 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Zero tolerance makes zero sense
© St. Petersburg Times, Former first lady Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign didn't have much substance, but it made for a good sound-bite. A decade later, the feel-good slogan was replaced by "zero tolerance," a movement that was more substantive and equally well-intentioned, but with a definite political convenience for law-and-order politicos. Now, "zero tolerance" has evolved beyond its anti-drug connotation to include weapons and violence and adults' legal drug of choice, alcohol. But, as is the case too often, the application of a good idea becomes distorted and unworkable because those in charge of interpreting and administering it use it to absolve themselves of common sense and reasonable due process. The result has been that policy-makers, administrators, teachers and parents feel good about applying the rules consistently, but fail in what should be their most important mission: to correct the behavior of children who make bad choices. Some members of the Citrus County School Board, perhaps recognizing that zero-tolerance policies are sometimes unfair and unthinking, are expected to discuss the issue at a public meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the administration building on State Road 44 W in Inverness. Talk of zero tolerance will be an outgrowth of a scheduled discussion about the future of the district's Renaissance Center, where disruptive students are schooled. As the conversation inevitably comes full circle to the zero-tolerance policy, we urge the board to start from this premise: Teachers and administrators must do all they can to make schools safe for students and employees, but their priority is to educate children, not be pseudo-law enforcement officers or quasi-jurists. Principals who want to know exactly how much leeway they have in making recommendations for punishment have asked Superintendent David Hickey to clarify the policy. The board should spell out its policy to avoid confusion. Judging by their record of expelling all but one student who has broken the school's zero-tolerance rule, most board members apparently believe there should be no exceptions to the rule. That kind of thinking -- or, more precisely, that lack of thinking -- is nonsense. One punishment does not fit all crimes in a school, any more than it does in a court of law. Children are going to make mistakes. Some of them are going to break the law. When they do, the punishment should be appropriate. To ensure that, principals should have the leeway to make recommendations that bend both ends of the zero-tolerance policy, and that the board will stand behind their decision. Abuses of enforcing zero tolerance abound. A Pinellas County senior who was suspended a few days before graduation because she took a sip of sangria while toasting a co-worker at an office party. Another Pinellas student who was suspended for bringing a butter knife in his lunch box. A student in Tampa who was sent to alternative school for handing a classmate two ordinary mints, but joked that it was the drug Ecstasy. Those are all examples of zero-tolerance policies being taken to an illogical extreme. Literal interpretations of zero tolerance wrongly classify all students as chronic thugs, regardless of their past performance, grades, home life, other mitigating circumstances, or whether they have shown sincere remorse for their mistake. Those factors and others should be taken into account when deciding whether to suspend a youngster's access to public education. Sharing an extra-strength aspirin with a classmate is not the same as possessing crack cocaine or a fifth of whiskey. A rule that does not afford flexibility to those who mete the discipline is unreasonable. That goes for increasing the punishment, as well as easing it, as the situation dictates. At the same meeting Tuesday, board members are scheduled to discuss whether students who are suspended or expelled should be able to continue their education in another setting. In a word, yes. It is better than turning the youngsters out in the street for days or weeks at a time, many with no parental supervision during the day. But if the school district is compelled to tutor youngsters who have been temporarily banned from school, it should be done somewhere other than the Renaissance Center. The board should direct Hickey to provide a detailed estimate of how much such a program would cost.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
Citrus Times |
