Student gets Suspended for taking PIC of napping Teacher!

[gothamhunter]

To me:

If you weren't too lazy to read the thread, you'd know I didn't think the suspension would or should hold up. Unfortunately, it looks like laziness and sensationalism is the only thing people defending this thread are capable of. There has been very, very little arguments against it other than personal attacks at me.

Your earlier response:

He got suspended for taking the picture, the subject was irrelevant. With cellphones, I'm all for the zero tolerance policy in schools and the kid should be suspended. They are very disruptive to the education process.

As for the teacher, do whatever the policy has for punishment (I'm sure napping on the job would be in there) and be done with it.

Just wanted to point out that, based on this statement, you agree with a child getting suspended for using a cellphone to call 911 due to a child dying in a classroom (zero tolerance and all that).

/Argument

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I still haven't seen a response on this. I'm guessing GotIssues thinks this student should get a suspension too. Want to make sure he doesn't do it again! :awe:

I'm sure if I was suspended for dialing 911 id proudly wear my suspension like a badge of honor and then make a huge fucking stink about it.

 

[GotIssues]

I posted long before you got here. Read the thread and get back to me.

Post #4 was me. Maybe YOU should go back and read the thread. Heck, your first post (#15) QUOTED me to leave a snide remark instead of actual debate.

You're just upset that anyone is daring to disagree with you. You're not interested in debate, you've made up your mind and anyone who disagrees "lacks the maturity for an actual debate." Well that pretty much ends the conversation doesn' it?

Ah, the good 'ol fashion "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

My responses have been directly to the discussion with my views. Yours has been predominantly attacks and ignores all pretense of discussion.

In all your posts, you've spit out attack after attack and only provided a one or two sentences (in the entire set of posts combined) that even remotely attempt to support your cause without going into attack mode. You are just not worth the time anymore. You can't seem to read or do anything but put on personal attacks. Don't bother posting responses anymore, because frankly, you aren't worth my time.

 

[BoberFett]

Cry more.


How was that?

 

[Juked07]

He would never have gotten in significant trouble for just taking the pic. It's what he did after that got him suspended. Where's the rest of the story?

 

[gothamhunter]

He would never have gotten in significant trouble for just taking the pic. It's what he did after that got him suspended. Where's the rest of the story?

Did you not read the story? The officials say he got suspended because he used his phone, period.

 

[gothamhunter]

Post #4 was me. Maybe YOU should go back and read the thread. Heck, your first post (#7) QUOTED me to leave a snide remark instead of actual debate.



Ah, the good 'ol fashion "I know you are but what am I?" defense.

My responses have been directly to the discussion with my views. Yours has been predominantly attacks and ignores all pretense of discussion.

In all your posts, you've spit out attack after attack and only provided a one or two sentences (in the entire set of posts combined) that even remotely attempt to support your cause without going into attack mode. You are just not worth the time anymore. You can't seem to read or do anything but put on personal attacks. Don't bother posting responses anymore, because frankly, you aren't worth my time.

Contradicting views, at that.

 

[Juked07]

Did you not read the story? The officials say he got suspended because he used his phone, period.

I don't buy it. They're covering up a much juicier scandal =D

 

[GotIssues]

Yesterday my kid had a roast beef gravy dinner tomorrow he's having lasagna, I hope your not suggesting he eats those with his fingers.

Doesn't need a knife, a fork will work perfectly fine.

To me:

Your earlier response:


Just wanted to point out that, based on this statement, you agree with a child getting suspended for using a cellphone to call 911 due to a child dying in a classroom (zero tolerance and all that).

/Argument

He should be suspended per the rules, and he should appeal it. I've said that at least 6 times, probably more in the magnitude of 10. Just because you choose to ignore half the thread because it hurts your argument, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

GotIssues, I think there is a very simple point you miss. And this applies across the board with our education system. Teachers and administrators do not want to think or examine a situation. They want a rule they can point to.

They pretty much want zero thinking. Zero tolerance is generally zero thinking.

First off, thanks for your response.

While I agree it's the "easy way out" in terms of decision making, there can be a problem of consistency that needs to happen. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and when it comes to safety, that line tends to be quite a bit closer to the conservative side.

This doesn't apply just to discipline, but all other things too. Our public education system should be about educating our children. I will give you a perfect example of something that I would like to do with my child but I would never be allowed to because there is zero thinking by public schools these days.

