Zero-Tolerance Policies

[Fishteacher73]

I think the concept of captial punishment needs its own thread...Just a sec I'll get it going.

 

But yes, capital punishment for rape increases the incentive of the rapist to murder the victim/witness to his crime.

[GAHD]

Back on daves original post:

 

I'm with dave on this one. From personal experience, a few well placed bouts of violence can go a long way towards altering a person's behavior.

 

By example: If somebody is being repeatedly verbally abusive, and they get hurt for doing it, they will tend not to engage in that abusive action anymore. Negative renforcement WORKS.

 

That being said, you can't be too shure what that person is going to do instead of being verbaly abusive, as a new habit is bound to take it's place.

[Fishteacher73]

While negative reinforcement may work in some cases, there are moutains of evidence that indicate the continuation of violence. Sh_t rolls down hill. An abused child is much more likely to abuse smaller children or animals. Abused children are much more likely to abuse their own children. While I don't have any specific references, a cursury google search will pull up many, many sources.

[IrishEyes]

I think the concept of captial punishment needs its own thread...Just a sec I'll get it going.

Thanks, I was going to ask for that next...

 

So you also agree with Dave about kicking a verbally abusive bully's ***, huh GAHD? How is that not making YOU the bully? Or is there a certain number of times that you 'take his crap' before you get to deck him? How does the whole physical negative reinforcement work, anyhow?

 

I'm asking because I remember being in one fight at school. It was a silly thing, really... This pain in the butt girl jumped me because a guy she liked asked me to a dance... well, she jumped me, and I punched her. We both got sent to the dean. She got expelled, but was later let back in. I was on a three day suspension, because I was the one attacked... however, it is interesting to note that regardless of what I had done, my suspension would have still been applied. No matter if I hit her or just stood there and let her beat me bloody, being involved in a fight automatically got me three days... It was something that the principal apologized for profusely to my mother, but that was the policy...

 

WOW, i hadn't thought of that in over 15 years...

 

Anyhow, when she got back to school, she tried to jump me again, but was caught very fast by a teacher, and was sent to an alternative school for the rest of the year... getting a black eye didn't deter her, nor did the threat of alternative school if she fought again.

 

I didn't feel particularly good about punching her, especially when I saw what I'd done, even though she'd been the aggressor. But, it was the most natural thing to do, and I think I would probably have done the same thing again if ever in that same situation... I was going to get 3 days regardless, so why not hit her, right ;)

[GAHD]

So you also agree with Dave about kicking a verbally abusive bully's ***, huh GAHD? How is that not making YOU the bully?

I never said I wasn't a bully.

 

Or is there a certain number of times that you 'take his crap' before you get to deck him? How does the whole physical negative reinforcement work, anyhow?

I'll cite a specific example from my days in highschool, names will be changed to protect the...well I'll' just change the names as a matter of priciple.

 

Grade 10, lunch hour after I get out of a 2 period workout session:

Walking through the halls I come across the usual group of 'Jocks', one of which is *G

*G starts running his mouth at me. I don't remember verbatum what was said, but I rember it was about my clothing, and hairstyle(long).

I tell *G he'd better watch his mouth, I'm not in the mood to take his **** today.

*G persists.

I tell *G flat out he's got 3 seconds to run, I'm going to flatten him.

*G continues berating as I count to 3. Once I start moving for him, he cuts off and starts running (to the jeers of his 'friends').

I chase *G for a few minutes at what I consider a relaxed pace (I'm still pumped from the workout).

Once *G runs out of breath, I catch up and slam him into a set of lockers knowing full well that the cameras arn't working in the section of the school I've got him cornered in. I give the locker next to his head a shot that puts a dent in it, and do my damnedest to intimidate him. Placing him in an armbar and exerting enough force that I see him wince, I very calmly point out I can literally take his limbs out of socket right then and there.

Later that day, I see him again. He tries to act tough in front of his 'freinds' and starts to run his mouth again; a single look is enough for him to shut up.

 

In this case, the negative reinforcement of "if you say things that annoy me, you WILL feel pain" was enough that he ceased doing so. Shure, he probably still said things behind my back, but the point is that to my face he acted differential. For all I care, he probably switched to picking on others, but that isn't my concern.

I was going to get 3 days regardless, so why not hit her, right ;)

I beleive that statement right there is why Dave said that he disagrees with Zero-tolerance policies. Besides, that only happens if you get caught ;)

[IrishEyes]

Gosh, GAHD, you are so tough it kills me! Why weren't you at MY school???

