Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

[John Jones]

I've pointed this out to the OP already and it's been ignored so far. He'd already been warned multiple times as well as punished at least once for it as well so it hardly counts as zero tolerance regardless of whether deserved the punishment or not.
I bet the parents of the poor girl wish the school did have a zero tolerance approach to pupils being sexually harassed.

It wasn't ignored. I read your comments. The punishment was warranted. I just didn't feel I had anything worthwhile to add to what you already said.

 

[RemieV]

It wasn't ignored. I read your comments. The punishment was warranted. I just didn't feel I had anything worthwhile to add to what you already said.

? You aren't the OP.

 

[TimCallahan]

Schools don't do this stuff because they enjoy it. It is because litigious parents like suing schools for frivolous stuff as they see it as free money. If you find a way to stop parents rinsing the schools for cash for stupid stuff then you this sort of overkill won't be required anymore.

Okay, here's how you deal with that: You vigorously defend against such suits, use legal precedence when you defeat them to quash other such suits, then counter attack vigorously with counter suits to make an example of the dicks who file nuisance suits. You don't gain a damn thing by being the wimp.

At the same time, you avoid looking stupid by refraining from busting high school and middle school girls from either taking Midol or giving it to their friesnds for menstural relief. How hard can that be?

 

[Primus]

Okay, here's how you deal with that: You vigorously defend against such suits, use legal precedence when you defeat them to quash other such suits, then counter attack vigorously with counter suits to make an example of the dicks who file nuisance suits. You don't gain a damn thing by being the wimp.

At the same time, you avoid looking stupid by refraining from busting high school and middle school girls from either taking Midol or giving it to their friesnds for menstural relief. How hard can that be?

Who's picking up the tab for all this? Court cases are expensive.

 

[Travis]

Okay, here's how you deal with that: You vigorously defend against such suits, use legal precedence when you defeat them to quash other such suits, then counter attack vigorously with counter suits to make an example of the dicks who file nuisance suits. You don't gain a damn thing by being the wimp.

At the same time, you avoid looking stupid by refraining from busting high school and middle school girls from either taking Midol or giving it to their friesnds for menstural relief. How hard can that be?

Unfortunately most schools just don't have a budget to fight lawsuits in court. Lawyers are not cheap.

At my own school this took the form of almost all the playground equipment being removed leaving us with literally just a dirt field and some basketball hoops. This was because the school felt it cheaper to remove everything than to pay for either a lawsuit settlement or the huge lawyer fees to fight said lawsuit should one of the kids hurt themselves on the equipment.

 

[TimCallahan]

Unfortunately most schools just don't have a budget to fight lawsuits in court. Lawyers are not cheap.

At my own school this took the form of almost all the playground equipment being removed leaving us with literally just a dirt field and some basketball hoops. This was because the school felt it cheaper to remove everything than to pay for either a lawsuit settlement or the huge lawyer fees to fight said lawsuit should one of the kids hurt themselves on the equipment.

Fair enough. You, and Primus in the post just preceding yours, bring up a valid point. However there are alternatives to turning the playground into a non-playground. When I was working as a substitute teacher I also worked in daycare and after-school programs.At all the schools in Burbank they had safety belts built into the swings, as opposed to removing all the playground equipment. Even if they end up removing the swings, there's no need to remove the slides, etc.

As to the cost of fighting lawsuits, I have a number of thoughts:

First, instituting zero tolerance strategies that result in teenage girls being busted for having midol in their purses (pax, Primus, I'm referring to the story I linked to, not the one you reported), suspending kids because their parents put a bread knife in in their lunch box, etc., invite lawsuits. Therefore, instituting some common sense might actually save money. Or, suppose a kid brings a pocket knife to school. Rather than treating the kid as a criminal, simply confiscate the pocket knife and send a note home with the kid to his parents (one that must be returned with a parent's signature) telling them they will have to come in a pick the knife up and asking them to make sure the kid doesn't bring it to school anymore. I bit of proportion helps greatly. In both cases of the Midol girls, again, confiscating this over-the-counter pain relief medicine and sending a note home is just as effective as suspension, without going to excess.

