Texas Lawmaker Proposes Bill To Strip Funding From Schools That Abuse Zero Tolerance Weapons Policies
from the but-ultimately-won't-fix-zero-tolerance dept
We've written previously about the stupidity inherent in school "zero tolerance" policies, perhaps most painfully exemplified by a student's expulsion for "threatening" others with a pop tart he had bitten into the shape of a gun. When it comes to anything conceivably weapon-related (pop tart, 2-inch toy gun, fingers in a gun shape), most schools tend to overreact. This is largely due to a federal requirement that ties school funding to mandatory expulsions of students who bring weapons on campus.
There have been a few efforts made to roll these policies back. The NEA itself has released a paper [pdf] pointing out that questions the effectiveness of these policies in light of the fact that what little research exists indicates the policies have had very little effect on curbing unwanted behavior.
Despite the lack of rigorous research on this subject, existing case studies and analyses of suspension and expulsion data at the local level suggest that zero tolerance policies are not deterring misbehavior. In Tennessee, the number of drug and violent offenses in schools increased substantially over the first three years of a statewide implementation of zero tolerance policy. Furthermore, research has indicated that bullying is still rampant in many of the nation‘s schools. Approximately one in five elementary and middle school students admits to bullying his or her peers periodically. Unfortunately, researchers have not examined rates of misbehavior or suspension on a national level for schools with zero tolerance policies.The report suggests several alternative policies and responses, noting that suspensions and expulsions tend to aggravate the problem, rather than acting as a deterrent.
Texas Congressman Steve Stockman thinks he has a solution to the zero tolerance problem. Unfortunately, his laser-like focus on a single aspect means his proposed legislation will have little effect on the overall problem.
Congressman Steve Stockman, R-Friendswood, calls H.R. 2625 the "Student Protection Act," and "A bill to protect the rights of children."Because Stockman is so focused on a single aspect of zero tolerance policies (his bill includes several examples of students being expelled or suspended for non-weapon "weapons," including a child who was kicked out of school and arrested for wearing an NRA shirt), his bill only addresses each specific example.
It also would deny federal funding to any school that punishes a child for "using a pencil, pen or other writing utensil to simulate a firearm."
The bill states: "So-called 'zero-tolerance' weapons policies in federally funded schools are being used to outlaw harmless expressions of childhood play.
"So-called 'zero-tolerance' weapons policies in federally funded schools are being used to teach children to be afraid of inanimate objects that are shaped like guns."
The bill continues: "No funds appropriated pursuant to any provisions of law may be used for any educational institution which punishes a student as a result of any of the following actions by the student:This is all well and good as it applies to each one of these instances, but proponents of zero tolerance policies have shown incredible amounts of creativity when applying them, rarely duplicating previous efforts. Everything noted here is highly unlikely to crop up again.
"(1) brandishing a pastry or other food which is partially consumed in such a way that the remnant resembles a gun;
"(2) possession of a toy gun which is two inches or less;
"(3) possession of a toy gun made of plastic snap together building blocks;
"(4) using a finger or hand to simulate a gun;
"(5) vocalizing imaginary firearms or munitions;
"(6) wearing a T-shirt that supports Second Amendment rights;
"(7) drawing a picture of, or possessing an image of, a firearm; or
"(8) using a pencil, pen or other writing utensil to simulate a firearm."
This also ignores two other factors. The first problem is Stockman's own. This bill follows up his failed attempt back in January to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act, which ties funding to weapons policies, using the argument that the bill encouraged school shooters by giving them a weapons-free target. This looks like an attempt to run an end-around and achieve the same aim (strip school funding). As such, it's probably destined to die a swift death when put to vote.
The other factor is that zero tolerance policies have enjoyed a two-decade sprawl and the havoc wreaked isn't limited, as Stockman's bill is, to only faux guns. A report [pdf] by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice points out just how far these previously limited policies have spread.
Since then, the range of situations to which zero tolerance policies have been applied has broadened. Many school districts now include drugs, alcohol, disruptive behavior, and nonviolent offenses among zero tolerance infractions. According to the most recent data of national implementation of zero tolerance policies, 94% of schools have zero tolerance policies for weapons or firearms, 87% for alcohol and 79% have mandatory suspensions or expulsions for violence or tobacco. Examples of the everbroadening scope of zero tolerance policies include treatment of nail files, paper clips, scissors, and plastic knives as weapons and Aspirin, Midol, and Certs as drugs.Stockman's bill seeks to address the problem, but only addresses outlying events, rather than core issues. His solution, untying federal funding from zero tolerance weapon policies, is probably a non-starter, especially in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting. Another problem unaddressed is schools' increasing reliance on law enforcement to handle disciplinary actions, one that tends toward criminalizing behavior once written off as "kids acting like kids." The deepest problem, the spread of policies to cover every conceivable instance of "misbehavior," won't be addressed at all by a bill specifically tailored to address events that have already happened and are unlikely to reoccur.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: overhype, school funding, weapons, zero tolerance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have a better idea...