 

I agree that it's ok to stand up for yourself. I dont have a problem with that. Did *G tell on you? Were there any repurcussions? Was there a standard in place where you knew you would get in trouble if oyu got caught? Or did you just take your chances anyhow?

[pgrmdave]

The point of "zero-tolerance" is to give a tool that prohibits the justification of violence. It may not always be specifically fair in all cases, but any slight to the "victim" I feel is minimal.

 

The problem is that not all violence is physical. Emotional damage is longer lasting, and more hurtful, but more difficult to guage. Physical violence should be a last resort but there are cases where it is necessary. To a point, of course. In Gahd's case, he didn't really harm *G, but it was an effective detterent. In my case, I never wanted to truly injure anybody, merely show that I was willing to stand up for myself, which, because of the zero-tolerance policies, I couldn't.

[Fishteacher73]

So what did the aggression on your part do to change the situation, Gahd? So someone basically insignifigant, that was runnung their mouth, gained fear from you. When you reacted to his jeers you gave them credence. By reacting, you acknowledged his affronts as something meritting your attention. Youth will prefer negative attention over none. So by reacting to meaningless words, you gave them validity and rewarded his action with attention. Were you ever bothered by that group again, Gahd? I bet so.

[pgrmdave]

There are times when not reacting to a bully only makes it worse. The bully is not interested in gaining attention from the victim, but in gaining attention from his or her peers, and positive attention (this is assuming a popular bully, with an unpopular bully things are different). By having a physical confrontation, you discredit the bully in the eyes of his or her peers.

[Fishteacher73]

For the bully to gain acceptence from his peers he needs to be successful. I grew up not only a nerd, but a freak as well. Try growing up in the buckle of the bible-belt as the resident atheist. Yeah, there were plenty of jeers and jabs, I was the quiet kid with blue hair that read Ayn Rand in the corner of the lunchroom. I refused to allow their closed-mindedness and presuptions dictate to me who I was. If their comment meritted attention, I responded. If it was mindless drivel; I ignored them or simply told them how much thier opinion mattered to me. If one is secure with who they are what others say becomes irrelevant matters of personal interpretation.

[RiverRat]

I was fortunate to have a Father that was a golden glove boxer and also schooled in wrestling. He taught me early in life the art of SELF DEFENSE. I later expanded my knowledge to encompass ‘mixed martial arts’. I was physically fit and confident.

 

I was never bullied nor did I bully. Sure… there where individuals that were as ‘tough’ or ‘tougher’ than me, but the ‘mutual destruction’ ideology prevailed.

 

The problems arise when a lower level mindset occurs when the strong feel compelled to exploit the weak. Their must be safeguards in place to protect the weak. Zero-tolerance seems acceptable to me only if each situation is viewed individually. I suspect that officials are too lazy or lack the proper information and simply fall back on an all encompassing ‘policy’.

[IrishEyes]

In my case, I never wanted to truly injure anybody, merely show that I was willing to stand up for myself, which, because of the zero-tolerance policies, I couldn't.

No, Dave. This is not true. If you are honest, you were NOT willing to stand up for yourself using physical violence. If you had been willing, the cost associated with the action (punishment due to zero-tolerance) would not have been a deterrant. You had a CHOICE, and because the deterrant was in place, your choice was to follow the rules and not react in a violent manner.

 

Obviously, not all people will react that way in the same situation. Gahd didn't. In his case, either the price was worth it, there was no deterrant, or something inside of him makes self-control difficult. Personally, I doubt it's a self-control issue. I am guessing there was some sort of deterrant in place, as he mentioned cameras, but they were broken and he knew that. So that leaves the first option - knowing what the consequences might be, he still chose to react in a violent manner.

 

Two situations, both similar, very different reactions, and different feelings when they are viewed in retrospect. Would your life be different, Dave? Would the same set of actions have taken place if you had punched one of your verbal abusers and been suspended? Who knows. But in your mind, your life would have been different, and you blame this on the school's unfair zero-tolerance policy, and that's all we have to go with right now.

 

Sorry to put you 'on the couch' so to speak. I told you guys this psych book is killing me... Even my normally motherly responses seem a tad cynical, even to me. Don't worry Dave, I still luv ya. And of course I luv you, too, Gahd - you big bully!