As to litigation-happy parents, it might be worth defending such a suit, soundly defeating it, publicizing the defeat of the suit and even possibly counter-suing to make an example. This might serve as a deterrent. I might add that this could be field open to pro bono legal defense or to charities to fund such attorneys. I suspect, in the long run, it would be cheeper to fight, as opposed to continuing to pay the Dangeld.

Another thought comes to mind. A friend of mine, who, as he was doing substitute teaching, was physically assaulted and injured by a violent gang-banger student, has had to fight the Los Angeles County School District in court, not just to get them to pay for his medical care, but also to regain his teaching credential. In order to defend itself, the district tried to put him at fault and took action making it impossible for him to work, since his credential was revoked over the incident. He won that case and is now fighting to get reimbursed for his medical expenses. Presumably the district was insured and could have paid out a medical claim. Yet they wasted the tax-payers' money attempting to defame the victim. Several years ago I met a woman who had been badly injured in a similar incident, in this case by a student who was violent due to mental / emotional causes. She, likewise, was involved in a protracted legal battle with the district. Apparently, at least in Southern California, the district has money to burn fighting lawsuits provoked by their failure to pay for medical care from teachers assaulted by violent students. Yet they don't have the money to fight nuisance lawsuits on the part of irate parents? Yet, again, they provoke such litigation by actively promoting asinine zero tolerance policies.

 

[Hellbound]

I would expect a school to maybe tell the girl to make sure she can take Midol. I would not expect them to ruin the life of the girl that was only trying to help a friend.

Do you read the posts of people you respond to? I made clear in the first post you responded to that I disagreed with the punishment given in this case.

The straw figure hanging on the pole? That's not me.

 

[TimCallahan]

This article would seem to indicate a bit of sanity intervening in school policies. Perhaps the tide of zero tolerance is beginning to ebb.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I experienced a lot of this myself. Public schools in America abound with exactly this sort of idiocy. My mother once got a furious phone call from my sister's kindergarten teacher because my sister had kissed a boy she had known for years (he was our upstairs neighbor and frequent playmate) on the cheek. Yes, in kindergarten. I once had a blunt knife confiscated from me at lunch in elementary school. It was so blunt, you couldn't have cut paper with it, let alone human skin. A classmate in elementary was suspended for three days for allegedly bringing a razor to school- and he didn't even cut himself or anyone else with it. Or vandalized the desk or anything.

My reaction is the same as your's. It's unbelievable. I'm angry just thinking about this s---.

The only one that might be credible- might be- is the one about the kid suspended for sexual harassment.

People assume that a sexual harassment charge against someone of that age is automatically laughable, just by virtue of the kid's age. Their defense is "Jesus Chirst, he's seven!". That is not true. Young boys can and sometimes do violate girls. When I was in elementary school, boys would try to look up my skirts when I was sitting down and I absolutely did feel violated by it.

So if the kid in question did something of a similarly inappropriate nature, I might support suspending him.

 

[beren]

A classmate in elementary was suspended for three days for allegedly bringing a razor to school- and he didn't even cut himself or anyone else with it. Or vandalized the desk or anything.

You think that was wrong??

 

[blutoski]

Okay, here's how you deal with that: You vigorously defend against such suits, use legal precedence when you defeat them to quash other such suits, then counter attack vigorously with counter suits to make an example of the dicks who file nuisance suits. You don't gain a damn thing by being the wimp.

I think you're assuming that these suits will always rule in favour of the school.
My impression is that ZT policies usually follow an expensive loss, and are intended to prevent repeat losses.

Secondly, it's not clear that being legally aggressive will deter parents who think they're right. They don't see them as nuisance suits - they see it as protecting children who are in the care of mindless drone government employees.

At the same time, you avoid looking stupid by refraining from busting high school and middle school girls from either taking Midol or giving it to their friesnds for menstural relief. How hard can that be?

Well, remember the parents have 100% free reign to talk to the press, while the school board usually has to say no comment. In the meantime, the plaintiff gets to paint the lawsuit any way they want, and in an environment with elected school boards and contract-for-performance administrators that's risking a lot of their jobs.

