11 ms·

"Zero tolerance", by normal princicples of interpretation of English, implies "no exceptions to the rules". But that was never what it has meant in practice. Th

by ds9 13y ago

"Zero tolerance", by normal princicples of interpretation of English, implies "no exceptions to the rules". But that was never what it has meant in practice. The practical meaning, which has caused all the problems, is "stupidly over-broad rules, ignoring obvious relevant distinctions that should have been incorporated into the rules". If the rule for example is "no drugs", and the "zero tolerance" mantra promotes fearfully over-broad interpretation, then you have students being suspended or expelled or arrested or whatever for having an acetaminophen from a parent or nurse, for a headache. If that's not the intent, the rule needs some intelligent thought at the writing stage - then you could still have "zero tolerance" meaning "no exceptions", yet avoid the outcomes which defy common sense and fairness. The fact that all this has taken years to penetrate the minds of school officials makes me wonder whether we still have a lot of lead poisoning, or some flaw in the way people are selected or trained for these positions, or something else is badly wrong with the education system.

jerf 13y ago
I disagree; the idea that we can write a complete rule set for humans is something that has tempted humans for a long time, but there's no evidence we can pull it off. How does your rule set handle "Student A sneaks some aspirin into Student B's backpack"? A strict reading says that Student B has some aspirin. Obviously that is not what was meant, but we can't afford to specify all the "obviously"s, and it's probably just plain impossible.
- ds9 13y ago
  We don't have to have perfect rules, we just have to go from "crazy over-inclusive and treat all violations alike" to "reasonably targeted and allow for severity of the violation".
- DanBC 13y ago
  The basic concept of zero tolerance would handle this fine. B is a victim. A is a perpetrator. The type of drug sets the punishment. Drugs would normally mean recreational drugs. Aspirin is not recreational, so A doesn't need punishment for carrying this drug. But medical drugs, even aspirin, need cautious use and A should be told about the risks of handing out medication to other people, and about the stupidity of sneaking stuff into other people's bags. The zero tolerance policy has handled the situation appropriately. A not-zero-tolerance policy would have said "Bah, we've got better things to worry about than that" and not done anything to A. Unfortunately, what zero tolerance means in most implementations is that B gets no opportunity to explain that they're a victim, and thus B is expelled from that school. And if A is caught they're also expelled.
- kps 13y ago
  This is (arguably) the difference between civil law and common law systems — the former seeking to codify correct rules in advance, the latter to adapt rules correctly to new circumstances.
- Thrymr 13y ago
  Which is one of the advantages to a jury trial in criminal proceedings, so that a defendant's peers can evaluate the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. Traditionally judges in the USA have considerable leeway in sentencing as well, though mandatory minimums and "three strikes" laws have eroded that. In schools, "zero tolerance" rules take away the leeway of administrators to make punishment proportional and humane. Going down the road of making better rules that can be perfectly enforced is exactly the wrong direction.
VLM 13y ago
My personal experience is no exceptions to the rules means massive petty corruption. He's a mostly good white kid; don't look at the contents of his "cigarette" too closely. I'm not going to look in your backpack because I don't particularly want to have to have you arrested, but god help you if I ever have to talk to you again about smelling beer on your breath... This is usually the hidden story behind draconian enforcement. The kid didn't get busted for having a tablet of tylenol, she got busted using tylenol as a weapon for disrespecting a teacher, being the wrong race (not necessarily black, in some schools white is the wrong race), etc. The real purpose is if everyone is inherently a criminal all the time, then everyone can be punished as much as any tin pot dictator desires at any time. That's the true purpose of the rule. Or the true educational lesson for the kids.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  Of course it's hard to tell if allowing arbitrary exceptions also allows the same kind of problem. "I'll give you a warning because [you're white and] you're normally a good kid and one mistake shouldn't ruin your education"
  - throwaway0094 13y ago
    Yeah. I landed on the privileged end of this. I think my white privilege saved my ass in highschool.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Being the sort of "exceptional" kid that people like @will_brown talks about helping saved my ass on numerous occasions. In the post-Columbine crackdowns in schools, I use to come and leave highschool as I pleased. The administration was terrified of doing anything to 'gifted' kids because a few years earlier the parents of a gifted kid got a lawyer and apparently gave them quite a scare. I probably spend less than 25% of my senior year actually in the classes I was suppose to be in, spending the rest of the time either playing quake under the pretense of "gifted seminar", or knocking around town under the pretense of taking college classes. Had I been a 'regular' kid, I would have surely been expelled. Getting declared "gifted" can give you massive amounts of privilege.
nimble 13y ago
Once when I was riding passenger with a friend, a cop pulled him over and told him that he was getting a ticket as part of their new "zero tolerance" policy: anyone caught exceeding the posted limit by more than 10 mph was going to be ticketed. I sometimes wonder if cops say stupid things just to identify the smart asses out there (I kept my mouth shut).
- DanBC 13y ago
  Why is that a stupid thing to say? Before the zero tolerance policy cops had discretion whether to ticket or not. After the policy they must issue a ticket to anyone going X over the limit.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Zero tolerance would be 65.0001 in a 65 zone means ticket, but the humorous psuedo-zero tolerance is +10 so 74.9999, although nearly 15% out of tolerance, is OK
    - Crito 13y ago
