Kensai]

"Zero tolerance" in a school system can work, BUT...

It must be administered with several grains of salt. To adopt a uniform code that automatically suspends (or even expels) someone for something completely harmless is just plain silly. Furthermore, the application of such a policy should be geared towards genuine troublemakers, and allow for legitimate, justified self-defense. I guess that when you add in all of these exceptions that I propose, then it's really not a "zero tolerance" policy, but rather one of a "strict guidelines with reasonable exceptions" policy.

There are many, many examples of "zero tolerance" gone awry. The suspension of a student for possessing an ibuprofen tablet, the suspension of an Eagle Scout who had left a small camping hatchet in the trunk of his car, the suspension of a student who had a small plastic sword in his lunch box (to hold the sandwich together), or even the suspension of a student on grounds of knife possession simply because she had a plastic knife in her lunch bag to spread peanut butter.

Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids"). Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles. Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.

Damn... Beat me to the punch. Totally agree. The application of laws and rules must be used in conjunction with "common sense". I know it's a much maligned concept in this era of political correctness, but I find it generally is the best approach.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

"Sometimes, I wonder why some school boards use this policy to discipline the above students in such a manner, while refusing to crack down on the true bad apples in the school system, such as drug dealers, gang bangers, etc. Maybe they're afraid of backlash (from the criminal element or from the public that might perceive these thugs as "good kids"). Maybe they just want to (improperly) flex their muscles. Whatever the reasons, these boards are going to have to one day wake up and realize that punishing the folks who don't cause trouble isn't going to make the criminal element disappear.

Great point - I think often, it IS a control issue. Also, it is easier to discipline a good student who won't cause you any problems than it is to discipline a "problem student" whose parents will get in you face if you so much as reprimand their "precious". Sometimes, I think school administrators pick an easy target to make an example of in the hopes that others they are more reticent to tackle will "get the message". That is NOT an attitude I respect.

 

[matt.m]

You know, I am in my 30's so I will chime in like the rest of you old rusty folks. Dad told me the following:
Don't start a fight, I will kill you when you get home
If you have to fight, make sure everyone sees the other person start it
Punch until the other won't get up
If you get into trouble for defending yourself I don't care, I am behind you.

I got suspended and detention in high school for fighting. I never started it, so I didn't care. I knew my fathers approval was the most important anyway. So I believe it is up to the parent to support their child and let them know that it is all good if they have to defend themselves.

Proper nuturing brings about a stable mind.

 

[frank raud]

Zero tolerance allows bureaucrats to hide behind the policy. examples have been given of aspirin not being allowed on schol grounds. Is that the real reason for zero tolerance on drugs? Or the fact that no one is qualified to test the pills and liquids that many of us take on a normal day.

If a kid is selling pills at $5 a pop, pretty sure that's illegal drugs. if a pill has Bayer stamped on it, probably isn't.Zero tolerance removes the requirement for common sense.

It seems odd to me, that it appears more common now that a student is unjustly suspended or charged with a zero tolerance offence, than the previous situation where the teachers and principals had some leeway. When I went to school, the good students didn't get in trouble.

 

[Jade Tigress]

When I went to school, the good students didn't get in trouble.

Unfortunately the same can't always be said for now.

 

[Kensai]

Perhaps if we hadn't inherited such a bloody awful compensation culture, schools wouldn't be afraid/breaking any laws in administering mild pain killers etc? I truly believe that that is a >< part of the problem. That and nannyism. Makes my blood boil, and for a caaaalm....relaaaaxed guy like me, that says a lot.

 

[MJS]

This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.

Young kids, and high school teenagers will do stupid things that a more mature and responsible adult will not. In an ideal world, every one would respect every one else's property and bodies. We don't live in an ideal world. No matter what we teach them, we know that some boy will grab some girls breast, perhaps to impress his friends. If the girls hits the offending boy, she gets suspended. If the girl does not have the right to defend herself, she becomes a victim, and is subtlely taught that it is OK for her to be violated.
This contradicts the idea of empowerment that we are supposed to be teaching our children.


