4 ms·
> Cameras in classrooms, body cams on teachers, school police and lock up the little darlings will take a bite out of it. This has been the status quo in many
by TimorousBestie 1y ago
> Cameras in classrooms, body cams on teachers, school police and lock up the little darlings will take a bite out of it.
This has been the status quo in many schools for a while now. Whether or not it helped is unclear and a subject of ongoing debate. If you want things to change, you need a novel intervention.
As for zero tolerance policies, they are exhausting to implement and feel deeply unjust to everyone involved. Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good. But if one doesn’t, the policy is no longer zero tolerance.
- Bender 1y agoHaving to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good. If they are expelled for defending themselves the policies need to change. The cameras should provide evidence they were defending themselves. When enough violent kids are removed the incidence of having to defend one's self should be reduced with time.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoIf you don’t like this outcome, you should not support zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance denotes a policy where the root causes do not affect the consequences. There’s no zero tolerance policy where “providing evidence” is an effective defense.
- Bender 1y agoThis is a retcon of the original meaning of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means the instigators are removed from the picture without question. If it is documented or implemented otherwise then we will have to fix it and schools will have to stop being lazy.
- RHSeeger 1y agoThat's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter. Defending yourself means you participated in violence and you're punished for it. Zero-tolerance is a horrible idea in general, and only sense in the context of protecting the institution from liability.
- Bender 1y agoThat's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter. Your definition of zero tolerance does not align with mine. Mine is that there is the instigators are removed from the picture without question or debate and everyone else continues on with their education in a safer space. When a school also punishes those defending themselves they and their board members must be sued. Allowing violent instigators is one of the many ways we end up with mass shooters. That and bad diets, off label prescription drugs. I might even push for creating curriculum for teaching how to deal with violent and/or unstable people both online and in person and grade people on how well they defend themselves online and in person.
- StevenWaterman 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance > A zero-tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero-tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. If you use "zero tolerance" to mean "zero tolerance for starting a fight" you need to make that very clear, because that's not how it's used in schools currently.
- Bender 1y agobecause that's not how it's used in schools currently. That's school districts being lazy. That is clearly the first thing that need to be prioritized and resolved nation wide in all first world countries. The instigators must be removed from the picture without debate.
- StevenWaterman 1y agoWe already have a phrase for "if you start a fight you get punished" The phrase is "normal, non-zero-tolerance policy"