      Throw on some error bars to your speedometer and whatever it is the cop is using to track your speed (not a radar gun unless they are state police, in some states), and 10mph over is probably reasonably close to the lowest amount they can nail people for without significant false positives.
      - VLM 13y ago
        The philosophical point of "zero tolerance" is error bars and "reasonable" don't exist.
        Crito 13y ago
        Consider a draconian zero-tolerance drug policy in an office place, where they can demand a piss test at will. Does "zero tolerance" imply that they will disregard all standard laboratory procedures, disregard the margin of error on the tests, and fire you even if the lab tech points out that the test technically returned a negative since the result was below the margin of error? No, "zero tolerance" isn't, literally interpreted, a statement about how the test will be executed. It is a statement about what happens after the test returns a positive. Of course in practice "zero tolerance" means "we are going to do whatever the hell we want, and then wash our hands of responsibility". That is how "zero tolerance for guns" can turn into "nail this kid to the wall for eating a poptart".
peterwwillis 13y ago
The problem with the education system is similar to that of a corporation, or politics. Nobody who sees the need for changes has the authority to make those changes, and those in authority do the bare minimum needed to keep their jobs. I was expelled or "asked to leave" from several high schools (in Broward County) when I was growing up about 12 years ago. Ironically, it was never for drugs or misbehavior, but instead for being too smart for my own good. The offenses were always minor: a "dangerous" amount of "knowledge of school computer systems". Pushing a chair across the room "in a violent manner" (fast enough to make it clang into the wall). Strange electronics diagrams that they could not decipher (an FM transmitter project kit from RadioShack). Having a website with links to VisualBasic AOL proggies and punters that "could be slowing down the Mac network". What it took me years to figure out was that nobody wanted to deal with a special case. Nobody wanted to take the time to help you or understand you. They have thousands of kids to deal with. They're happy as long as everyone is towing the line and they'd much rather get rid of you (or pass you) than educate you. And I can sum up the motivation in one sentence: There is zero incentive for educators to help troubled kids.
- VLM 13y ago
  "There is zero incentive for educators to help troubled kids." Brevity is overrated; none the less strike out "troubled".
  - peterwwillis 13y ago
    Not so fast. There are incentives for teachers to help talented, excelling individuals who have no problems. It makes the teacher and the school look good, especially for local and national government programs that reward teachers/schools with good results. You could say this is much more relevant in universities where millions of dollars may hinge on the ability of a student to develop something the school can shop around. Actually, there is one incentive for teachers to help troubled kids: High school and college sports. The sports brings in the money, and so they need to make sure the kids don't completely fail out so they can keep bringing in the dough. Other than that, though...
jcromartie 13y ago
> If that's not the intent The cynic in me says that it is the intent. Public schools needed a blunt instrument to simply beat the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls, and they got it through zero tolerance policies. Now it seems that it's unsustainable, so they'll need another way to subjugate the future generations. Again, just my cynical side... being the product of zero tolerance policies, myself.
- degeneratekids 13y ago
  > Public schools needed a blunt instrument to simply beat the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls, and they got it through zero tolerance policies. Punishing teenagers for violating drug laws or damaging property is "beating the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls"??? What do you think is going to happen to them when they turn 18?
  - epochwolf 13y ago
    > What do you think is going to happen to them when they turn 18? This is why we have jails.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    My high school administrators approached underage drinking like a secret police force. There were skilled interrogators, effective emotional manipulation, good-cop-bad-cop routines, physical intimidation, etc. There was an administrative employee built like a tank who would be sent to (very publicly) collect suspects from their classrooms for interrogation. They made plea bargains (which they sometimes didn't honor) for informing on others. They performed social engineering attacks to increase their signals intelligence capabilities - give us a look at your Facebook account (or just hand over your password), identify these (pseudonymous) Tumblr URLs, etc. and we won't destroy your future by calling your college and having your admission rescinded. They made deals and adjusted punishments based on whether or not you would identify photographs. When there were reports of drinking on one of the international class trips (to a country with a low drinking age) they rounded up and interrogated everyone from all of the foreign trips. A good portion of the senior class confessed and was suspended. Because some people ordered wine with dinner in France. If a party was busted by the village police, they'd brethalyze and ticket every single person, then notify the school - which would kick them out of their current extracurricular activity for the remainder of the season/play. I turned 18 and went to college. We were taught about responsible drinking - extensive lessons on consent, standard drink sizing, alcohol poisoning, etc. And we were told that administration and the university police are concerned only with safety and noise. RAs know about parties in the dorms (in fact, they have to be registered and neighbors are given a chance to veto if they have a test the next day or something) and do not care. The university police shut down apartment parties for noise complaints but make no inquiries as to the ages or intoxication of the partygoers. So, to answer your rhetorical question: that. That is going to happen to them when they turn 18. Authority will stop caring about bullshit.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board." — Mark Twain

by ds9 13y ago

jerf 13y ago

I disagree; the idea that we can write a complete rule set for humans is something that has tempted humans for a long time, but there's no evidence we can pull it off. How does your rule set handle "Student A sneaks some aspirin into Student B's backpack"? A strict reading says that Student B has some aspirin. Obviously that is not what was meant, but we can't afford to specify all the "obviously"s, and it's probably just plain impossible.

ds9 13y ago
We don't have to have perfect rules, we just have to go from "crazy over-inclusive and treat all violations alike" to "reasonably targeted and allow for severity of the violation".
DanBC 13y ago
The basic concept of zero tolerance would handle this fine. B is a victim. A is a perpetrator. The type of drug sets the punishment. Drugs would normally mean recreational drugs. Aspirin is not recreational, so A doesn't need punishment for carrying this drug. But medical drugs, even aspirin, need cautious use and A should be told about the risks of handing out medication to other people, and about the stupidity of sneaking stuff into other people's bags. The zero tolerance policy has handled the situation appropriately. A not-zero-tolerance policy would have said "Bah, we've got better things to worry about than that" and not done anything to A. Unfortunately, what zero tolerance means in most implementations is that B gets no opportunity to explain that they're a victim, and thus B is expelled from that school. And if A is caught they're also expelled.
kps 13y ago
This is (arguably) the difference between civil law and common law systems — the former seeking to codify correct rules in advance, the latter to adapt rules correctly to new circumstances.
Thrymr 13y ago
Which is one of the advantages to a jury trial in criminal proceedings, so that a defendant's peers can evaluate the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. Traditionally judges in the USA have considerable leeway in sentencing as well, though mandatory minimums and "three strikes" laws have eroded that. In schools, "zero tolerance" rules take away the leeway of administrators to make punishment proportional and humane. Going down the road of making better rules that can be perfectly enforced is exactly the wrong direction.

VLM 13y ago

My personal experience is no exceptions to the rules means massive petty corruption. He's a mostly good white kid; don't look at the contents of his "cigarette" too closely. I'm not going to look in your backpack because I don't particularly want to have to have you arrested, but god help you if I ever have to talk to you again about smelling beer on your breath... This is usually the hidden story behind draconian enforcement. The kid didn't get busted for having a tablet of tylenol, she got busted using tylenol as a weapon for disrespecting a teacher, being the wrong race (not necessarily black, in some schools white is the wrong race), etc. The real purpose is if everyone is inherently a criminal all the time, then everyone can be punished as much as any tin pot dictator desires at any time. That's the true purpose of the rule. Or the true educational lesson for the kids.

TallGuyShort 13y ago
Of course it's hard to tell if allowing arbitrary exceptions also allows the same kind of problem. "I'll give you a warning because [you're white and] you're normally a good kid and one mistake shouldn't ruin your education"
- throwaway0094 13y ago
  Yeah. I landed on the privileged end of this. I think my white privilege saved my ass in highschool.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Being the sort of "exceptional" kid that people like @will_brown talks about helping saved my ass on numerous occasions. In the post-Columbine crackdowns in schools, I use to come and leave highschool as I pleased. The administration was terrified of doing anything to 'gifted' kids because a few years earlier the parents of a gifted kid got a lawyer and apparently gave them quite a scare. I probably spend less than 25% of my senior year actually in the classes I was suppose to be in, spending the rest of the time either playing quake under the pretense of "gifted seminar", or knocking around town under the pretense of taking college classes. Had I been a 'regular' kid, I would have surely been expelled. Getting declared "gifted" can give you massive amounts of privilege.

nimble 13y ago

Once when I was riding passenger with a friend, a cop pulled him over and told him that he was getting a ticket as part of their new "zero tolerance" policy: anyone caught exceeding the posted limit by more than 10 mph was going to be ticketed. I sometimes wonder if cops say stupid things just to identify the smart asses out there (I kept my mouth shut).

DanBC 13y ago
Why is that a stupid thing to say? Before the zero tolerance policy cops had discretion whether to ticket or not. After the policy they must issue a ticket to anyone going X over the limit.
- VLM 13y ago
  Zero tolerance would be 65.0001 in a 65 zone means ticket, but the humorous psuedo-zero tolerance is +10 so 74.9999, although nearly 15% out of tolerance, is OK
  - Crito 13y ago
    Throw on some error bars to your speedometer and whatever it is the cop is using to track your speed (not a radar gun unless they are state police, in some states), and 10mph over is probably reasonably close to the lowest amount they can nail people for without significant false positives.
    - VLM 13y ago
      The philosophical point of "zero tolerance" is error bars and "reasonable" don't exist.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Consider a draconian zero-tolerance drug policy in an office place, where they can demand a piss test at will. Does "zero tolerance" imply that they will disregard all standard laboratory procedures, disregard the margin of error on the tests, and fire you even if the lab tech points out that the test technically returned a negative since the result was below the margin of error? No, "zero tolerance" isn't, literally interpreted, a statement about how the test will be executed. It is a statement about what happens after the test returns a positive. Of course in practice "zero tolerance" means "we are going to do whatever the hell we want, and then wash our hands of responsibility". That is how "zero tolerance for guns" can turn into "nail this kid to the wall for eating a poptart".

peterwwillis 13y ago

The problem with the education system is similar to that of a corporation, or politics. Nobody who sees the need for changes has the authority to make those changes, and those in authority do the bare minimum needed to keep their jobs. I was expelled or "asked to leave" from several high schools (in Broward County) when I was growing up about 12 years ago. Ironically, it was never for drugs or misbehavior, but instead for being too smart for my own good. The offenses were always minor: a "dangerous" amount of "knowledge of school computer systems". Pushing a chair across the room "in a violent manner" (fast enough to make it clang into the wall). Strange electronics diagrams that they could not decipher (an FM transmitter project kit from RadioShack). Having a website with links to VisualBasic AOL proggies and punters that "could be slowing down the Mac network". What it took me years to figure out was that nobody wanted to deal with a special case. Nobody wanted to take the time to help you or understand you. They have thousands of kids to deal with. They're happy as long as everyone is towing the line and they'd much rather get rid of you (or pass you) than educate you. And I can sum up the motivation in one sentence: There is zero incentive for educators to help troubled kids.

VLM 13y ago
"There is zero incentive for educators to help troubled kids." Brevity is overrated; none the less strike out "troubled".
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Not so fast. There are incentives for teachers to help talented, excelling individuals who have no problems. It makes the teacher and the school look good, especially for local and national government programs that reward teachers/schools with good results. You could say this is much more relevant in universities where millions of dollars may hinge on the ability of a student to develop something the school can shop around. Actually, there is one incentive for teachers to help troubled kids: High school and college sports. The sports brings in the money, and so they need to make sure the kids don't completely fail out so they can keep bringing in the dough. Other than that, though...

jcromartie 13y ago

> If that's not the intent The cynic in me says that it is the intent. Public schools needed a blunt instrument to simply beat the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls, and they got it through zero tolerance policies. Now it seems that it's unsustainable, so they'll need another way to subjugate the future generations. Again, just my cynical side... being the product of zero tolerance policies, myself.

degeneratekids 13y ago
> Public schools needed a blunt instrument to simply beat the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls, and they got it through zero tolerance policies. Punishing teenagers for violating drug laws or damaging property is "beating the notion of blind obedience to authority into thick adolescent skulls"??? What do you think is going to happen to them when they turn 18?
- epochwolf 13y ago
  > What do you think is going to happen to them when they turn 18? This is why we have jails.
- superuser2 13y ago
  My high school administrators approached underage drinking like a secret police force. There were skilled interrogators, effective emotional manipulation, good-cop-bad-cop routines, physical intimidation, etc. There was an administrative employee built like a tank who would be sent to (very publicly) collect suspects from their classrooms for interrogation. They made plea bargains (which they sometimes didn't honor) for informing on others. They performed social engineering attacks to increase their signals intelligence capabilities - give us a look at your Facebook account (or just hand over your password), identify these (pseudonymous) Tumblr URLs, etc. and we won't destroy your future by calling your college and having your admission rescinded. They made deals and adjusted punishments based on whether or not you would identify photographs. When there were reports of drinking on one of the international class trips (to a country with a low drinking age) they rounded up and interrogated everyone from all of the foreign trips. A good portion of the senior class confessed and was suspended. Because some people ordered wine with dinner in France. If a party was busted by the village police, they'd brethalyze and ticket every single person, then notify the school - which would kick them out of their current extracurricular activity for the remainder of the season/play. I turned 18 and went to college. We were taught about responsible drinking - extensive lessons on consent, standard drink sizing, alcohol poisoning, etc. And we were told that administration and the university police are concerned only with safety and noise. RAs know about parties in the dorms (in fact, they have to be registered and neighbors are given a chance to veto if they have a test the next day or something) and do not care. The university police shut down apartment parties for noise complaints but make no inquiries as to the ages or intoxication of the partygoers. So, to answer your rhetorical question: that. That is going to happen to them when they turn 18. Authority will stop caring about bullshit.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board." — Mark Twain