D. Armenta
PlagmanMixed Emotions Regarding Zero Tolerance in Schools: Should Common Sense be Permitted?
The current zero-tolerance policies evolved from those that originated approximately a decade ago in response to Reagan’s “War on Drugs.” According to the US Department of Education, at the time more than 75% of public schools had adopted some version of a no-tolerance policy. And according to the APA, a series of high-profile shootings helped the rules spread rapidly across the country, although at the time, common sense was still permitted in most school districts. (Story reported by the Associated Press; all quotes are 100% ver batim)
In 1997, the US Department of Education performed a survey of over 1200 public schools, finding that 79% had zero-tolerance for violence, 88% for drugs, 91% for weapons, 94% for firearms (the other 6% coming from schools in Texas), and 99% for not speaking English.
Some parents are finding themselves with mixed emotions regarding zero-tolerance. On the one hand, they want their daughters to not be touched by a boy EVER, but on the other, teenagers need to learn some things on their own, such as how restraining orders work.
Christine Duckworth, mother of an 18-year-old daughter who just graduated high school in Rhode Island, believes the rules should be cognizant of the fact that teenagers make mistakes. “I think there’s pretty much always a gray area,” she said, “You’re dealing with individuals. How can you possibly apply one law to every single person and their circumstances? Plus it’s not like I can blame my daughter, that boy was really, really cute.”
Fortunately, there have been signs that the policies could be undergoing modifications in the near future.
In 2005, Texas permitted their schools to consider students’ intent, and other mitigating factors, such as race, ethnicity, gang affiliation, race, color, feelings towards Al Sharpton, 40-yard dash time, and race before punishing them for any offense other than those involving firearms. Texas Rep. Rob Eissler wants the weighing of those factors to be mandatory. “It’s hard to legislate common sense,” he really did say, seriously, “if we get intent into part of the code, I think we’ll be in good shape.”
Those opposed to zero-tolerance have statistics on their side. According to Cecil Reynolds, chairman of the APA’s Zero Tolerance Taskforce, even when socio-economic factors are taken into consideration, academic achievement generally lags in schools with the highest rates of suspension and expulsion. Said Reynolds, “the kids feel like they’re walking on egg shells.” Which is also forbidden given that it offends vegans.
Reynolds also questions what lessons zero-tolerance is teaching students. In Colorado, a 10-year-old girl was expelled after giving her teacher a small knife placed in her lunchbox by her mother. According to the little girl, the mother did this intentionally so she could have some peace and quiet around the house while her daughter sat in juvie for eight years.
Explained Reynolds about the 10-year-old girl, “what she learned from the school was, ‘If something happens and you break a rule, for God’s sake, don’t tell anybody.’ Zero-tolerance policies completely ignore the concept of intent, which is antithetical to the American philosophy of justice.” However, in their defense, ignoring intent keeps Al Sharpton’s cries of racism at bay.
In Rhode Island, the principal at Portsmouth High School, whose mascot is often depicted carrying a rifle, censored a yearbook photo of a student who is passionate about medieval reenactments because he was wearing chain-mail and holding a sword. The school relented this year, announcing that the cost of litigation would have been more expensive than the inevitable fallout from the Mothers Against Medieval Recreations over a student being photographed dressed as a medieval knight.
Patrick Agin, the student in the photo, understands rules against guns and drugs, but was bewildered at how the school’s administrators drew distinctions in his case, given that he never once brought the sword to school. Said Patrick, who at 18 is already smarter than the administrators of his school’s district, “you can’t really have a zero tolerance. We have track and field. We throw javelins. If you think about it, you can pretty much make anything into a weapon.”
What Patrick failed to mention is that a photograph of a sword doesn’t require any thinking to know that it can be fatal, whereas one would have to use quite a bit of their imagination to conceive of any way in which a six-foot long spear designed to be hurled through the air could ever harm another person. At this rate, the county should expect that their kindergarten’s clay-shooting team could be disbanded.