To put this another way, the school district has to choose between looking stupid for an overly cautious zero tolerance policy versus looking like they endangered a child through negligence. I can see why some opt for the former.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think you're assuming that these suits will always rule in favour of the school.
My impression is that ZT policies usually follow an expensive loss, and are intended to prevent repeat losses.

Secondly, it's not clear that being legally aggressive will deter parents who think they're right. They don't see them as nuisance suits - they see it as protecting children who are in the care of mindless drone government employees.





Well, remember the parents have 100% free reign to talk to the press, while the school board usually has to say no comment. In the meantime, the plaintiff gets to paint the lawsuit any way they want, and in an environment with elected school boards and contract-for-performance administrators that's risking a lot of their jobs.

To put this another way, the school district has to choose between looking stupid for an overly cautious zero tolerance policy versus looking like they endangered a child through negligence. I can see why some opt for the former.

How about these ideas:

1) If a child brings a lunch to school that has a kitchen knife in it, send a note home with the child explaining to parents why they shouldn't do that.

2) If an adolescent girl is found to have Midol in her purse or is giving it to a friend, confiscate it and tell the girls to see the nurse about getting something for their menstrual pain.

Surely, there must be some sane middle ground for dealing with these minor violations that both protects the school from the threat of kids bringing weapons and drugs to school and refrains from excessive punishments.

 

[blutoski]

How about these ideas:

1) If a child brings a lunch to school that has a kitchen knife in it, send a note home with the child explaining to parents why they shouldn't do that.

My prediction is that perhaps this was already explained at the beginning of the year with some sort of note sent to all parents setting expectations. I got them for my kids each September. How does a school get defiant parents to take the rules seriously?

2) If an adolescent girl is found to have Midol in her purse or is giving it to a friend, confiscate it and tell the girls to see the nurse about getting something for their menstrual pain.

Sure, but who knows what actually happened, us being here in internet land. As above, the rules are probably already stated, so the kid may have been caught doing something she knew was wrong and punishment already warned in advance. For some schools it's a safety thing. No peanuts. No pills. Because kids share when they shouldn't.

Surely, there must be some sane middle ground for dealing with these minor violations that both protects the school from the threat of kids bringing weapons and drugs to school and refrains from excessive punishments.

I think the examples so far show that there probably is, while there may be a few exceptions, who knows. There are dumb mistakes in every profession I'm aware of (I work for the phone company fer pete's sake).

I would put real money on the table and bet that a half dozen questionable examples in a nation of 70 million students shows this is tabloid-excity, but probably not a major problem, and anyway, not really a zero tolerance issue. It sounds like exaggerated punishment. I'm old enough to remember corporal punishment for chewing gum in class, decades before anybody coined the phrase 'zero tolerance'.

Further, I have cynically attenuated my media-based rage a lot over the years, having been on the inside of many of these situations myself, having a wife who is a doctor with 'high profile' patients, and having a couple of friends who work in media and are quite jaded about the transition of news to an entertainment platform. Generally the journalists can only hear one side of the story until the situation is resolved, and often once resolution has been met, the truth is not exciting and corrections are not published.

My instinct at this point is to assume that if a story is very outrageous, it's probably incomplete and agenda-driven. This is partly my age, and partly a specific result of doing so many skeptical investigations of paranormal claims and finding them to be so very different than the reporter's version. Also dealing with journalists as part of an investigation team (October is when the phone rings off the hook for interviews about ghost investigation). I have very little confidence in the average journalist's interest in sticking to facts. Most try to be good story writers, and they would be the first to admit this.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Isn't Midol over-the-counter? It's legal for a teenager to buy. It's legal to give to someone else.

Who cares if she had it in school? It should be as non-controversial as bringing dental floss to school.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Just to add a bit to this (and I can't speak for anyone else), but our school has a policy about posession of any medications. If the child needs medicines, even OTC meds, they should be brought to the nurse by a paarent along with instructions for use. If the child needs the medicine, they go to the nurse to get it. That's part of their policy, and helps prevent any issues of misuse by the child, as well as making sure the parent knows what the child is taking. It also helps to make sure the medicines are stored properly.

It also killed at least one kid who couldn't get to his asthma medication in time. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Who's picking up the tab for all this? Court cases are expensive.

courts routinely pass along fees for frivolous suits to the plaintiffs.