Thoughts?

Yes, do you bring up some very good points. There seems to be no happy medium. Personally, I feel that if someone is being assaulted, touched, etc. then IMO, they should have the right to defend themselves within reason of course. I don't feel that kids should have to go to school and be harrassed on a daily basis. They're there to learn and its the schools job to provide a safe, productive learning environment for the kids.

Mike

 

[Dark]

This is a spin-off from the self defense in schools thread. Most school boards have a zero tolerance for violence policy. This includes fighting back. If you are attacked/assaulted, and fight back, you get suspended. I think this is a knee-jerk reaction to some unfortunate situations involving extreme violence in certain schools. I don't believe the overall effects of this policy have been considered.

Thoughts?

Simple idea, teach your kids to be victems. That way politions, cops and criminal can abuse and control them. The American Spirit dies...

Teach your kids to protect themselves and thier right to live and they are just as bad as the bullies because they could just accepted being a victem. Funny ain't it... This why I'm moving to a new country...

 

[Henderson]

Zero tolerance policies create more victims. The kids that start trouble do NOT care about suspensions, detentions, and expulsions. They wear them like a badge of honor. Believe me, I know.

My daughters are only 9 yrs old, but they already know...don't start the fight, but feel free to end it. They also know they have my full support if they feel the need to defend someone less capable than themselves.

Most side comments about this subject are coming from parents, or people who were themselves victimized while in school. I was the bully. Not proud of it, but it is my past and is a part of me. Nothing I can do about it. It's made me a better person now.

I say kick the bully's *** when he deserves it, and let the good kids alone! If we tell kids to not fight back, we might as well say that they are not worth fighting for.

Just my $.02

Respects,

Frank

 

[frank raud]

Just showing I'm an old man, when I was a kid, if I got out of line, an adult had no problem correcting me, this would include a quick swat sometimes, followed by a phone call to my parents, or being marched up to my parents, and having to tell them what I did.

Now, no one will get involved with a kid doing something wrong, for fear of being arrested for doing something with a minor. Kids know it, they threaten to call the cops if anyone speaks to them in a tone they don't like. I think most people would freak today if a neighbour, or a STRANGER, was walking up their driveway, dragging their son by the ear.

 

[Brother John]

It depends entirely on specific policies.
IF they suspend due to self-defense.....then it's Wrong.
IF the teachers can't control and accurately monitor what's going on, then they are at the WRONG student to teacher ratio.

....then we fall back to issues of funding no doubt.

LOTS need corrected.

Your Brother
John

 

[Lisa]

Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.

My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.

According to the Vice Principal, my daughter and two of her friends tried to pull a known bully off of another child who was being beaten up. There were no teachers around at the time. The "bully" proceeded to spit in my daughters face at which time, in reaction to being spit on, she smacked him on the face. He then spat on her two friends and elbowed one in the face.

The Vice Principal told me he would be calling her into the office to speak with her on Monday. I guess we will see how far their no violence policy goes and will find out if she gets suspended for slapping the kid in retaliation for him spitting on her.

If she gets suspended, I think that would be a tragedy. I have no problem with what she did. Actually, I am quite proud of her for trying to defend one of her friends.

 

[Henderson]

Interesting topic for me as I am dealing with this very issue.

My daughter came home telling me of an altercation she was involved in.

According to the Vice Principal, my daughter and two of her friends tried to pull a known bully off of another child who was being beaten up. There were no teachers around at the time. The "bully" proceeded to spit in my daughters face at which time, in reaction to being spit on, she smacked him on the face. He then spat on her two friends and elbowed one in the face.

The Vice Principal told me he would be calling her into the office to speak with her on Monday. I guess we will see how far their no violence policy goes and will find out if she gets suspended for slapping the kid in retaliation for him spitting on her.

If she gets suspended, I think that would be a tragedy. I have no problem with what she did. Actually, I am quite proud of her for trying to defend one of her friends.

Lisa, Your daughter is to be applauded. I am sure you are already very proud of her. As the father of two girls, I am proud of her myself.

Respects,

Frank