 |
|
The district is moving away from a zero-tolerance policy that leaves little room for adult judgment and extenuating circumstances. School board chairman Keith Ray signaled the district’s greater flexibility, saying “If the board adopts this policy, the board is making a very strong statement that we do not tolerate that behavior, but at the same time it’s not a zero-tolerance policy where we throw reason out the window.”
A “zero-tolerance” approach to student discipline may sound good in theory, but principals and other school officials should not be held hostage to policy. There has to be some room for discretion.
Too often, Zero Tolerance policies are pushed through by parents, politicians and administrators whose outlook on life is exclusively rule-based and stuck somewhere in 19th Century rulebooks. Or older.
A little common sense in a corner of the Palmetto State.
19th-century?
Yep: http://www.mcguffeyreaders.com/
The reason for the ZTP in public education is so educators never again are required to make a decision that may hurt little Bob’s feelings or have a negative impact on his future.
I agree that the push here is insurance and insurance costs, not any moral sense. A school that uses common sense and judgement opens itself up to being sued, while the school that follows and enforces a zero-tolerance policy keeps its insurance costs down.
I guess I would have gotten expelled for storing booze, car stereo head units, and hand tools in MY high school locker. I was the only one that actually used a LOCK, and this was 1977!
“Too often, Zero Tolerance policies are pushed through by parents, politicians and administrators whose outlook on life is exclusively rule-based and stuck somewhere in 19th Century rulebooks.”
Yeah, but I’ll bet it was some of those very same parents who didn’t expect it would be their spoiled little johnny or sally that got the boot for alcohol. That was only supposed to happen to the poorer kids. So not the punishment is probably more “fairly” class based.
#2.
What Joe said.
It’s way easier to make the lawyers happy when you set hard and fast rules. Unfortunately… it’s not that great for critical thinking!
Yeah… no. I know it’s always fashionable to blame the lawyers, but there isn’t a chance in the world that you’ll see _fewer_ lawsuits when kids are getting booted out of school for sharing Tic-Tacs (“look like drugs”), pointing a finger at someone and saying “bang”, or kissing their six-year-old classmate.
Zero Tolerance is all about the opportunity for the small-minded control freaks who so often run the school systems to indulge in petty bullying.
Now let’s apply the same logic for police and other government policies.
Even when little six yr olds get booted from school for kissing, the school board is still obligated to educate the kid. Since this is usually done through alternative schools, the costs can be very high. Most classes have very low ratios of students / teachers. Busing the students to another district is often prohibitive.
Since No Child Left Behind requires this alternative, the school district has to spend a lot more than what any insurance would cost.
The concern about lawsuits is bullshit. Discrimination in punishment is only one small factor the Judge needs to decide if the suit proceeds to trial. In any tort case, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant is responsible for the harm done. Zero tolerance may actually be a liability because it demonstrates the school did not act reasonably.
#11, zz
It is just as well you can’t copy and paste. Your link is just another spam piece of shit.