- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
No, but they're illegal, so i don't think it'd be an issue. And I said earlier, I think a 2-inch blade is too small to matter. And what do you think administrators should use as decision criteria?
No, but they're illegal, so i don't think it'd be an issue. And I said earlier, I think a 2-inch blade is too small to matter. And what do you think administrators should use as decision criteria?
1. What kind of weapon it was (a pocketknife, not a Glock)
2. Where it was found (locked up in the student's car, not on his person)
3. Why the student had it (it was part of a survivalist kit, not to stab someone)
4. The character of the student (an Eagle Scout who had never been in trouble before and whose grades are apparently good enough to make him competitive at West Point)
5. How they found it (the student voluntarily showed it to them in good faith after being asked about it)
I'm sure there are others, but those are just a few of the criteria I can think of. ALL of the criteria suggest they should not punish the student at all.
I understand that, but I'm just saying there's at least reasons for zero-tolerance policies, regardless if you personally support them.
Yeah. To keep the administration from actually having the responsibility of making rational decisions on a case by case basis.
And what would be the motivation in doing that?
I understand that, but I'm just saying there's at least reasons for zero-tolerance policies, regardless if you personally support them.
Yeah. To keep the administration from actually having the responsibility of making rational decisions on a case by case basis.
And what would be the motivation in doing that?
The purpose of having a zero-tolerance policy is to ensure that there can be no exceptions to the rule, at all. Whether you're an eagle scout or a gang member, the rule must apply.
In the school that I teach at we have a zero-tolerance policy for bring weapons on campus as well. The punishment is suspension, up to but not including expulsion. Days of suspension are to be determined by the Dean. Expulsions need to be reviewed by the school board.
In the case of this Eagle scout, the zero-tolerance rule must apply, which just means that some form of punishment needs to be given. If this rule was not applied to this eagle scout, then he is an exception to the rule, and weapons is now introduced onto campus, thus defeating the purpose of having a zero-tolerance policy against weapons on campus.
There can be no exception to the zero-tolerance policy, but the the level of punishment can be discretionary.
And therein lies the rub. Zero tolerance policies are nothing more than a way for irresponsible administration to justify their irresponsibility in making decisions. :shrugs:
Another reason for having a zero-tolerance policy is to protect students from discrimination (by the administrators who are assigning the punishments).
I don't buy into that hype for one second.
I think that zero tolerance rules are made to be blanket so that administrators are insulated from charges of favoritism, racism, or bigotry and bias. This does provide insulation, but also wipes-out the ability to deal with unique situations as they arise. In that there is severe injustice.
Well according to Obvious Child's link earlier....
Education experts say that zero-tolerance policies initially allowed authorities more leeway in punishing students, but were applied in a discriminatory fashion. Many studies indicate that African-Americans were several times more likely to be suspended or expelled than other students for the same offenses.
“The result of those studies is that more school districts have removed discretion in applying the disciplinary policies to avoid criticism of being biased,” said Ronnie Casella, an associate professor of education at Central Connecticut State University who has written about school violence. He added that there is no evidence that zero-tolerance policies make schools safer.
...
“There are still serious threats every day in schools,” Dr. Ewing said, adding that giving school officials discretion holds the potential for discrimination and requires the kind of threat assessments that only law enforcement is equipped to make.
Now, I'm not saying that a lot of school administrators are racists. In fact, I don't think any of the administrators that I know of personally are racist. But I don't doubt for one second that certain schools in various places around the country still facilitate racism, because racism is still alive. Racism may be dying, but it's still alive.
i find myself wondering why the eagle scout believes rules don't apply to him. that said, 20 days? i don't think that's reasonable.
That wasn't my point. What I was getting at was that the reasons given don't really jive with the reality of what zero tolerance policies do: give the teachers and administrators an excuse for taking zero responsibility by making the situation always, 100% the child's fault without exception by enshrining that fault as an institutional policy.
Okay, but if the administrators did have to deal out punishment on a case by case basis, wouldn't we open up the possibility of discrimination? Either way we're screwed. Zero-tolerance we're screwed, no zero-tolerance we're still screwed. :shrug:
That wasn't my point. What I was getting at was that the reasons given don't really jive with the reality of what zero tolerance policies do: give the teachers and administrators an excuse for taking zero responsibility by making the situation always, 100% the child's fault without exception by enshrining that fault as an institutional policy.
It's just stupid and further shows that the degradation of our education system lies just as much with the administration, if not more so, as it does with the kids and their parents.
No, we hold teachers and administrators to a standard and when one is found to be lacking in the character to make sound judgments, we terminate them. Screw their unions.
Apparently there is a question of perspective regarding what constitutes a weapon (Boy Scouts are not allowed to carry any), and the legality in which the police officer clearly stated no law was violated.
I don't think that's the issue, I think a just outcome is the purpose. The policy is for safety, and since the Scout clearly demonstrated a concern for safety, he fulfilled the intent of the policy.Of course, school policy are not considered laws.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?