12 Comments

Teachers and school administrators are supposed to be (and claim to be) professionals. Professionals, by definition, are supposed to exercise their judgment, not just act by rote. Since zero tolerance policies are intended to remove the ability to exercise discretion, they prevent teachers and administrators from doing their jobs.

Of course, those very same policies which prevent them from doing their jobs are adopted by, wait for it … teachers and administrators. To me, that says that zero tolerance policies are just one more excuse for them not to do their jobs.

Not likely, CGage. These foolish policies are adopted by schoolboards (i.e. administrators), not teachers. It is the teachers and principals who have to labour under such restrictions. Since zero tolerance means exactly that, those who are “in the trenches” have no choice but to comply or face disciplinary action. It is impossible for school drama clubs to perform Macbeth or Hamlet as doing so requires swords.

Just remember, it’s all about (everybody repeat it — no, I’m not going to say ‘money’ 🙂 protection from lawsuits. By having a zero tolerance policy, the teacher or administrator can’t be accused of bias or otherwise unfair rulings. “My hands were tied – the rule says my only option is (fill in the blank).”

And in the end isn’t it all for the children. You don’t want zero tolerance to protect the children? What kind of monster are you?

What I don’t understand about these zero tolerance policies is their extension into the realms of thought and expression.

If you want to have a policy that guns will not be tolerated at school, that’s fine. But what does that have to do with a picture of a gun? You can’t really harm anyone with that, can you? Following that line, could one be expelled for uttering the words “Colt semi-automatic”?

I’d be curious to know if the history books have been “cleansed” of pictures and references to weapons.

What I find appalling is that these administrators have not drawn the distinction between a weapon and the abstract expression of a weapon. The free expression of ideas is (or used to be) one of the foundations of education.

Since zero tolerance means exactly that, those who are “in the trenches” have no choice but to comply or face disciplinary action.

No choice? Didn’t we learn something about the validity of the “I was just following orders” excuse 60 years ago?

Comparing teachers to the SS Einsatzgruppen is the kind of specious reasoning that leads to multimillion dollar settlements for spilling coffee on yourself

AZFlyer,

A kid draws a picture of a gun. Nothing is done about it. The next day, the kid brings a gun to school and kills someone.

LAWSUIT!!!!!!1!!1!1!!!!!!one!!1!!

That’s the “reasoning” zero-tolerance was implementing to combat.

Marlowe,

Far be it from me to denigrate your reading comprehension skills, but you seem to have completely missed the point of my comment. It is not that the teacher is a Nazi, but rather given the nature of this “violation” of the zero tolerance policy, he/she has the moral obligation to not turn the student into the school administration for punishment. Just because the school system is incapable of acting rationally does not mean that the teacher should use that as an excuse to not do the right thing. In fact, by reporting the student, the teacher is not only acquiescing to the policy but he/she is going out of his/her way to enforce it where there was no need to do so. If was not as if the student brought a weapon into the school. As far as I know nobody has ever been injured by stick figures. If the teacher really though that the drawing was a problem, he/she could have confiscated the drawing and admonished the student to not do it again. Why subject the student to punishment when there was no need to do so?

But Richard, zero tolerance policies are “non-discretionary”. Teachers are legally obligated to abide by them. I have a degree in Ethics and would rather live in a society where moral obligation outranks the legal system-but that ain’t gonna happen, is it?
This is just another example of the “You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t” society the legal profession is creating

But Richard, zero tolerance policies are “non-discretionary”. Teachers are legally obligated to abide by them.

That is incorrect. You seem to have confused a rule promulgated by the Board of Education with an actual law. There are no laws that outlaw drawing stick figures with guns, and I would surmise that there is not even an explicit statement in the zero tolerance rules that states that a child who draws a stick figure with something that looks like a gun must be reported to the PC police. The zero tolerance rules were implemented to prevent weapons from being brought into schools. Only a mindless school employee would not be able to understand the difference between a potential/real threat posed by a weapon and a child’s stick figure picture. The teacher could have simple chosen to ignore it because it was not a threat to anyone. Instead he/she zealously interpreted the zero tolerance policy to a ridiculous extreme.

I have a degree in Ethics and would rather live in a society where moral obligation outranks the legal system-but that ain’t gonna happen, is it?

Only if people like you do not stand up and refuse to follow ridiculous rules.

Actually, zero tolerance was part of the Safe Schools Act (in the province of Ontario) enacted in Sept. 2001. It was finally changed this year by the provincial government as it was found to be discriminatory. The Ontario Human Rights Commission executive summary of the Act states:

“Although the Ontario government promised “zero tolerance” for bad behaviour in schools before the Safe Schools Act was enacted, and the Act prescribes “mandatory” suspensions and expulsions, the presence of mitigating factors in the current legislation precludes it from being strictly characterized as “zero tolerance”. Likewise, although the TDSB Safe Schools Foundation Statement Policy speaks of “zero tolerance” and “mandatory” suspensions and expulsions, the direction to principals and teachers to apply mitigating factors in disciplinary matters precludes it from being strictly characterized as “zero tolerance”. The real issue is whether there is a practice of “zero tolerance”.

In assessing whether zero tolerance is being practiced in the school system in Ontario, it is important to keep in mind that principals and teachers are receiving two contradictory messages, one advocating “zero tolerance” and prescribing “mandatory” action and the other directing them to apply mitigating factors.”

The important thing to keep in mind is that there are contradictory messages which need to be interpreted and that is the real immorality. Blame the legislators for this. Although I am unaware of any child having been suspended for a drawing in this province, I did speak to a principal who longed for the old days when he had the discretion to act as he saw fit if there was any violence in the school. He told me that under the SSA, if students wanted to perform a play requiring (fake)swords (Shakespearean), the “weapons” would have to brought to the edge of the school property where he would then have to carry them himself to the stage, hand them to the students just before they went onstage and then retrieve them immediately afterward and carry them off school property.

It is the confusion about the interpretation and application about what the policies and laws mean which is the real culprit. So, as I said in my presentation to student teachers, way back in 2001, zero tolerance is absurd, immoral, impossible to interpret fairly and a violation of the basic tenets of justice, not to mention the Judeo-Christian traditions which underpin Western moral reasoning.
To recap: Blame the legislators and the lawyers for this one, not the teachers.