In 1997, the US Department of Education performed a survey of over 1200 public schools, finding that 79% had zero-tolerance for violence, 88% for drugs, 91% for weapons, 94% for firearms (the other 6% coming from schools in Texas), and 99% for not speaking English.
Some parents are finding themselves with mixed emotions regarding zero-tolerance. On the one hand, they want their daughters to not be touched by a boy EVER, but on the other, teenagers need to learn some things on their own, such as how restraining orders work.
Christine Duckworth, mother of an 18-year-old daughter who just graduated high school in Rhode Island, believes the rules should be cognizant of the fact that teenagers make mistakes. “I think there’s pretty much always a gray area,” she said, “You’re dealing with individuals. How can you possibly apply one law to every single person and their circumstances? Plus it’s not like I can blame my daughter, that boy was really, really cute.”
Fortunately, there have been signs that the policies could be undergoing modifications in the near future.
In 2005, Texas permitted their schools to consider students’ intent, and other mitigating factors, such as race, ethnicity, gang affiliation, race, color, feelings towards Al Sharpton, 40-yard dash time, and race before punishing them for any offense other than those involving firearms. Texas Rep. Rob Eissler wants the weighing of those factors to be mandatory. “It’s hard to legislate common sense,” he really did say, seriously, “if we get intent into part of the code, I think we’ll be in good shape.”
Those opposed to zero-tolerance have statistics on their side. According to Cecil Reynolds, chairman of the APA’s Zero Tolerance Taskforce, even when socio-economic factors are taken into consideration, academic achievement generally lags in schools with the highest rates of suspension and expulsion. Said Reynolds, “the kids feel like they’re walking on egg shells.” Which is also forbidden given that it offends vegans.
Reynolds also questions what lessons zero-tolerance is teaching students. In Colorado, a 10-year-old girl was expelled after giving her teacher a small knife placed in her lunchbox by her mother. According to the little girl, the mother did this intentionally so she could have some peace and quiet around the house while her daughter sat in juvie for eight years.
Explained Reynolds about the 10-year-old girl, “what she learned from the school was, ‘If something happens and you break a rule, for God’s sake, don’t tell anybody.’ Zero-tolerance policies completely ignore the concept of intent, which is antithetical to the American philosophy of justice.” However, in their defense, ignoring intent keeps Al Sharpton’s cries of racism at bay.
In Rhode Island, the principal at Portsmouth High School, whose mascot is often depicted carrying a rifle, censored a yearbook photo of a student who is passionate about medieval reenactments because he was wearing chain-mail and holding a sword. The school relented this year, announcing that the cost of litigation would have been more expensive than the inevitable fallout from the Mothers Against Medieval Recreations over a student being photographed dressed as a medieval knight.
Patrick Agin, the student in the photo, understands rules against guns and drugs, but was bewildered at how the school’s administrators drew distinctions in his case, given that he never once brought the sword to school. Said Patrick, who at 18 is already smarter than the administrators of his school’s district, “you can’t really have a zero tolerance. We have track and field. We throw javelins. If you think about it, you can pretty much make anything into a weapon.”
What Patrick failed to mention is that a photograph of a sword doesn’t require any thinking to know that it can be fatal, whereas one would have to use quite a bit of their imagination to conceive of any way in which a six-foot long spear designed to be hurled through the air could ever harm another person. At this rate, the county should expect that their kindergarten’s clay-shooting team could be disbanded.
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
A straight-A student participating in a Civil War recreation was suspended for having his REPLICA Civil War gun in the trunk of his car. 5 year olds get brought up on charges of sexual harassment for giving out hugs now. What's next, charging an art teacher with conspiracy to commit terrorism because she has a closet full of safety scissors? Every time I think the world couldn't possibly get any dumber, someone manages to surprise me.....
This next one I'm going to publish in 30 seconds is just as bad.
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.