

Seeing the Toll, Schools Revise Zero Tolerance - 001sky
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/education/seeing-the-toll-schools-revisit-zero-tolerance.html

======
will_brown
As a lawyer who has represented school children in Broward and Miami-Dade
disciplinary and IEP proceedings, I have been involved in some outrageous
cases. For example in one IEP matter the school refused to purchase a deaf
student a ~$50 reading program violating her Constitutional right to free and
appropriate education, only after retaining a lawyer did the school comply.

Maybe of more interest to the HN crowd, I represented an exceptional (in the
ESE definition) student, who had already been expelled for uploading a script
to the school's computer network that shutdown the server on 10 minute
intervals. Under the county code his conduct was labeled as hacking and
subject to the same punishment as student's charged with hate crimes. The
student actually volunteered his free time to work with the school's IT
department, he brought the vulnerability to the attention of the IT
department, and only did what he did after bringing it to the attention of the
IT department and they failed to take action. After 6 months, the student was
finally reinstated, only through a technicality that he too was being denied a
free and appropriate education. In his case he was 17 in his Sr year, in an IB
program where he normally split his time between high school and college
classes and was on track to graduate high school with 2 years of college
credit, but as a result of his expulsion he was placed in an alternative
school where he could no longer take IB classes or his college classes so it
was determined he was not receiving an appropriate education.

Personally I was detained in school by the secret service for counterfeiting
when I was 14, I received no school related disciplinary action, and as a
direct result I am a lawyer who gives back to children in similar
circumstances - how many have lost a similar opportunity to learn from their
mistakes and allow their mistakes to have a positive impact of their future?

~~~
degeneratekids
You might be a lawyer but there is no "Constitutional right to free and
appropriate education."

Public schools in states accepting federal monies are obligated to provide
services to disabled students because of laws like EAHCA and IDEA, not the US
Constitution.

~~~
will_brown
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, though between creating a throwaway
for the purposes this comment, the aptly selected name and failure to cite
anything of value I am likely wasting time.

Children and Parents have a 14th Amendment (Constitutional) right to Due
Process and Equal Protection vis-a-vis Free and Appropriate Education.

Case Law:

"Children of this nation are entitled to a free, appropriate education."
Forest Grove School District v. T. A.
([http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305))

Legal Article:

"The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
protect the educational rights of children with disabilities. State law cannot
override this constitutional protection." -The Legislative and Litigation
History of Special Education ([http://wwfinductionmodules-
resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/...](http://wwfinductionmodules-
resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/History+of+Special+Education.pdf))

It should be noted that special education is not limited to children with
disabilities but includes exception students as well. It should also be noted
that not a single State does not take Federal money for children with
disabilities.

~~~
smsm42
I am still at loss on how Due Process means people should get educational
services for free. I understand why one may _want_ to give these services for
free, but I fail to see how it follows from Due Process. I guess that's why I
am not a lawyer.

~~~
dragonwriter
The due process and equal protection clauses don't mean that "people should
get educational services for free". It does mean, however, that if the State
_generally_ provides these services for free (and, _a fortiori_ , if it, as
many states do, adopts a right to such services as a State Constitutional
guarantee), it cannot arbitrarily _discriminate_ in who gets such services.

(There are also federal _statutory_ requirements that come into play if, as I
believe every state does, states accept federal education funding.)

------
ds9
"Zero tolerance", by normal princicples of interpretation of English, implies
"no exceptions to the rules". But that was never what it has meant in
practice. The practical meaning, which has caused all the problems, is
"stupidly over-broad rules, ignoring obvious relevant distinctions that should
have been incorporated into the rules".

If the rule for example is "no drugs", and the "zero tolerance" mantra
promotes fearfully over-broad interpretation, then you have students being
suspended or expelled or arrested or whatever for having an acetaminophen from
a parent or nurse, for a headache. If that's not the intent, the rule needs
some intelligent thought at the writing stage - then you could still have
"zero tolerance" meaning "no exceptions", yet avoid the outcomes which defy
common sense and fairness.