The whole idea behind 'zero tolerance' policies is 'zero thought required' after all, and someone who is flat out incapable of thinking for themselves when making judgement calls and assigning punishments that can negatively affect someone's future clearly should not be involved in the education of children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a better idea...
Just ask any teacher that�s spent time in one of New York�s infamous �rubber rooms�.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have a better idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have a better idea...
There's a story of a Wal-mart employee who was heard to say the word "union" and they tied him to a stake in the desert and left him to be eaten by the vultures. In a wealthy Dallas suburb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have a better idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a better idea...
Seems reasonable at first, but hang on a minute. The person doing the expelling is gonna be a principal or his/her lackeys. Those people are gonna be following the "zero-tolerance" policy (which would have been enacted by the school board or whatever authority oversees the schools there) and realizing that if they show the least bit of tolerance, you can't call it "zero tolerance". If they fail to follow the policy, they could get disciplined or fired by the school board. So if they state threatens them with firing for following the policy, and the district threatens with firing them for not following it, they get fired at the first twinkie-wielding student that shows up.
The people needing the punishment are the district administrators and/or the board they report to. This means punishing the district. Unfair to the students and parents not involved in the whole incident, perhaps, but it was the voters who presumably elected the school board. So it's the voters who have to feel the sting and recall the guilty rule-makers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not so sure about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait
Or is it just that the ridiculous gun culture in Texas that they want to take a sensible federal regulation and turn it into something that looks foolish, in the hope of making sure no guns can ever be regulated, anywhere?
I'd like someone to take a closer look at the people at these schools where pop tarts and finger-guns caused expulsions or suspensions. I'm betting if you scratch the dirt a little bit, you might uncover a few NRA extremists. Considering we're talking about Texas, I'd say that's a pretty good bet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait
Basically everything you said is uttly ridiculous garbage. Your claim of "NRA extremists" is silly, especially since the overwhelming majority of school teachers now are females.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait
You sir, have obviously not met any women from Texas, outside of Austin. However, I agree that the conspiracy claptrap about "NRA extremists" is BS. We may not have teacher's unions, but the "old boy network" and school district politics works just as well to shield incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait
You missed PopeRatzo's point -- or at least my interpretation of it. He is postulating that the federal regulation isn't nearly so broad as to go zero-tolerance on obvious non-weapon weapons. Rather, he speculates that Texas school districts themselves have specifically chosen to overly broadly interpret the federal rules in order to discredit them. It's not a new tactic to try to overturn laws and rules and regs by enforcing them in the most draconian possible way. You get public outrage against the rules by deliberately and intentionally excessively punishing kids that almost anyone would consider innocent and harmless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait
Since the requirements for the laws are uniform, why do the abuses always seem to happen in states that have high populations of gun nuts, like Texas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait
It'll have been put there to cover whatever the latest weapon craze is rather than list everything from a sharpened stick to a sock with a 1/2 brick in it but it would then mean that a school could be denied funding for not expelling a kid for using some improvised "weapon" you wouldn't normally think of - such as "causing an eye injury with a pistol-shaped pop-tart" (that jam really stings if you get it in your eye...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real politician-think!
Only a politician (or a lawyer) could think like that. Perhaps it's a fine example of preserving your own job by creating work for yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed. But he isn't going after zero tolerance as a whole, just the part that affects special interests. So the bad zero tolerance stuff will stay, just a very specific subset will potentially be addressed.
Even then, it'll probably have little to zero effect (as the article notes: "This is all well and good as it applies to each one of these instances, but proponents of zero tolerance policies have shown incredible amounts of creativity when applying them, rarely duplicating previous efforts. Everything noted here is highly unlikely to crop up again. ")
"They are now abusing it to try to condition kids to be petrified with fear over anything looking like a gun."
Uh...really? It can't just be that zero tolerance policies remove objectivity and discretion from the equation (thus making it easier to justify the punishments as "being out of my hands")? It has to be paranoid conditioning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's funny how the public/lawmakers seems to think the school, it's employee and governing rules set for by school districts should be the ones taking care of all these heads of lettuce causing the problems. Where did the blame on parents go for raising(or in this case, not raising) children properly.
Schools are centers for education and grooming social behaviors, but those behaviors are started and nurtured at home, and if the parents are not capable of governing a child properly, they might as well set loose a rabid pit bull on the public. Blanket statement it may be, but I have literally watch this behavior up close and personal(parent getting run over by a child)
You can set rules and laws to your hearts content concerning schools, funding ET AL, however, if children are not being educated in the home, whats the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero Tolerance
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero Tolerance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero Tolerance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common sense
... if it weren't for the utter lack of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Political Grandstanding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]