Texsox Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 everal times in posts it was stated that zero tolerance policies are working. I believe they are not working and in fact have been harmful. This isn't the first hijacked thread. I am sorry there is a perception of, or even more sadly if true, the fact you have racists in your town that cannot fairly make decisions and need some "one size fits all" punishment. I think that is ducking responsibility and passing the buck. I also think ducking responsibility is our newest national sport. No one can make a decision. No one will take a stand and defend it. Good kids get screwed, bad kids get off too easy because of one size fits all. Advil and crack cocain treated the same. One size fits all. Butter knife falls in the back of a pickup truck, gang banger brings a switch blade. Same thing. One size fits all. And they have to do this because the elected officials decided they could not hire competent people who can make decision on a case by case basis. So now you can hire any idiot of the street and have them run the school. Just hand them the book the school board writes and life is fine. I do not have faith in the length of time a dangerous student should stay away that was pre-determined during a campaign speech. And I guess my subconcious was working, my car is in the shop. But I really like my mechanic, he's too smart to run for the school board. I've been asked by teachers to run. I am not bilingual. That is the kiss of death around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 OK, so can we agree that the kids needs to be out, at least longer than one month? The school asked for an evaluation, and was denied, so for the moment, they don't have any other recourse. As for the three cases I mentioned, they won all three, but the resulting lawyer fees really hurt the budget. I have actually brought up at a meeting a year ago that they ought to just hire an attourny full time for just the district, or even a 'shared' arrangement between a few districts. Would probably be cheaper than hourly fees. As for zero tolerance rules, I believe my brother said they were working. I may have implied that, but in general, I don't like them either. One place where we still disagree is to WHY they have these to begin with. Your contention that they put them in place because "the elected officials decided they could not hire competent people who can make decision on a case by case basis" I feel is completely wrong. I feel they are in place as a direct result of our extremely over litigous society, not just here, but across the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 9, 2004 Share Posted September 9, 2004 OK, so can we agree that the kids needs to be out, at least longer than one month? The school asked for an evaluation, and was denied, so for the moment, they don't have any other recourse. As for the three cases I mentioned, they won all three, but the resulting lawyer fees really hurt the budget. I have actually brought up at a meeting a year ago that they ought to just hire an attourny full time for just the district, or even a 'shared' arrangement between a few districts. Would probably be cheaper than hourly fees. As for zero tolerance rules, I believe my brother said they were working. I may have implied that, but in general, I don't like them either. One place where we still disagree is to WHY they have these to begin with. Your contention that they put them in place because "the elected officials decided they could not hire competent people who can make decision on a case by case basis" I feel is completely wrong. I feel they are in place as a direct result of our extremely over litigous society, not just here, but across the country. That kid needs to be out until a child health care professional, and preferably two, say he is safe. I have no idea, and either does the school board, when he is safe. It may very well be tomorrow, it may be in two years, I just do not want to take the chance. I also feel it is unfair that the kid sit out two years, if he is safe now, just because someone a couple years ago came up with that number. Many of the zero tolerance laws came about because of Columbine and the need to do something, anything, to protect our kids. School board candidats ran on platforms of "getting tougher" and getting these kids out of the schools. Problem is they didn't give themselves any flexibility when a kid makes an honest mistake and some of the punishments are way out of scale. They also have allowed the professionals to duck behind the policies and not be accountable and not be allowed to do what they are trained and schooled to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 I have no problem with the kid being forced to "sit out two years" even "if he is safe now". There is a slight chance the kid might learn that certain innapropriate actions have their consequences. Earlier in the thread, someone used the phrase "it's just a pellet gun" or something to that effect. No. It's a weapon. What if someone stuck a pellet gun to someone's temple and fired it? However, to reference another point, a plastic butter knife is not a weapon. If the problem is the word "knife", call it a butter spreader or something. That's totally insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 I have no problem with the kid being forced to "sit out two years" even "if he is safe now". There is a slight chance the kid might learn that certain innapropriate actions have their consequences. Earlier in the thread, someone used the phrase "it's just a pellet gun" or something to that effect. No. It's a weapon. What if someone stuck a pellet gun to someone's temple and fired it? However, to reference another point, a plastic butter knife is not a weapon. If the problem is the word "knife", call it a butter spreader or something. That's totally insane. Do you have a problem with the kid sitting out three years if he isn't safe in two? Pellet Gun = Gun Plastic Knife = Knife Same lack of allowing human decision making in the policy. When does a plactic butter knife become a dangerous weapon? Instead of allowing some human to use their brains, we try and write a policy in advance that will cover every conceivable situation. Write the definition too wide and some kid who is helping grandma move is expelled, too narrow and a dangerous weapon is allowed. As an excercise write a definition of "knife". Let trained educators think and make judgements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Let trained educators think and make judgements. And then sue them when you don't like their decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 The kid needed to be expelled. This whole sitation is just weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 And then sue them when you don't like their decisions. The school is getting sued now with zero tolerance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.