The fact that all this has taken years to penetrate the minds of school
officials makes me wonder whether we still have a lot of lead poisoning, or
some flaw in the way people are selected or trained for these positions, or
something else is badly wrong with the education system.

~~~
peterwwillis
The problem with the education system is similar to that of a corporation, or
politics. Nobody who sees the need for changes has the authority to make those
changes, and those in authority do the bare minimum needed to keep their jobs.

I was expelled or "asked to leave" from several high schools (in Broward
County) when I was growing up about 12 years ago. Ironically, it was never for
drugs or misbehavior, but instead for being too smart for my own good. The
offenses were always minor: a "dangerous" amount of "knowledge of school
computer systems". Pushing a chair across the room "in a violent manner" (fast
enough to make it clang into the wall). Strange electronics diagrams that they
could not decipher (an FM transmitter project kit from RadioShack). Having a
website with links to VisualBasic AOL proggies and punters that "could be
slowing down the Mac network".

What it took me years to figure out was that nobody wanted to deal with a
special case. Nobody wanted to take the time to help you or understand you.
They have thousands of kids to deal with. They're happy as long as everyone is
towing the line and they'd much rather get rid of you (or pass you) than
educate you. And I can sum up the motivation in one sentence:

There is zero incentive for educators to help troubled kids.

~~~
Shish2k
> Nobody wanted to take the time to help you or understand you

On behalf of several ex-teacher friends, a minor correction -- there are
teachers who care, and go out of their way to help the special cases; but the
system treats them just as badly as it treats the special kids themselves, so
they tend not to stay in that career for very long.

~~~
dredmorbius
Nice recent interview on NPR with their sports reporter Mike Pesca and a
former teacher of his:

"Remembering when a teacher had his back"

[http://www.npr.org/2013/11/24/246984890/remembering-when-
a-t...](http://www.npr.org/2013/11/24/246984890/remembering-when-a-teacher-
had-his-back)

 _" I always thought — I never questioned it — I always thought you had my
back," Pesca tells Sheehan._

 _" Back then, I would say that school was enjoyment for you, and maybe not
necessarily the classes," Sheehan recalls, laughing. "For a lot of teachers
you were problematic, so part of my job was really to keep you from being
thrown out of that school. That passion is kind of what drove you in school."_

 _It was the same passion that drove Pesca to push the boundaries, he says.
Sheehan remembers a problem-solving program in nearby Katonah, in which gifted
students were given a problem to solve and then present in a skit. Pesca 's
skit: "The Top 10 Things We Hate About Katonah" — a sort of David Letterman-
esque spoof._

 _" The guy running that program practically wanted to have you arrested,"
Sheehan says. "That night, I did have your back."_

------
girvo
Good.

When I was in highschool, I consistently found security holes in our network.
I even got naughty and abused some of them for pranks, and for installing
Quake on every computer on the network (lunchtimes became far more
interesting, had at least 40-50 people in the LAN!).

I was caught multiple times (and turned myself in a few, with bug reports). My
IT coordinator wanted me hung, drawn and quartered, but my vice principle made
him give me admin access to our secondary servers running Suse Linux. If he'd
followed the rules to the letter, I would've been expelled, "zero-tolerance"
could have seen something even worse. I learned my lesson(s), and it started a
lifelong fascination with Linux, and the schools network was more secure for
it. A better outcome, I think.

~~~
angersock
_it started a lifelong fascination with Linux_

indeed, a far worse punishment... ;)

~~~
normloman
I hereby sentence you to virginity!

~~~
angersock
It's funny, you know, because the most attentive lovers I know of are all
programmers.

Probably the practice at being patient while debugging cranky and seemingly
whimsical systems.

~~~
girvo
I treat my lover the way I treat my mission critical config files: carefully
and with patience?

~~~
chris_mahan
When in doubt, use brute force? Oh, no, that's only with UNIX.

~~~
angersock
fsck, finger, mount, grep.

------
mattgrice
I have a theory about zero tolerance or other types of blanket policies such
as mandatory minimum sentencing. They are a way for the management class to
divest liability or responsibility for decisions. If there is no room for
discretion, there is no real decision to make, and no way to be wrong.

You see this sort of thing in large organizations of all types but government
is the one everyone has experience with.

~~~
ScottWhigham
I don't really know that that's a "theory". That's just how you scale, isn't
it? "Common sense" works for a company of 25 people when the founder is
directly involved with hiring and training of every person. It fails though
when you employ 50,000 and the CEO turns over four times in a decade. Putting
in "policies" and requiring adherence to these policies is a way to keep the
train moving even when the CEO is fired/arrested/etc. "Just follow the SOP and
you'll be fine."

------
johngalt
The goals of Zero-Tolerance policies have nothing to do with student outcomes
and everything to do with legal outcomes. If you expel Johnny, but only
suspend Jane for the same infraction; Johnny's parents are going to sue.
Conversely if if you don't expel Johnny for drawing that picture of a gun,
you'll be sued if he ever becomes violent.

The most insidious thing about Zero-Tolerance is how it sharply outlines the
differences for 'connected' students. A direct contradiction of it's goals.
Before policies like these, a school board member's kid might get a
preferential slap on the wrist in lieu of expulsion. Now that lower punishment
isn't an option, anything they do wrong is invisible entirely.

