I agree, rules are rules but, arresting a 10 year old for scissors? C'mon now. You don't think that's just a tad bit harsh? I'm all for say, I don't know... sending her to the office, taking away the scissors and maybe making her bang erasers afterschool. Calling the police and having her arrested is just plain stupid.

The problem with Zero Tolerance is that it takes the administrators off the hook - no one actually uses the brain to evaluate a situation and make a decision. Its gutless.

Dave,

You are absolutely right. It lets the whole freakin' system off the hook, is the point.

The hard work of teaching is deeply personal--it's messy and annoying and utterly case-by-case: everything for which bureaucracy religions like the NEA have zero tolerance. Schools do not become safer by dropping ever more fearful and impersonal edicts.

For my money (and it is my money) schools can worry about being safe once they are edifying again. I suspect the disproportionate violence in public schools (compared to private, say) isto some degree a function of the bland and insulting "education" going on.

Ace,

You seem to fear 10 year-girls a bit more than I would have predicted.

Am I misreading this?

"Year-old," goddamnit.

I don't fear her. But if there's a rule, there's a rule. Handcuffs were a bit much, granted, but I don't think the suspension is out of line.

I mean, even if you negligently break a rule, it was still a rule and you broke it.

Dave's thing about using the "brain" to make decisions is a fair point, but it's very difficult to predict when a kid is just bringing his pocket knife for whittlin' and when he's bringing it because he thinks he's going to get into a fight and wants to stab the other kid if it gets too rough.

It's best kids don't have anything that could be used as a weapon. I think we all argree on that, mostly.

The good thing about zero-tolerance, strict-liability type rules is that you can't be sued over them. And look, we have to take that into account here. Any time you decide that Kid X was just bringin' in scissors and should just be warned, then you've got a problem with Kid Y who brings in an X-acto knife with which you suspect -- but can't prove-- he intended to do harm with.

I tend to be in favor of bright-line rules, I have to say, because there's no arguing over them and little fear of bias/favoritism.

Yeah, what they said. I swear -- did you even read your own headline, Ace? A frickin' TEN-YEAR-OLD LED OFF IN HANDCUFFS FOR BRINGING SCISSORS TO SCHOOL! Unbe-frickin'-lievable. This is the same kind of madness that leads our buddy Norm to screen a Vero Beach grandma just as thoroughly as a young Saudi man -- "Don't make us think!". And it's a bad sign when anyone thinks "zero tolerance" is inevitable and/or laudable.

Ace, your point that we can't tell the sheep from the wolves is valid. But can't you see how nuts it is to treat EVERYONE like psychos so we can protect ourselves from the 0.01% that actually ARE psychos?

So what's the answer? I'd argue that an institution that requires such draconian rules to protect their charges is one institution too many -- dump the public school system! It's rotten to the core anyway.

As long as I'm howling at the moon, how about arming teachers? Israel has effectively protected their classrooms in this way. And actually holding parents responsible for their kids' behavior (GASP!) might make a tiny difference as well.

not sure I'd want to arm some of our current crop of teachers

Rules are rules, and stupid rules are stupid rules. Zero tolerance is a nice little buzz word that excuses a lot of bureaucratic incompetence. I find that I am rapidly developing a "zero tolerance" for fools.

I have four boys in school. Zero tolerance here means that if they are attacked by other student(s) on school grounds and defend themselves, they will be suspended for fighting - in fact, the exact punishment meted out to the instigator(s). No difference in punishment, because "fighting is wrong", whether it is self-defense or not.

My wife and I have explained to school administrators that our children have received firm guidance that if someone attempts to start a fight with them, they are to walk away and attempt to locate a teacher, but if that doesn't work, or if the instigator lays hands on them, they are to put that individual on the ground, then find a teacher. Needless to say, that was not well received by administrators, who maintain that there is never a need for violence.

Why do I bring this up? Because the administrators who made the "zero tolerance" rule about scissors have much in common with those who made the "zero tolerance" rules about fighting - they are detached from reality and dangerous to children..

I'm a bit ambivalent here. On the one hand, rules are set and students need to abide by them, but on the other hand, zero tolerance rules like these are just plain idiotic. The handcuffs were over the top no matter what. The ironic part is that in our Oklahoma schools, scissors are usually one of the items kids are told to bring to class at the beginning of the year. Every kid in school has access to a pair of scissors. They might as well take away pens and pencils if they want to make classes safer. I got stabbed with a pencil when I was going to school in California 20 years ago. They broke the tip off in my arm. We didn't ban pencils because of that though.

We've got a recent zero tolerance case here in our town now. A girl had birth control pills in her purse. Her mom said they're prescribed for ovarian cysts. She takes them with every meal. Anyway, the school searched her locker, which contained her purse and the pills, so she got expelled for a year. They offered to give her 10 days suspension, with monthly drug testing and having to participate in drug abuse counselling. Her parents told the school to shove it. Their argument is that their daughter isn't a drug addict and they aren't going to let the school label her as one.

Of course the same school district also just banned the nativity scene from a Christmas pageant, but left the Hanakka and Kwanzaa stuff in. It got mentioned on www.tonguetied.us .

Well, maybe if he was RUNNING with scissors.

Ace, you reinforced my point on this - the rules make liability a non-issue.

I'm not saying don't have strict rules, as a dad with a kid in high school (and one who just graduated), I'm ok with those.

But for cryin out loud, could we use some situational awareness? Every 10 year old girl who comes to school with scissors is not lookin for a fight. That isn't difficult to determine.

The whole point of "zero tolerance" isn't tough rules. It's "we have a blanket rule that we apply without regard to any evaluation of fact, so you can't sue us".

I think I'm just a little tired of wimpy school administrators. I would prefer tough and thinking. Just me maybe.

oh, and Ace, I'm with you that generally, kids shouldn't have stuff in school that can be used as a weapon,

again, I'm just asking for some common sense in applying the rules. to beat a dead horse, "zero tolerance" sounds tough, but I think is really puss.

Pure silliness. Give the kid detention and tell the parents. The kid won't do it again.

Geez - I've brought my nail scissors onto an airplane before, and wasn't arrested. They caught it at the scanner and kept them.

They didn't arrest me!!!!

Sheer idiocy.

The proper treatment of young children is the area of inquiry in which I am most ready to allow that the opinion of women must be sought and that, individual differences aside, the opinions of the generality of women will be superior to the generality of men. Are there any women reading this blog posting and this comment thread who are prepared to downplay the harmfulness of leading a 10-year-old away in handcuffs for having brought scissors to school? Are any of you willing to confine your criticism to saying merely that "the handcuffs were a bit much"?

You know I often wonder why kids are allowed to wear shoes to school. One good kick in the head with shoes on can damage a child for life. Or kill them.

Zero tolerance for scisors doesn't go nearly far enough.

Has any one really considered the dangers of sharpened pencils? Only those big fat dull carpenters pencils should be allowed. And even those should be suspect.

Perhaps what really needs to be done is to make the kids wear cages so they can get no closer than 3 feet to another kid. Or chain them to their desks which would be separated by an appropriate distance.

We need to make schools and our children safe.

Hand cuffs a bit much?

They should have used leg irons too.

Can't be too careful with criminals.

That she was arrested for having scissors when she shouldn't have doesn't bother me as much as say, expelling a girl for having Midol in her purse (which has happened).

The fact of the matter is schools are becoming more and more dangerous because of the crappy discipline that children receive both at home and at school.

Better parental involvement would prevent the need for arresting this girl over the scissors. Unfortunately, I don't see parents admitting that they aren't doing their jobs as parents any time soon.

Ridiculous. You can kill someone with a padlock in a tube sock or a padlock through a belt buckle or a handful of loose change in the toe of some pantyhose or stab them in the heart with a pencil or strangle them with a shoelace or... well, you get the point. The no weapons rules in schools are just plain stupid. The world is chock full of innocent tools and other items that can be used as deadly weapons. Unless you strip the kids naked and teach them in a padded room, you'll always have easy "weapons" at hand.

There are real differences between idiocy, stupidity, and foolishness -- but "Zero Tolerance" rules box the compass.

Ace is quite right, "Rules are rules" -- but he begs the question, "Why have these rules to begin with?"

Zero Tolerance Rules permit the hacks who run our public education systems to keep the appearance of order and discipline while avoiding the substance of results. Years ago school administrators knew how to deal with the unruly and recalicitrant and to do a decent job educating our youth. ZT gives the current bunch of idiots a copout, style over substance.

This is one of the most insensitive and stupid thing I have ever heard. Everyone involved should be put in handcuffs and tied to a tree.

"Rules are rules". Well, yes, but that applies to both sides of the equation.

#1. There is a rule that kids can't bring scissors to school.

#2. There is also a rule describing what the punishment shall be if rule #1 is broken.

It's by definition a travesty of justice if the power that be make kids obey rule #1, and then just make up whatever punishment they want for rule #2. Arrest and handcuffs? Why stop there? The authorities didn't follow any rules when administering the punishment, they just arbitrarily ... with no relation to rule #1 ...chose to involve the police in what should be a non-judicial matter.

So...agreed that the child broke rule #1. But the authorities then in turn broke rule #2 by flagrantly disregarding the rules of fair play and appropriateness in applying a punishment not commensurate with the crime.

Zero tolerance isn't a "rule of law", it is legitimizing the absence of any rule of law.

You can blame the admins all you want and they should have to shoulder a certain degree of the blame for the ZT enviroment. However, considering the sue happy society we are now living in, I can empathize with the admins wanting to take the easy way out. They are just giving us what we in effect have asked for.

"Zero Tolerance Rules permit the hacks who run our public education systems to keep the appearance of order and discipline while avoiding the substance of results. Years ago school administrators knew how to deal with the unruly and recalicitrant and to do a decent job educating our youth. ZT gives the current bunch of idiots a copout, style over substance."

I hate to say this, but most of the people posting on this board sound like grown adults. Arguing about a fourth grader? I'm just going to give it to you straight , ace - "But if there's a rule, there's a rule. Handcuffs were a bit much, granted, but I don't think the suspension is out of line. I mean, even if you negligently break a rule, it was still a rule and you broke it."
My school sent home a nice large book maybe 200 pages long, listing every single rule that we students are expected to comply with. The front page is a form that we and our parents must sign, saying that yes, we did read this entire book on district policy. I will be the first to say it: I didn't read the book, and neither did my parents. I would be surprised if you could find five kids in a student body of 1400 that read this book. Negligently breaking a rule? People don't even know half of the rules, because administrators are not realistic in their expectations. If it was a five-page packet, sure, I would read it. But a 200 page volume? Please. People have lives!
And the whole handcuff thing is just taking it too far. This girl was escorted by armed police officers in a patrol wagon to the station! Just today, before lunch, two guys got into a fight right in front of my locker. Shouldn't they be suspended, before a fourth-grader with a pair of scissors has to suffer? This goes on her permanent record. Most of you probably don't care about school records anymore, but for an eighth grader, or a fourth grader, it is. Scissors are available at school. If this girl really wanted to do some damage, she wouldn't have cared if the scissors came from school or from her house; she wouldn't have bothered bringing in a pair.