When I was a kid, my school system had a "limit" of the number of days you could miss. However, if a parent worked with a child's teacher about school work, the number of missed days did not matter. My mom(while poor) did work a job(airline ticket agent) that allowed us to travel freely. My mom believed seeing the world had importance and made sure I got my school work done too. But it also meant, I missed more than the "max" number of absences for a given year. However, I wasn't failed because I passed all my tests and did ok in class.

That would never fly in the current system. Schools do not want to think or look at what is best for a child. I am sorry but if my son misses 3 weeks of school but can pass all your tests, it doesn't matter. My wife and I are already planning to take a 30 day vacation when our second child turns 7-8. Why? Because he/she will be adopted and we want to go back to his/her birth country. No amount of schooling would substitute for that. And no, we aren't going to schedule it during the summer. We already recognize, we might as well home school that semester because schools are too rigid and dumb to handle simple things like that.

If I'm not mistaken, the number of hours in school is a Federal requirement and not really a choice of the schools themselves. I could be mistaken, but that's how I understand it. This is not an issue of zero tolerance, but one of the government trying to regulate the school system.

It is sad that our school systems have turned into what they have become over the past 20 years. 20 years ago, what my wife and I want to do with our children would not have been a problem. But it is now. Inflexibility is not something to strive for in education. In the world there are always exceptions to the rule but our school systems do not function in that way.

As we grow on as the human race, there will be changes in the ways we do things. Some for the worse, most for the better. 20 years ago, I remember my entire soccer team riding in the back of a pickup truck down the highway, or infants riding on their mother's laps. Looking back, that was not exactly the safest way to do things. Deer jumps out in front, there is now 12 dead or badly injured kids on the side of the road or in the case of the infant, a dead baby.

Much like most things, there needs to be checks and balances. Zero tolerance used in conjunction with an appeals system is there to help cut bad situations out of the equation at the first sign.

Those little locks they used to put on luggage. They weren't exactly hard to take off, but they served two functions: 1) to keep your zippers shut 2) keep honest people honest. Putting down a zero tolerance policy will keep some kids from bringing the things to school because they were thinking about doing something. It helps keep honest people honest. The ones that want to bring it will anyways. Removing all doubt and question with straightforward policies can prevent a lot more than you think.

 

[GotIssues]

Contradicting views, at that.

Only when you cherry pick posts and ignore 1/2 of what I've said.

 

[GotIssues]

Ah, ignore list is a wonderful thing.

 

[Paladin3]

This debate isn't about who has the larger ignore list, who posted first or who's the most butt-hurt. It's about the inappropriateness of zero tolerance rules in our schools.

All a zero tolerance rule does is tie the administrations hands when it comes to making disciplinary decision. ZTRs prevent the use of sound judgment by their very nature of being absolute. ZTRs have no appeals process. If they did they wouldn't be zero tolerance rules. Yes, once a school district gets enough negative media attention for the silly ZTR they often back down, but that's the exception and not the rule.

A school administrator doesn't need a ZTR to discipline a student. A ZTR doesn't give them any extra power or authority. They just have to be willing to excessive their good judgment and the take responsibility for the decision they make, rather than hiding behind and blaming a ridiculous ZTR.

Several stories that illustrate my point:

Zero-tolerance policies lack flexibility
It’s a Fork, It’s a Spoon, It’s a ... Weapon?
Kindergartner suspended for making gun with hand
Zero tolerance makes discipline more severe, involves the courts
9-year-old boy suspended for "sexual harassment" after calling teacher "cute"
Stop Tolerating Zero Tolerance

We've got little kids getting suspended or even arrested for bringing aspirin to school, or pointing a chicken nugget at someone and saying "pow", or for calling their teacher "cute" and that's just wrong. Our public education system just wants to seem tough on crime/violence, and pander to paranoid parents, so they institute stupid zero tolerance rules/laws they can hide behind. Zero tolerance = zero thinking.

 

[Codewiz]

As we grow on as the human race, there will be changes in the ways we do things. Some for the worse, most for the better. 20 years ago, I remember my entire soccer team riding in the back of a pickup truck down the highway, or infants riding on their mother's laps. Looking back, that was not exactly the safest way to do things. Deer jumps out in front, there is now 12 dead or badly injured kids on the side of the road or in the case of the infant, a dead baby.

Much like most things, there needs to be checks and balances. Zero tolerance used in conjunction with an appeals system is there to help cut bad situations out of the equation at the first sign.

Those little locks they used to put on luggage. They weren't exactly hard to take off, but they served two functions: 1) to keep your zippers shut 2) keep honest people honest. Putting down a zero tolerance policy will keep some kids from bringing the things to school because they were thinking about doing something. It helps keep honest people honest. The ones that want to bring it will anyways. Removing all doubt and question with straightforward policies can prevent a lot more than you think.

Do you think our education system is better now than 20 years ago when looking at the overall goal.....educating children.

Are kids better education now or 20 years ago?

All I care about are results. The issue I have is that our government and our education system only looks at the intent of a policy or rule, instead of the consequences and especially the unintended consequences.

When something doesn't work, they don't revisit and say, "Well that didn't do what we wanted". They typically add more regulation or policy to try and get the intended result.

I believe our education system if far worse now than it was 20 years ago when you look at the goal of educating our children.

To give you an example of great success, look at Finland.

In the end, all that should matter are results. And I believe this "zero tolerance" crap doesn't help children learn. I believe it does the opposite. So while it may make things easier for teachers and administrators, it does not help children learn.

 

[slag]

There is always the ability to appeal, whether it's specifically stated or not.

No, there wasn't. I talked to the principal, I spoke with him for 30 minutes and there is no wiggle room or appeal process once the zero tolerance policy is in place at my son's school. I don't know why you think you know the policys at my son's school, but you don't.

 

[slag]

Yesterday my kid had a roast beef gravy dinner tomorrow he's having lasagna, I hope your not suggesting he eats those with his fingers.

How do you manage that? At my kids school, there is no microwave or anything to reheat food. You bring a cold lunch or eat there since it will get cold in the 3-4 hours it sits which potentially could mean it would go bad at a slow cool down. I don't imagine any schools provide microwaves for students to reheat their lunches or there would be a line out the door and students, being who they are, would try to reheat items that would burn or break the microwave.

 

[Stuxnet]

If the kid was carrying the cell phone and the policy is that cell phones are to be off and in the locker, then the kid is obviously in violation of that's rule. The context of how he got caught has nothing to do with this.

Except that the punishment was insanely severe and a clear overreaction, so the undertone here is that it was retaliatory nature. I agree that the context shouldn't have anything to do with the punishment, but the administration tied the two together - quite deliberately - when they suspended the student.

 

[gothamhunter]

He should be suspended per the rules, and he should appeal it. I've said that at least 6 times, probably more in the magnitude of 10. Just because you choose to ignore half the thread because it hurts your argument, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, there is no appealing. What don't you understand about that?

 

[gothamhunter]

Only when you cherry pick posts and ignore 1/2 of what I've said.

Except for when you say he should get suspended because of zero tolerance, and then go back and say he should appeal it, and then go back and say he shouldn't get suspended if it's a dying kid.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The guy might have been napping during lunch... I used to do that all the time when I substitute taught.

 

[GotIssues]

No, there wasn't. I talked to the principal, I spoke with him for 30 minutes and there is no wiggle room or appeal process once the zero tolerance policy is in place at my son's school. I don't know why you think you know the policys at my son's school, but you don't.

Then your school is doing it wrong and it is up to you as a parent to voice your opinion and demand an appeals process for the very reason that there are grey areas.

No, I don't know your son's school policies, but you don't know any of my local school policies. Just because your school doesn't have an appeal system doesn't mean mine doesn't. The appeal system is vital to really making these things work BECAUSE there are grey areas (and in some cses, they aren't even all that grey).

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance, there is no appealing. What don't you understand about that?

Zero tolerance doesn't mean no appealing. It also doesn't mean suspension like most people seem to be assuming. If you wanted, you could have a zero tolerance policy that says the phone gets taken away.

Except for when you say he should get suspended because of zero tolerance, and then go back and say he should appeal it, and then go back and say he shouldn't get suspended if it's a dying kid.

Punishment for the crime was suspension. He should get suspended because that is what is dictated in the current rule. The punishment is too severe for the infraction, he should appeal it. Through the appeal, they would re-evaluate the severity of the punishment and make it more appropriate. So to say it in a single sentence: He should receive the suspension because that's what the written punish currently is, but he should appeal it and have them re-examine their rule to determine a more appropriate level of punishment.

Someone earlier in the thread gave their school's policy of "Phone gets taken away and parents have to pick it up" and I think that's a pretty good punishment.

 

[GotIssues]

Do you think our education system is better now than 20 years ago when looking at the overall goal.....educating children.

Are kids better education now or 20 years ago?

Sorry, I know it was a typo, but that is funny considering the context of the sentence it's in.

Anyways, excellent question. Are they smarter? I believe so. Is the school system better at educating students? That's difficult to say, but I think they are not adjusting to the change in times and technology as much as they should.

All I care about are results. The issue I have is that our government and our education system only looks at the intent of a policy or rule, instead of the consequences and especially the unintended consequences.

The more macro you take the question, the more difficult it is to have rules that apply across the board. It's much easier for local school systems to make more appropriate rules than it is for the government of a country as large as ours. Something like "no guns or knives," though, is most certainly one that can be applied across the board. There is just no reason those items need to be in a school.

In your situation for traveling, yeah, I could see that in the grand scheme of things being a more valuable experience, one that I would have certainly enjoyed. The government hours requirement I've never had experience with myself nor anyone I know, so it's not something I've given much thought to.

When something doesn't work, they don't revisit and say, "Well that didn't do what we wanted". They typically add more regulation or policy to try and get the intended result.

They do revisit things, as long as there is a structure in place for it, at least at the local level. Fed government is too busy bickering and posturing for the next election to actually accomplish anything, so they won't revisit things.

I believe our education system if far worse now than it was 20 years ago when you look at the goal of educating our children.

To give you an example of great success, look at Finland.

I don't think the education system is far worse than it was 20 years ago. It might not have kept up with the times and as good as it could be, though.

You really can't compare the United States to Finland in this case, mainly because of the size difference. It's a much, much easier task to govern a country with 5 million citizens and a landmass of 340,000 sq mi vs a country with 305 million citizens and 9,600,000 sq mi. The volume and sprawl of the population creates all sorts of financial and logistical obsticles.

In the end, all that should matter are results. And I believe this "zero tolerance" crap doesn't help children learn. I believe it does the opposite. So while it may make things easier for teachers and administrators, it does not help children learn.

No, it's not going to teach them math or science, but how is preventing them from bringing knives to school or using their cell phones preventing them from learning? Cellphones provide no benefit and plenty of hinderance to the learning process. I see no problem with a ZT policy on their use, just have the punishment be the one mentioned earlier in the thread where it gets taken away and the parent has to come pick it up.

ZT rules need to be applied better with more appropriate punishments, but I still believe they have their place. However, that place is limited in scope. Just making everything ZT is absurd, but having a couple policies on specific items with an appeals process to allow for the one in a million exception? That shouldn't be much of an issue.

 

[Analog]

The guy might have been napping during lunch... I used to do that all the time when I substitute taught.

Looking at his girth, I'd say he needed the whole lunch hour to satiate.

 

[WelshBloke]

How do you manage that? At my kids school, there is no microwave or anything to reheat food. You bring a cold lunch or eat there since it will get cold in the 3-4 hours it sits which potentially could mean it would go bad at a slow cool down. I don't imagine any schools provide microwaves for students to reheat their lunches or there would be a line out the door and students, being who they are, would try to reheat items that would burn or break the microwave.

Umm, you go to the school canteen and pick your meal from the menu. They serve you and give you a knife and fork to eat it with.

 

[GotIssues]

All a zero tolerance rule does is tie the administrations hands when it comes to making disciplinary decision. ZTRs prevent the use of sound judgment by their very nature of being absolute. ZTRs have no appeals process. If they did they wouldn't be zero tolerance rules. Yes, once a school district gets enough negative media attention for the silly ZTR they often back down, but that's the exception and not the rule.

ZTs can have an appeals process. Yes, it would still be a ZT rule. ZT means immediate enforcement and not "I'm warning you!" enforcement.

A school administrator doesn't need a ZTR to discipline a student. A ZTR doesn't give them any extra power or authority. They just have to be willing to excessive their good judgment and the take responsibility for the decision they make, rather than hiding behind and blaming a ridiculous ZTR.

ZTs are for the items when there really doesn't need to be judgement, and a process to allow for the 1 in a million exception. Hell, it's really not that hard to write one that none of you would disagree with.

Several stories that illustrate my point:

I'm going to go through and ask a few questions that I'd like you to answer, if that's ok.

Zero-tolerance policies lack flexibility

She brought a pop spiked with alcohol and she got busted for it. So... where is the problem? No, her life isn't over like the article suggests. She got suspended in the 8th grade, no one is going to take that seriously or even know about it in 2 years. She got busted for doing something stupid and got punished. It happens to everyone. She probably learned her lesson about bringing alcohol to school.

It’s a Fork, It’s a Spoon, It’s a ... Weapon?

From the article: "He defended the decision, but added that the board might adjust the rules when it comes to younger children like Zachary."

"For Delaware, Zachary’s case is especially frustrating because last year state lawmakers tried to make disciplinary rules more flexible by giving local boards authority to, “on a case-by-case basis, modify the terms of the expulsion.”

"In Zachary’s case, the state’s new law did not help because it mentions only expulsion and does not explicitly address suspensions. A revised law is being drafted to include suspensions."

So they are adjusting the laws to keep the ZT policy for safety, and provide an appeals system for the rare exceptions. Which is exactly what I've been saying should be done.

"Education experts say that zero-tolerance policies initially allowed authorities more leeway in punishing students, but were applied in a discriminatory fashion."

This is why individual discretion can become a bigger problem than you realize. Appeals process puts it the hands of 3 or 5 people, not 1 who works closely with the situation and may have likes/dislikes of certain kids that muddies the outcome.

Kindergartner suspended for making gun with hand

That's a dumb suspension. You have no argument from me.

That's not a ZT policy, anyways. He was warned several times. It's a dumb policy for sure, but it has nothing to do with this discussion nor have I ever agreed that something like this is punishable.

Zero tolerance makes discipline more severe, involves the courts

None of those fall under my stance either. Caffeinated gum? Costume props? Who cares? More examples of ZTs used inappropriately that I'm not going to argue with because I agree those examples are absurd.

9-year-old boy suspended for "sexual harassment" after calling teacher "cute"

This is another article that isn't even ZT related. The principle used racism in his decision to suspend a kid. I can all but guarantee that kids had called their teachers cute or something similar before the suspended kid, but they did not receive any punishment.

Stop Tolerating Zero Tolerance

First example: The principle recommended he be expelled, which would imply he had a choice and exercised his judgement on the matter. This is not a problem with the ZT policy, but a problem with the discretion that the principle exercised.

We've got little kids getting suspended or even arrested for bringing aspirin to school, or pointing a chicken nugget at someone and saying "pow", or for calling their teacher "cute" and that's just wrong. Our public education system just wants to seem tough on crime/violence, and pander to paranoid parents, so they institute stupid zero tolerance rules/laws they can hide behind. Zero tolerance = zero thinking.

I'm not saying all ZTs ever made are completely right and fair, not even close. There will be idiotic policies, ZT or not. I'm saying that ZTs, when well thought out and used on appropriate content, are not a bad thing. The problem is that when people argue against them, they focus only on the shitty ones instead of the ones that are done well.

A lot of your examples are examples of discretion gone awry. Re-read a lot of these articles and ask yourself what decisions the teachers/principles made.

Hell, I'll make a ZT policy right now: "All forms of illegal drugs are not permitted on campus. Any person found to have or be in use of these drugs will immediately be detained and local authorities shall be notified. Legal drugs (perscription and over the counter) are not permitted on campus, except for those which the school nurse's office is informed by the parent or guardian, in writing, prior to their use. All over the counter (OTC) drugs in quantities that constitute more than 12 hours of symptom relief are banned and symptoms must be exhibited for OTC to be permissable. Students in violation of this policy are <insert whatever punishment>"

Not perfect, but a few hours of hashing it out, you can make a pretty good policy that is ZT and still reasonable. Add in the ability to appeal the very, very rare occasions that it doesn't make sense, and it's not a big deal.

 

[BoberFett]

Because GotIssues offers such overwhelming evidence, I'm going to begin instituting my own Zero Tolerance policy. I have Zero Tolerance for annoying posters. I therefore sentence him to 50 years hard labor.

Don't worry, you can appeal it later.