Weapons in School: Zero Tolerance

[monster]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Excellent link. It brings up the issue of intent and context. If Monster's son had been taunting a kid whose family had been gunned down the week before, probably not protected. But in the absence of any specific circumstances, just drawing a picture of a gun is hardly impeding the school's mission to teach. While the act of drawing, in itself, may have been disruptive, then that is what the charge should be, not invoking the zero tolerance policy for guns.

Quite. It was actually in "free time" apparently. And if it had been the former, I think bullying would have been the issue rather than weapons. But zero tolerance does not allow for intent.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by monster

... I don't see where drawing a picture of a gun (which is what my kid did) is a no-no -it may be a replica if you really stretch that, but it isn't an object or implement...

B. Other Weapon. Any object or instrument including a replica, facsimile or look-alike of such object or instrument ...

The policy doesn't say implement, it says instrument and a picture is an instrument of communication that can easily be used to communicate a threat.

... where the possession or use of same is coupled with an intent by a student to inflict injury or harm upon another person. ...

When it comes to "other weapons," the policy clearly takes intent into consideration. Harm does not have to be physical, it can be emotional and harm can occur whether the student intends for it to happen or not. The policy only holds the student responsible for intentional harm which seems quite fair to me.

Originally Posted by monster

Quite. It was actually in "free time" apparently. ...

That pretty much rules out the act of drawing as a distraction the teacher was addressing. The issue seems to be with the subject matter.

Originally Posted by monster

But zero tolerance does not allow for intent.

I take it you're referring to the teacher and not the written policy which is why you're not satisfied with the teacher's determination under that policy.

Ironically, dissatisfied parents contribute to zero tolerance policies in schools. Such policies can be applied uniformly without teachers having to psychoanalyze students and look into their backgrounds to determine intent. Teachers thereby avoid making mistakes in judgment calls that may have dire consequences. They avoid prohibiting some students from doing things that most others are allowed to do; also, the parent-teacher confrontations that arise from such situations. It's a catch 22 for the teacher: they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The teacher was probably better off, with the variance in political correctness surrounding this issue, by avoiding making judgment calls and applying the same precautionary standard to all students. The teacher can simply claim there wasn't sufficient information or time to make an accurate determination. It forces parental intervention and places the onus for any adverse ramifications, of children drawing pictures of weapons in school, on the parents and the teacher's superiors. This seems to me like the most plausible explanation (personal agenda) for the teacher having intervened without taking disciplinary action under the circumstances you've described thus far.

It wouldn't fly with me either; but, I recognize that good people can have bad ideas. I try to separate the person from the idea.