I understand and strongly support the need to keep kids safe ~ but I don't see "zero tolerance" policies being "one size fits all" ~ I think we need to use some common sense in both the policies and the penalties for violation ~ Sooz

Are school zero-tolerance policies too harsh?
By Mary Nash-Wood, The (Shreveport, La.) Times
Updated 10h 28m ago

SHREVEPORT, La. -- Lindsey Tanner was a typical 14-year-old who enjoyed hanging out with friends and shopping. In May 2007, the eighth-grade honor student was making plans for the summer and excited to soon be a high school freshman.

But after offering a single Midol pill to a fellow student, Lindsey saw her friends disappear and was subject to public ridicule.

"My life changed completely," the now 18-year-old said. "I lost friends. I was picked on. Anything you can imagine happening, happened."

By giving the friend the over-the-counter medication, Lindsey violated a Bossier Parish School Board policy forbidding drugs on campus. As a result, Lindsey, who had never been a discipline problem, was forced to attend a six-week drug and alcohol awareness program and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. She also had to attend an alternative school for the remainder of her eighth-grade year and the first nine weeks of her first year in high school.

That fateful act put Lindsey on the wrong side of the district's "zero tolerance" policy, which failed to take into account her otherwise model behavior and instead treated her as if she were guilty of criminal behavior.

Lindsey, who ultimately left Bossier Parish to attend school in Texas, isn't alone. Thousands of students in similar circumstances nationwide are lumped into the same category as more violent or habitual offenders by zero tolerance policies that do not take into account a student's intent or history before potentially derailing their academic careers. Critics also say that the strictly worded policies -- designed to keep drugs, guns and other harmful items off campuses -- do not give principals and other school officials the discretion needed when dealing with students who may have broken the rules.

"There is a need for safety, no one is arguing that, but districts have to take a closer look at the impact these policies are having on their students," said Russell Skiba, an national expert on school violence and zero tolerance, who is an associate professor in counseling and educational psychology at Indiana University.

But Roy Murry, Caddo director of security, said the policies are necessary not only to ensure school safety, but also to act as a deterrent.

"We have 42,000 students we are trying to keep safe every day and that means we have to make sure that they don't have any items that can cause themselves or others harm," Murry said.

The law

Zero-tolerance policies grew out of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 that required states receiving federal funds to mandate that local school districts expel students who bring a weapon to school for a minimum of one year. States rushed to pass laws to meet the requirements. School districts were left on their own to interpret the law's application to offenses ranging from bringing illicit drugs or guns to school to more mild transgressions, such as possessing over-the-counter medication .

Ninety-four percent of U.S. schools have zero-tolerance policies for weapons or firearms and 87 percent for alcohol, while 79 percent report mandatory suspensions or expulsions for violence or tobacco, according the National Center for Education Statistics. However, no nationwide statistics on the numbers of students affected by the policies are kept by the center.

Between 2009 and 2011, about 25 percent of Caddo and Bossier school expulsions were for possession of a weapon, alcohol or drugs. Those expulsions included offenses such as possession of a pistol or brass knuckles, data obtained by The Times shows. However, the data also revealed expulsions for students with offenses ranging from carrying prescription medication to having blunt-tipped scissors, such as those often used by elementary students.

Susie Payne-Smith, a child welfare supervisor for Caddo schools, is a hearing officer for students accused of bringing contraband to school. The job requires her to meet with students and parents to mete out punishment.

"Sometimes it breaks your heart to see some of the situations, but I'm required to follow the law," said Smith, who noted that parents can appeal decisions.

Louisiana law requires principals to immediately suspend a student found to be in possession of a firearm, certain knives, or any controlled substance and may, but is not required to, recommend the student for expulsion.

Rep. Patrick Williams, D-La., said that when the law was passed it was meant to arm principals and staff with the tools needed to keep their schools safe. However, the law is a work in progress and may be revised to better address the needs of the community, he said.

"It's not supposed to be a cut-and-dry scenario, but to take into account the gray areas that might come up," Williams said.

Skiba said that often is where the disconnect between federal law and local policies comes into play.

"The districts see it as this black-and-white issue," he said. "I don't know anyone that would quibble that weapons should not be at a school, but a student with a Tylenol or Midol is probably not out to harm another student."

Skiba said the best way to handle discipline policies in school districts is to use a program known as positive behavior support to understand a student's individual behavior and needs. The program applies early intervention approaches and identifies students deemed at risk for further interventions.

Louisiana already has taken this approach by requiring all districts to have a positive behavior support plan as well as supervisors and staff based on enrollment. However, zero-tolerance policies remain alive and well in many districts that host these positive behavior support programs.

