Catching Up
Justin Bathon on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 1:49PM Well, ELA was awesome, but I was mostly MIA on the Net. So, it's time to catch up a little.
First, more stupid zero-tolerance fallout. A girl brought empty gun shells to show science teacher ... and suspended. This is not as bad as some others, but these kind of stories continue weekly these days. At some point the embarrassment factor must kick in. h/t S.M.
Great report from Fordham law on state data system privacy elements and the Washington Post coverage (EdWeek too). I can't disagree with the authors legally, but I do think their natural inclination to protect, protect, protect is the wrong inclination and is going to slow down important research that could improve schools. The solution here is just to let public universities store the data warehouses. We are public institutions within the public trust, but it connects data and researchers more closely. I would like to see more universities getting into this business.
Bryan Jason Ford (@BryanJasonFord) on the implications of the Supreme Court's denial of cert. in Stancourt v. Worthington City Sch. Dist.. This is pretty good if you are a special ed. person or interested in the Supreme Court approval process.
Reader Comments (3)
These zero tolerance seem as silly as suspending students for taking aspirin in the hallways, carrying healthy water to classes, bringing an LP tank from the home grill, or having a hunting gun (remember it's pheasant season) in the back seat of a car in the parking lot. In themselves, these clearly make sense, but if all of these were commonplace, how easy would it be to deal drugs in the hallways (or at a minimum use them), drink vodka in the science room, create a bomb in a few seconds, and start a dangerous shooting spree. Although yes, some things seem really to be "nothing" items, school officials have to hold students and parents accountable for what the "agreed upon" rules may be.
It appears that in this case any gun or gun related items are banned from school. Yes, I doubt there was intent, but there is an expectation. What if - and I stress that this is hypothetical - the little girl was bringing the empty shells to a cousin, who also had someone bringing him wadding and shot, and the student was bringing a shotgun for "show and tell" about hunting. Again with the reminder that we are thinking hypothetically here. All of the pieces are available now, and it doesn't seem so ludicrous. It is a way of thinking that we have come to expect from officials yet not accept with our children.
Having these rules in place allows school officials to eliminate high numbers of potential violations and identify those that are more likely to be actual violations. Ignoring the addressing of the issue is worse than not having the rule. This really is about creating a safe environment for all involved, including those that violate expectations. Ultimately if the embarrassment factor kicks in, I do sincerely hope it is for a suspension, not a tragedy.
Thanks Marshall. I respect the opinion. I do think the problem, though, is that we are too into the hypothetical world and not enough into the real world. In the real world, she brought some empty casings. A punishment is deserved for sure, but kicking in the zero-tolerance makes little sense.
Prescriptive laws are always necessarily in the hypothetical world - predicting future conduct. My opinion is that the prescriptive policies here are perhaps necessary for broad statements, but unnecessary for most real world application. Sort of like the anti-bullying statutes that have no real legal implication, but that set a nice general idea for the school to follow. However, when the bullying incident arises, the policies become meaningless and the principal does what the principal thinks is best.
There are just too many embarrassments for me. Seems like something in the paper every week and I think the harm that is being caused by negative perceptions of principals and school discipline outweigh the benefit that the zero-tolerance policies bring on top of the principal's own independent judgment. If there is a real threat to the school, I think every principal in the world would immediate act to eliminate that threat, whether or not a policy says to do so. So the added benefit of the zero-tolerance is mostly political, in a CYA kind of capacity. Anyway, that for me does not outweigh the constant flow of ridiculous punishments.
Justin, I would agree. As a principal, there are times that I would simply like to make a decision that seems logical, but the fact is that my job is to interpret and enforce policy - school, state, federal, etc. Maybe it's my ego, but I think there are times that my personal decision without the guidance of a group of removed legislators would be most effective. I also have to understand, however, that every time I do X in case A followed by Y in case B, the immediate response is "favoritism" from the general public, regardless of what that "favoritism" may be (rich vs. poor, race, gender, athlete, etc. either side, by the way). The other part that we never know is the full story, and we shouldn't. We should be able to trust that, as you indicate, the principals are looking out for the kids first. I would say that the bullying laws do actually help because there are now some real legal references that work effectively with my high school students.