 

[blutoski]

Isn't Midol over-the-counter? It's legal for a teenager to buy. It's legal to give to someone else.

I think the problem is: same with peanuts, firecrackers, and razor blades. Schools are responsible for the safety of their students. Parents want to trust that they can send their kid to school without being exposed to avoidable dangers, so they ask schools to take precautions.

There's probably a general rule about how to handle pills at this school, rather than a long list of 77 pills a kid can carry around and 936 pills they keep in the office. Based on the deployment of generics, that list would have to be updated biweekly. Keeps it simple for the admins and the parents both. Pills? Office. Done.

Probably worth mentioning: the number one succesful suicide pill in Canada is Extra Strength Tylenol. OTC and yet lethal. The assumption with OTC is that adults are supervising the dispensing to a child. In a school setting, that is met by asking children to bring their meds to an adult.

 

[blutoski]

courts routinely pass along fees for frivolous suits to the plaintiffs.

That depends on the region. In some regions, you cannot countersue for legal fees, even if you win as a defendant. It's a real problem, and part of the reason regions introduced SLAPP criteria.

There is also the problem of simply running out of money during the process, and having to settle out of court, even if you might have eventually won.

The JREF is a case study: this was set up as a legal entity after James Randi "won" a case against Uri Gellar but was bankrupted in the process. He could not request legal fees for that original 'won' case in any countersuit.

So, for some school districts, they are vulnerable to sustaining losses even when they win.

There are also some pretty deep pockets out there: there are financial and ideological incentives to portray public schools as incompetent and unsafe places for kids. Bankrupting school districts with cases that portray them as child endangering is a twofer.

 

[TimCallahan]

My prediction is that perhaps this was already explained at the beginning of the year with some sort of note sent to all parents setting expectations. I got them for my kids each September. How does a school get defiant parents to take the rules seriously?

All this for a kitchen knife? In the story that appeared in "This is True," when the girl found the knife in her lunch box, she immediately turned it over to the school authorities, who thanked her for her honesty and compliance - then suspended her. Regardless of notes sent home to the parents, this was stupid.

Sure, but who knows what actually happened, us being here in internet land. As above, the rules are probably already stated, so the kid may have been caught doing something she knew was wrong and punishment already warned in advance. For some schools it's a safety thing. No peanuts. No pills. Because kids share when they shouldn't.

The hilited area is an unsupported assumption. And again, I have to ask: All this fuss over Midol? In the case I cited, the girl had it in her purse. In the case Primus cited, the girl gave it to a friend. In that case it could be dangerous, since the girl probably didn't know whether her friend was or wasn't allergic to something in the medication.

I think the examples so far show that there probably is, while there may be a few exceptions, who knows. There are dumb mistakes in every profession I'm aware of (I work for the phone company fer pete's sake).

I would put real money on the table and bet that a half dozen questionable examples in a nation of 70 million students shows this is tabloid-excity, but probably not a major problem, and anyway, not really a zero tolerance issue. It sounds like exaggerated punishment. I'm old enough to remember corporal punishment for chewing gum in class, decades before anybody coined the phrase 'zero tolerance'.

Further, I have cynically attenuated my media-based rage a lot over the years, having been on the inside of many of these situations myself, having a wife who is a doctor with 'high profile' patients, and having a couple of friends who work in media and are quite jaded about the transition of news to an entertainment platform. Generally the journalists can only hear one side of the story until the situation is resolved, and often once resolution has been met, the truth is not exciting and corrections are not published.

My instinct at this point is to assume that if a story is very outrageous, it's probably incomplete and agenda-driven. This is partly my age, and partly a specific result of doing so many skeptical investigations of paranormal claims and finding them to be so very different than the reporter's version. Also dealing with journalists as part of an investigation team (October is when the phone rings off the hook for interviews about ghost investigation). I have very little confidence in the average journalist's interest in sticking to facts. Most try to be good story writers, and they would be the first to admit this.

You have some good points. However, when it comes to outrageous acts on the part of people "only following orders" I don't think it's that unlikely they did something incredibly stupid. The Milgram experiment comes to mind.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'd say the sensible thing is to have one tolerance. Zero is too few tolerance, and two is too many. Three is right out.