The students

Lindsey's mother, Christi Tanner, fought her daughter's punishment up to the School Board, where she lost in a unanimous vote.

As her sentence required, Lindsey attended two AA meetings and a few days at an alternative school before her mother decided the situation was not working.

"You could see the change in her," Christi Tanner said. "She went from this happy, loud girl to a girl that kept to herself and didn't really want to do anything anymore."

Tanner said when her daughter attempted to return to a normal life, community members wouldn't forget her story and often blamed Lindsey for the incident.

"Moms would say their daughters couldn't be friends with Lindsey anymore because they thought of her as a drug dealer," she said. "Even when she wanted to be on a softball team, she went to the practices until they finally told her the team was suddenly full and didn't need her anymore."

Tanner said her son also was tormented by classmates about his sister. Tanner eventually moved her family to Gary, Texas, to give Lindsey and her son a fresh start.

Today, Lindsey is months away from graduating and is looking forward to her senior trip to Costa Rica. In the meantime, she is filling out college applications and hopes to major in child development or pediatric nursing.

"I don't regret what happened, although it was hard," she said. "I can laugh about it now that it's over. I know I'm better off where I am now, and I learned who my friends are."

http://www.usatoday.com/n...policy/51632100/1?csp=hf

Harshness isn't the problem. Zero tolerance policies are so inflexible that they cause as much harm as good.

idiotic. the punishment should ALWAYS fit the crime. zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

Even felons are granted more "wiggle room" when it comes to punishment=crime. Turn state's evidence, knock off a few years. That sort of thing. The three strikes law, for starters. Since when did children become more of a threat than felons to the point they get NO strikes, considerations, no "trial" or a chance for explanation?  Our system has become so screwed up. 

Zero tolerance for weapons.
Kid brings a kitchen knife to cut his apple at lunchtime.
Kid gets suspended/expelled for having a "weapon".
It has happened repeatedly yet when something serious actually occurs the school officials write a dumbass "policy" paper, stick it in a filing cabinet somewhere and that's the end of it.

part of the problem that zero tolerance was designed to solve, was the amount of time spent in appeals and long painful discussions with the superintendent.  While i agree that zero tolerance isn't working (and for the same reasons manditory sentencing in drug cases isn't working in the criminal courts), principals and school staff need to be given the power to make discretionary decisions and not have them constantly overturned by their superiors.  We don't have zero tolerance where i am, and principals are just getting to the point where they arent willing to take a stand on bullying or violence in the schools.  there's a kid in my school who, quite frankly, should have been expelled 2 years ago.  The principal tried that year and has tried every few months since (it's actually spanned a few different administrations) to discipline this kid, get him under control, work with the parents, protect the other children in his grade group from him, and to maintain a workload for the related teachers that could be managable.  In the end, after trying everything else, and after the parents withdrew all communication, support, and even consent for intervention from spec ed teachers, educational assistants, and the social worker, the principal tried to expell the child.  Only to have it overturned by the superintendent when the parents, who have been unwilling to work with the school on any level, found the time to show up for an appeal session.  And please understand--we're not talking about a kid that is just a little lippy.  This kid beats people up.  His behaviour is such that would be criminal except for two things:  1, he's under age, and 2, it's happening on school property. The kids in his age cohort are terrified of him socially and physically.  They're also falling behind every year because the classes he's in spend so much time disrupted while the teacher deals with this kid.  The only thing they've been successful in doing is having his parents agree to pick him up a half an hour early every day (he misses french) so that he can't sit in wait for other kids on the way home from school.  Even that the parents fought (why can't he be allowed to go for ice cream after school with his friends?)  The entire situation is rediculous.  He and his family have been a cancerous little tail wagging the entire school board for years.

Having said all that--i get it.  the ideal situation is having trained and qualified professionals making these decisions on a case by case basis.  But they need to be backed when they make them. They need to be given the power to effectively stand up to bullying, drugs, and violence, and be backed up when they use it.  And ftr, i keep mydol in my classroom NOW.  That could have been me.  haha

We had a remedy at our school.
It wasn't pretty and it was rather messy but it worked.

I had a classmate like that in grade school. This kid was completely out of control. The "authorities" did nothing and the rest of the kids were terrified of him until one (unnamed) kid beaned him in the head with a baseball bat during a game in phys ed class. The rest of the kids saw that this beast bleeds too and that was the end of that story.

I bet it worked out rather well in the end, eh, Sid?

Sometimes the kids have to take matters into their own hands, especially when the authorities or parents are no-shows. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating unwarranted violence but I am saying kids need to learn the lesson of self defense. A long-time friend of mine teaches self defense for women and girls. It does wonders for their self esteem when they learn they can throw a 300 pound man like a sack of potatoes.