[GAHD]

Irish,

I wouldn't say I was tough, I would say that I was mad. I'll admit those actions aren't my finest hour, and that the situation could have been resolved differently. Effective or not I still had a sore hand for a few days, and I wasn't particularly proud of the fact I had lost my temper. You are correct, I did weigh the chances of getting caught, and that directly influenced the level of agreession I let slip before I regained controll. The deterrants were a mandatory suspension, which they can't actually do unless they had direct proof. I suppose *G could have attempted legal action, but without any evidence it would be thrown out of court.

 

For the bully to gain acceptence from his peers he needs to be successful.

 

I suppose in some social setting this may be the case. However at the school I attended, inaction was considered a sucess from the peers; they found it funny. Inaction often led to escalation from the 'bully' characters. Jeers would become consistant, might escalate to the occasional shove or trip out of camera range. On a few occasions a person, or even a group, might get together to rough up somebody outside of the monitored grounds. Everyone knew which hallways didn't have cameras in them, some people looked in the pricipals office too see which camereas were working that day.

 

...I was the quiet kid with blue hair that read Ayn Rand in the corner of the lunchroom....If one is secure with who they are what others say becomes irrelevant matters of personal interpretation.

 

I was likewise the quiet kid that read, and there were a few different groups of 'cool kids' who decided I would be their target. Some of them were all talk, and them I ignored. Others would get physical, and I responded in kind. To this day, some of these guys do go around trying to start fights; there are always plenty of angry and violent people. I was in a bout seven fights in the time I've been in school, and I'll admit that's a high number. In all but two of those I had no controll over the fight starting, I will not stand by and not attempt to defend myself.

 

It's nice you grew up in an enviroment controlled enough for that type of lifestyle to take place, for you to be able to push the moral and social fabric because violence isn't an issue. I do envy you the situation.

 

There are times when not reacting to a bully only makes it worse. The bully is not interested in gaining attention from the victim, but in gaining attention from his or her peers, and positive attention (this is assuming a popular bully, with an unpopular bully things are different). By having a physical confrontation, you discredit the bully in the eyes of his or her peers.

I see Dave comes from a simillar setting.

 

Of course in a few incidents, people messed up and were caught resulting in epulsion or more often a light one to three day suspension. On a few occasions legal action was taken, but that rarely led to more than a few weeks manatory anger management classes. What really made the situation bad was that everybody knew that their legal record would get wiped clean after they were 18, that at this point it really 'didn't matter'. Most of the time the violent ones wern't really looked at unless serious damage had been done. The schools concentrated more on busting the local potheads and dealers, and watching attendance because that's what gets put 'on the record'.

 

Teachers can't really do anything unless there is proof, as you should well know fishteacher. Atleast in our case the teacher:student ratio was so low, that they had classes topping out at 40+ students. The teachers simply could not concventrate on a eight different classes of 40+ students each day, things happened that were not noticed, and even the teachers became complacent with belligerant students. The tachers simply did not care, allowing the people who didn't feel like listening to do what they will, content simply to fail. They would not get involved if there wasn't direct evidence.

 

I would say because people can't be sued in canada, atlest not the same way as in the states, that it does lead to a more violent mindset; simply because the reprecussions arn't too severe economically speaking. In a highschool setting that problem is compounded by the fact that the juvinile court system is a joke, and the kids know it. But that's another topic entirely.

 

Re-reading this I do make it seem far worse than it really is; note that the situations described were selectively taken from a period extending over 15 years or so and do deal exclusively with(negative) social altercations during wich violence was a very real possiblility, though in many occasions id did not occur. There were plenty of time where everything was right as rain, but those periods were on occasion interrrupted by someone on a testosterone rush.

 

On two of those occasions I literally did nothing because I did not want to hurt this person, but looking back on those times I wish I had. I had been raised not to hurt people, when their fists couln't do more than lightly bruise me I had thought there really was no reason to retalliate. That did lead to more harsh treatment in the future from people who had heard that I had 'don the right thing' and simply walked away, sometimes taking a sucker shot or two for doing it but that's life.

 

I'll freely admit twice I was the one who took the bait and let my agression get the better of me, and again I say I'm not proud of it; but I do now accept it as a very real part of my character, part of being human.

[IrishEyes]

Tahnks, GAHD. I love reading your stuff when you're in the mood to open up. ANd I do understand what you're saying. It puts things in a bit of a different light.

