Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools
Offline I really feel the "Zero Tolerance" approach popular in schools over the last decade or 2 is extremely irrational. They tend to be over major sensationalized news stories - the big 3 are weapons, drugs and sexual harrasment. The problem is "zero tolerance" is often "zero common sense" - and many of the school administrators carrying them out seem to have their head so far up their ass their stomachs bulge. Most of us have seen the stories too -it's one thing to make sure they are bringing in guns, illegal or non-prescribed prescription drugs (or selling their ritallin) or keeping teen boys from harrassing the girls - but some of what happens is just ridiculous - such as kids getting suspended or expelled for a small scissors or nail clipper. And others suspended or expelled for having mild OTC medicine - in at least one case an elementary school boy was suspended for having candy that SOMEONE COULD POSSIBLY MISTAKE FOR PILLS IF THEY DIDN'T LOOK CLOSELY! Then their was a 6 year old boy suspended for slapping a 6 year old girl on the butt and a kindergarten boy suspended for looking at the teacher's boobs when she hugged him. Is it just me or is the US getting stupider and stupider all the time? I'm starting to think that movie "Idiocracy" was optimistic.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Yeah, this dumb line of reasoning all comes from the "were not gonna take any shit from these kids and the fear that causes will eradicate all the behaviors were trying to get rid of." It obviously doesn't work. Just look at murderers in states like Texas where execution is legal and practiced frequently. The problem of murder doesn't disappear, you have just created more severe penalties, while the deterrent of the crime(punishment of death) has not produced the intended effect.
By not taking into account the circumstances, situation/environment surrounding the offense, and the unique parties involved for each separate offense basically equates to not using your judgement when dolling out justice. This is definitely an ineffective way to impartially assess problems in schools, but do you seriously expect much better?
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I'm thinking that someone on this board has been making a strong case that morality is necessarily relative, and that an individual action can only be accurately judged with respect to its unique circumstances, goal, and motivation. Who could that have been? ... Anyone... anyone..... Oh yeah.... it was ME!
Zero tolerance policies, it would seem, are an attempt to prove that morality is actually absolute. The complete failure of such policies would seem to be another nail in the coffin of absolutism.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I think we should make it clear that we are talking about public schools. Too often I have heard from others at work, critics of policys in reguards to private schools. My main concern are the practices in the public school system. I had at one time sent a booklet from the American Atheist organization reguarding religion in our public schools. After that I learned that one biology teacher was pleased. This town knows that they have Atheists in town and they are not happy. This town to christian for their own good.
They're also fantastically lazy. Instead of forcing a teacher or administration to think of a solution to what may be a unique problem, they apply a ridiculously heavy-handed myopic policy, teaching children that adults are basically morons who can't think for themselves. That's just sad.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The impression I've gotten from this zero tolerance thing is that the reason behind it is more like the administrators covering their arse. The way parents are reaction to bad grades, scuffles etc, the schoolyard is becoming an ever increasing zone of litigation. The best way for the school to cut this back and protect themselves from overreactive and more importantly overlitigious parents is zero tolerance, that way they can say they did everything they could.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
It's definitely a matter of litigation. I'm not really sure it prevents a significant amount of litigation, but that's definitely part of the motivation.
I think that's compatible with the idea of zero tolerance and a cultural belief in absolutism.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The western public school system is, in general, fucked-up. You can't paint in much broader strokes than trying to shove everybody into a 'one size fits all' curriculum, regardless of their interests or the way they best learn. And don't even get me started on 'grading'...
Zero tolerance is laughable. It's exactly the same as abstinence 'sex education'. Unrealistic, unhelpful and bigoted.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
That makes sense - I didn't think of that. It seems like such a ridiculous idea to sue someone for problem-solving and expect that a system will take care of everything, but I guess lots of people feel that way. Like Hamby said, it fits with a culture of absolutes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence