There are moments when you hear or read of something so boffo bizzare that the only decent reply is to raise an eyebrow and look unemotionally dumbfounded. My bizarre moment was reading the report of a Colorado school banning the game ‘Tag’. This is not the first school to ban the game as indicated here and here. To be honest, my mind scrambles for the understanding of how other adults actually sit down and think up the most foolish of behavior controls.
Why Ban Tag?
The common excuse given by the school official revolves around either so called safety to prevent collisions or some silly self esteem issue.
Firstly, these are kids with functioning eyesight; either assisted with glasses or without. The kids are not intentionally trying to run into each other. These kids are not male rams butting heads nor are they wandering asteroids that will drift into the paths of each other.
As for the self esteem excuse, for a teacher to invoke it to me demonstrates the pathetic thinking of the adult and not the student. They are not teaching anything but to be a victim of the moment. Is it too much for a teacher or yard supervisor to quietly suggest a playing strategy to the tagger such as chase after the slowest runner? Is it beyond the teachers’ creative ability to explain how the game of tag is similar to how a lion or wolf will chase the prey animal? How about showing a nature video to reinforce the notion how Tag is universal among several species. Humans use it for play while animals use it to feed themselves.
What’s Next on the List to be Banned?
I expect the next playground activities to be banned are “Red Light-Green Light” because of self esteem issues. You ask how? Think like the idiot officials for a moment. The game requires you to listen to the caller shout out either color. The discrimination occurs because a deaf student can not hear the shouts. Never mind that the deaf student should be able to follow along with the other players in knowing when to move and freeze.
Another banned activity could be “jump rope.” You ask how? Grit your teeth through the pain and think like an idiot official a little longer. One of the students might get the idea, after several rounds of jumping, to snap the rope in the same manner as using a whip on another student or to try to swing from the top of the jungle gym. Jump ropes could easily get classified as weapons.
It is hard enough being a kid without the misguided buffoonery of public school education professionals.
I received an email from an anonymous correspondent claiming to be a school administrator disgusted with the effects of zero tolerance. I debated with myself about the appropriateness of posting these stories as there are no specifics I can use to corroborate them. It could all be a clever fiction. In the end, I decided to go ahead and give these stories from “Job Line” to readers for their consideration, but with this leading disclaimer, as he or she could just as easily posted them to comments.
So, without further preamble, consider what he or she has to say:
I have a few zero tolerance stories to tell as a school administrator. I am not revealing my identity to protect my job. Meanwhile, violent students continue with their violence with or without zero tolerance policies.
Story #1
As an assistant principal, one of my duties was supervision of the lunchroom. One day, a boy approached me and said a boy at his table had a knife. The boy knew about the zero intelligence rule the district had. I approached the table and a moderately mentally handicapped boy showed me his 1″ long plastic GI Joe knife. I took it from him and told him he shouldn’t even bring toy guns to school. That was going to be the end of it but somehow the principal found out and reamed me for not suspending the student and requesting expulsion. He ordered me to suspend the student for 10 days pending an expulsion hearing. Being that he was special education, we had a manifestation hearing to determine if his disability was related to the offense. Because I was the case conference coordinator, I made sure the determination was that the offense was related. The punishment then became only the 10 day period. I never forgave the principal for this and left at the end of that school year.
Story #2
This took place while I was a principal. The school board in all its wisdom said that they needed to be tough on violence and adopted a zero tolerance policy. I spoke against it, but they were more interested in putting on a good show for the media. A straight-A student was in the computer lab and came across a website that had recipes for making bombs. He said to his friend. “I can’t believe it. Someone could really make a bomb out of this and hurt someone.” The teacher overheard him and printed off the page. Because word gets around in this district, all the board members found out about it before the end of the day. Of course I was ordered to suspend the student pending an expulsion hearing. At the expulsion hearing, the woman thankfully brought along a lawyer who told them that if this child was expelled, he was planning on multiple lawsuits against the district and individual board members. Because he could prove they were discussing private information about this child in public, they were violating FERPA laws. He succeeded in getting this boy off with just a 10 day suspension.
Meanwhile, the son of one of these board members sexually assaulted a girl on campus. The board told me that if I suspended the boy longer than 3 days, I would be looking for another job.
Story #3
This was another that occurred while I was principal. Another great student on the honor roll had a boy scout camp-out the previous weekend. He forgot about the pocket knife he had in his jacket from the camp-out. When he found out, he brought the knife to the office. Unfortunately, a person in the office who saw this contacted a board member and once again, I was required to suspend this boy for 10 days and recommend expulsion. The story ended up good because they put the boy in a home-school cooperative and the boy re-entered school as a junior in high school. He graduated with honors.
The Supreme Court recently heard Morse v. Frederick, which captured the attention of the general public because of the appeal of how most people know it: the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. In essence, the Court’s ruling has strengthened the powers of discipline on the part of school administrators by holding that the First Amendment guarantees of free speech do not hold for public school students when that speech promotes illegal drug use.
One might think that this column would be disappointed, but the opinions of the 5-4 majority in this case are based on principles we actually support. Discipline of students that have in some way threatened the safety of others or disrupted the educational process is an important part of teaching those children to be positive contributors to our greater society. Rather, our objection is to the transfer of intelligent and appropriate discipline to a mindless application of zero tolerance policies that cast the disciplinary net too wide and know no difference between the harmless play of children and the malevolence of true juvenile delinquents. Thus do little green army men and real, loaded guns brought to school as a threat or tool for harm become equally offensive, administrators lose all credibility, and children lose instead of learn.
The Supreme Court did not explicitly address zero tolerence, but in a majority concurring opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “Students will test the limits of acceptable behavior in myriad ways better known to schoolteachers than to judges; school officials need a degree of flexible authority to respond to disciplinary challenges; and the law has always considered the relationship between teachers and students special.” Flexible authority is the polar opposite of zero tolerance. We can only hope that public school administrators will listen to Justice Breyer and the Court and come to their senses on this foolish trend.
If you have time, you should really read the entire decision. Justice Breyer’s quote is on page 39. Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion, beginning on page 19, is also an excellent discussion of school discipline.
Rather than documentation of any specific incident, an article yesterday by Kathryn Hemenway in the Battle Creek Enquirer provides excellent insight into the problems of taking discipline problems to the general corrections system instead of to an in-school system. Take the time to read what she has to say.
As soon as I heard about the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, I knew there were going to be some people that would jump at the chance to call for more zero tolerance policies (as well as more gun control and other compromises to civil liberties in general.)
Jason Wittman, MPS, got right on it. Mr. Wittman is living in an alternate reality, one where the imposition of strict rules immediately modifies behavior purely for the better and no one ever abuses those rules to forward his own agenda.
Zero tolerance policies drive those that would work ill upon their fellows to simply be more clandestine in their activities. They cast a wide net that then picks up kids acting as kids. Possession of weapon-shaped toys, unintentional or minor violations of rules, and the necessary process of learning social mores are punished blindly and equally harshly to truly criminal behavior. Administrators under pressure to raise school test scores use these policies to weed out the “undesirables,” kids who don’t have the right grades, income, or skin color.
Hand-wringers like Mr. Wittman are likely to be secretly thrilled at the Virginia Tech massacre, granting them a new bugbear, a college-level Columbine to which they can point, shouting, “See? See? We are not safe!” They shout this even as schools become far safer.
Don’t let Mr. Wittman and other knee-jerk reactionaries push an unnecessary and harmful agenda of zero tolerance policies in an impossible and unrealistic pursuit of the abolishment of all discomfort from youth. We need an intelligent approach to school discipline and to allow our children to learn how to deal with adversity while they are still children and the consequences are low.
Louise Benson, MD has been a regular reader of this site since her own experience with a Zero Tolerance policy gone wrong in conjunction with her son. Many of the incidents described in this site are further referenced in the book.
Please support Dr. Benson’s efforts (and incidentally, support the continued operation of this site) by buying a copy of her book using the link presented here.
Zero tolerance can destroy lives. A simple mistake or innocent omission made by a juvenile can have long lasting or even permanent effects due to the incredible punishments and lack of compassion inherent in these policies. Award winning director R.Dekker Dryer is a ZT survivor who is doing something about it.
Danda Motion Pictures is planning a unique documentary feature about Zero Tolerance in America’s public schools. Headed by award-winning director / producer Dekker Dreyer and based on largely on his own bad experiences with “insane” public school discipline policies, Life After Zero looks to be the definitive film about ZT. What makes this project unique is that we want those who were affected by Zero Tolerance policies to direct the film in a series of segments showcasing how ZT changed their lives forever. Jim Peacock of Zero Intelligence has pledged his support for the project by accepting the role of technical adviser, and for that we thank him. As more people come on board the stronger our chances for making a real impact with this feature will be.
We’re looking for young people who have been affected by ZT and can look back on their experiences to give insight into how ZT changed their lives. Maybe they couldn’t get into college, maybe they have a felony on their record and can’t hold a job when once they were a promising honors student. Perhaps, they were beaten in school and punished for self-defense. Our documentary wants to explore what the real effects of zero tolerance are from the perspective of the survivors.
(more…)
A guest editorial by Gerald W. Bracey
Test-Induced Craziness. Call it the TIC tic. Consider it Orwellian. Orwell’s Newspeak pounded the brain with certain ideas while precluding others. So it is that many school people can today think only of test scores and sanctions, and their cerebrums can no longer entertain the idea of “education.â€Â
In Bennett, Colorado, Frank Maes, a father and middle school math teacher whose brain is still capable of thinking beyond tests, told the administration that his sixth-grade daughter, Nicole, would not participate in the Colorado state testing program: “All it does is label schools and kids.â€Â
OK, fine, said Bennett’s administration, but if Nicole doesn’t take the tests she won’t get promoted to seventh grade. This is official Bennett policy. She took the tests.
(more…)
In January of this year the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of United States v. Booker. The Court found that mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional as they violate the precepts of the 6th amendment.
Zero Tolerance punishments are mandatory sentencing guidelines implemented by institutions of the state. Is this a mortal blow for ZT? I am eagerly awaiting the first ZT punishment being overturned by a court due to US v Booker.
Today’s schools function essentially the same as they did when the system was first designed fifty years ago. That is bad. Very, very bad. That school system was designed after the Austrian system and its goal was to produce an industrial workforce. Industry and technology are only tangentially related and the workforce our schools produce today is not equipped to handle a technologically based society.
There is also a huge issue with bureaucratic bloat. While the basic system is the same, every year has seen additional restrictions and requirements applied to our schools. Administrators are hamstrung compared to their power and authority a mere two decades ago. They work in an outdated system that they are increasingly unable to support, modify and even effectively administrate.
(more…)