------
ctdonath
One under-discussed problem with "zero tolerance" is the application of the
(misguided) principle to that which doesn't even constitute a relevant
offense. Suspending a kid for pointing a finger and saying "bang!" under "zero
tolerance weapons policies", or for having mundane analgesic for menstrual
pain under "zero tolerance drug policies", or for wearing a religious-themed
T-shirt under "zero tolerance hate speech policies", etc. is not equal
reprimand for violations, it's arbitrary abuse born of sociopolitical bigotry
doled out by people suffering a tenuous grasp on reality - demonstrating
exactly why they should not be empowered as _in loco parentis_. Alas, most
parents defer to "the severity of the charges" and alleged authority, rather
than retorting "you're NUTS" and press child abuse charges.

------
jcromartie
Thank God. I suffered 7 out-of-school suspensions and numerous other
punishments in 6th-8th grades in the US under these policies. In nearly every
case, I was the victim in a clearly one-sided assault. I am not going to
subject my daughter to the same environment.

------
MattGrommes
I'd love for there to be less "by the book" and more communication in general,
not just in schools. It's insane how much corporate america relies on "it's in
the company handbook" rather than just communicating with people.

I worked at a place where a male employee was caught spending literally hours
a day on the Victoria's Secret website. Instead of talking to him about it
they waited until the next year's handbook was issued with a new directive
about computer use so his manager could say "it's not personal, it's in the
handbook".

------
vampirechicken
Special case treatment invites lawsuits by those who do not get special
treatment. Lawsuits are bad (expensive) for public school districts already
struggling to fund teaching programs. No special treatment, no lawsuits.

~~~
aidenn0
Zero tolerance doesn't eliminate special treatment, it actually increases it.
If someone breaks a rule, and you know that if you notice it, they will be
expelled, you turn a blind eye more often than if you know that more
appropriate action will be taken.

------
at-fates-hands
While I whole heartedly agree with schools taking the approach of helping kids
instead of simply handing them over to the cops to deal with, the problems are
much deeper. We have allowed socio-economic and cultural factors go untreated
for too long, thus placing more of burden on the school system with having to
deal with these kids and their issues - most of which should not have anything
to do with schools.

I firmly believe if these issues were treated at the root source, instead of
burdening school districts, I bet the kids would have less issues in school
and would be more successful academically. We just have to let teachers focus
on what they do best - educate our children.

~~~
betterunix
Sure, we have deep-rooted social problems, but right now we are _reinforcing_
those problems via our school system. We will never solve those social
problems if we are starting kids off in life with criminal records.

------
danso
Even if zero-tolerance _were_ good in principle, we really need to consider
the burden it places not only on the accused, but on the system. We barely
have time and resources to prosecute and incarcerate law-breaking adults. And
this sounds really banal, but the paperwork and bureaucracy for all those
involved is a real pain in the ass. I was recently involved in a drawn out
legal process as a _victim_...and even though the only thing I had to do was
show up and testify, it was such a pain in the ass to coordinate my schedule
with the court's, who also had to schedule it around the other parties'
schedule...which, when you're an adult, basically means missing work,
appointments, etc., to wait for hours in the court halls. I imagine it's just
as much a burden on the accused, even if they aren't incarcerated...and if the
accused in this situation is already having a tenuous time attending classes
and staying focused, well, going through the judicial system process -- and
even being exonerated -- is not going to help things at all.

The legal system is slow...and that's a _good_ thing. However, it means we
need to be cognizant of that reality before readily throwing people (and
children) into that grinder.

------
degeneratekids
What about the students who aren't smoking weed and spraying graffiti? Why
should they be grouped with students who need more than an education and fed a
curriculum geared towards the lowest common denominators (students who aren't
even prepared to function in a school environment)?

Arbitrary tolerance will fail for the same reason zero tolerance fails.
Schools are being asked not just to educate but to parent. In many places they
are falling short with the former so why do people believe they can do the
latter?

School administrators need to be honest with themselves and with the people
they answer to. If parents raise children who lack the basic skills required
to function in civil society the burden can't and shouldn't fall on schools.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If parents raise children who lack the basic skills required to function in
> civil society the burden can't and shouldn't fall on schools.

It manifestly _can_ and _does_ , whether or not it _should_.

And if we build a society which demands, in practice, that even in two-parent
families, both parents work outside of the home full-time to provide the
necessities of life, we probably shouldn't be surprised that suboptimal
parenting often occurs.

