Comments on: When a Zero Tolerance Policy Makes Zero Sense

By: chelsea

chelsea — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:14:13 +0000

I randomly found this site while I was researching some information about Zero Tolerance and I have to say I have learned a lot from everyone. We are all quick to judge and seek to blame others. PIPER- I have to say that I admire that you are in an environment where you can look at a situation and judge it for what it is and still keep in mind the safety of your students. However, on the other hand I have say that I don’t think it’s the administrators fault completely. I mean wouldn’t you all agree that you would do what your job requires of you? I know some administrators, from where I grew up, seriously lack common sense in the Zero Tolerance idea, but they too want to keep there jobs and will hide behind this policy in order to do so. It’s not right, so WE need to help change the policy! I pray and hope that those who are capable of making a change in this policy will soon do so. This all comes back to the idea the good suffer with the bad, but if we open our eyes and look around, maybe WE are the answer to this situation. why can’t the people change what needs to be changed?

By: Marie Morrow

Marie Morrow — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:16:49 +0000

Thanks Everybody, the public outcry was great.
The change in law passed unanamously in the senate and went in front of the House last week. I guess we’ll see….

By: lana

lana — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:59:35 +0000

“Zero tolerance” was never designed to actually make people any safer, any more than the district-wide ban on black trenchcoats in Jefferson County after Columbine was. “Zero tolerance” was designed to make people FEEL safer, and so long as the people in charge of enforcing it are free to act intelligently, it does its job.

The problem a lot of you seem to have is an assumption that they are free to act intelligently.

The school principal receives a report that a student has weapons in her car. It is just barely possible, if the principal has the balls to do it, to decide that a chat with the student will suffice, so long as no one else has heard about it yet. If anyone else in the school knows about the report, that principal’s hands are tied. That principal may think it’s totally stupid, but the law requires certain actions.

Let me ask you this: how many of you here would thumb your nose at the law when you know that doing so will get you fired? How many of you who are condemning teachers for acting as society demands they act would actually do otherwise in their place?

Yes, I think the zero tolerance law has a lot of issues. I also know that its job was not to keep kids safe, but to keep their parents from pulling them out of school in fear. It did its job.

I know a number of teachers who do ignore this law whenever possible. Administrators, too. But no, one news story about someone actually obeying the law and suddenly everyone here decides that all school teachers and administrators are idiots?

Don’t blame the people who enforce stupid laws. For that matter, don’t blame the politicians who pass laws in reaction to a scared public. If you want, blame their lawyers for poor wording. Or how about, for a change of pace, take the blame yourselves– it’s a societal problem, and no matter how much better you think you are than the people around you, you’re part of society. Bitching about it on the comments section of a news article online doesn’t do a damn thing to fix it.

By: Thatguy

Thatguy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:06 +0000

Wow, it’s a good thing these policies weren’t in effect when i was in high school, being on the ski team, I had my poles in the car most days during the winter, and to a nearsighted school administrator they might be considered a reasonable fascimile of a cavalry saber!

By: Fantom

Fantom — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:59:45 +0000

The only “zero tolerance” which makes sense…. is one on liberals.

By: Fantom

Fantom — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:55:52 +0000

I am firmly in support of the four R’s.

Readin’, Ritten’, Rithmetic’, And Riflin’.

It is unconstitutional.. as well as downright mad, not to have weapons at schools. The only school shootings to be stopped, were by armed citizens.

By: dancingnancie3

dancingnancie3 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:10:17 +0000

“And parade rifles might be mistaken for a real rifle by someone who had never seen either except from a distance, but they resemble a real rifle about as much as what a handy sixth grader would carve out of a two-by-six. She was suspended and came under threat of expulsion for possession of lumber.”

–haha, so true. If lumber is a weapon now we shouldn’t be able to carry a lot of things around with us. We might as well make airplane rules standard for everywhere.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:32:58 +0000

Zero tolerance policies in schools are almost invariably administered by zero intelligence personnel. The law that you reference Charlie (in #34) was undoubtedly passed (as I remember and would characterize the Colorado legislature) by zero intelligence politicians. Zero also represents the level of American common sense these days. Zero does NOT, however, represent the level of frustration and anger that is beginning to increase exponentially. Nor does zero come close to describing the coming reaction that will rock this country.

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:25:35 +0000

Peter, sadly, I suspect that’s exactly what Marie Morrow thought.

By: Peter the Bubblehead

Peter the Bubblehead — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:20:29 +0000

52. sharonsj wrote:
A lot of this nonsense would have been avoided if the drill teacher or the kid simply would have put the stuff in a bag.

Peter writes: Gee, who would have figured you would need to put lumber in a bag to prevent people from mistaking it for a lethal weapon?