[Fishteacher73]

I I suspect that officials are too lazy or lack the proper information and simply fall back on an all encompassing ‘policy’.

 

1) I suggest before you start calling people lazy you have an idea of their job.

 

2) You get a better understanding of "zero-tolerance" policies before you talk about how they work.

 

As for the second maybe I can help clear up the picture. While some of the specifics vary from school to school the major ideas tend to be consistent. The ZT idea is that violations of rules (Generally involving weapons, violence, or drugs) result in consequences, irregardless of the circumstances. (It works this way for most laws. Because your girlfriend left you, you can not go out, get drunk and total a minivan with 3 kids in it). The school is a place that is for the development of the mind, and its use must be put forth as a priority. The acceptance of the use of violence to solve a problem should not be allowed in such a realm and is counter-productive to the ends trying to be reached.

Most programs do have variances in acordance to the circumstances, but there are consequences. Such an example would be a situation that someone was in a fight. The aggressor would recieve a harsher punishment than the one fighting back. (ie 5 days suspension vs 2 or 3 day suspension).

 

Hopefully this cleared up the issue, but if you still feel that the admin. is just lazy in implementing a workable situation, what is your answer?

[RiverRat]

1) I suggest before you start calling people lazy you have an idea of their job.

 

2) You get a better understanding of "zero-tolerance" policies before you talk about how they work.

 

1. My Mother is an adm assistant to the principle of a middle school.

2. My Aunt is a grade school teacher.

3. My Uncle is a high school teacher.

4. My Mother-in-law was an admin assistant in a private school (retired)

5. My best friend is student teaching in the same school as my Mother.

6. My wife’s best friend is a high school teacher.

7. A close family friend is a principle of a high school.

 

I think from the above 7 sources I at times get an ear full. I will admit I do not have direct experience in a public/private school system; however, I can form an opinion based on second hand knowledge (for which I will assume is accurate).

 

In terms of ‘violence’ … from my limited knowledge it appears that Adm takes the path of least resistance. Or at the very least does not have adequate information (he said/she said) to form an accurate opinion. Often the situations and occurrences are not clear cut and ulterior motives come into play (both by students and adm). At times the complexity of situations overwhelms adm.

 

There was a situation in a local high school. A student (x) began beating upon another student (y) in a hallway. (x) was relentless in the beating. (y) fell to the ground in a fetal position to ‘protect’ himself. Other students did not intervene. (y) climbed to his knees and pushed (x) against the wall (thus striking his head sharply – blood and stitches) to enable himself to flee the situation.

 

Punishment was handed down similar to what you stated (5 for (x) and 2 for (y) ??)

 

Of course (y’s) parents took it up with the school board because there was no clear intention for harming (x) as he was simply trying to remove himself from the situation.

 

And of course once (x’s) parents heard about this, they petitioned the board for action because of the physical harm done to their son (regardless of him initiating the event)

 

Where does it end?? I think the final solution was an ‘easy’ (substituted for ‘lazy’) reduction for both. (3 for (x) and 1 for (y) ??)

 

I don’t think that all adm receives adequate training for many situations. With the lack of knowledge, one would likely reinterpret policy and come to a ‘middle-ground’ solution for it to simply go away.

 

Let me also say that in respect to ‘weapons’ and ‘drugs’, it is much more clear cut and thus easier to follow ZT policies. (at least from what I hear)

[Fishteacher73]

I apologoize if I came off a bit defensive, many people really do not kave an understanding of the work and effort involved in working in apublic school, and I do take it as an affront when a person refers to my peers as "lazy". Perhaps it was the term that put me on edge and thus why my post may have come across as a little strong.

 

Another aspect of why the ZT is implemented was aluded to in your last post River; LAW SUITS.

If the school had not administered some sort of punishment, it could possibly be held liable for not providing a safe place for the bully...Dumb, but how our legal system works. That policy probably helped keep the local district from being sued in your example. (Just like we have to be warned that our coffee may be hot....)

 

Most of the issues brought up against ZT are problems with it, yes., but they stem from poor implimentaion of the policy, and not poor policy. Unfortunatly, it is a fact of life that you will have students that are thugs. One should not let the "rule of the street" be the "rule of the classroom".

 

Again there are some dumb aplications of ZT in regards to to weapons...There was a local student expelled for bringing a butter knife to put his BP sandwich...They called it a weapon...While I do support the ZT policy, it can be improved upon, and there is always room to better educate the staff.