I understand that the data suggests that zero-tolerance policies do not seem to have any affect in making schools "safer". However, I will admit that if such policies were not in place I would be less likely to continue teaching in a public school. I have a right to a safe workplace. Most work places have a defacto zero-tolerance policy when it comes to weapons. If you walk into a bank or a post office with a hand gun you get arrested. If you walk into a high school with a handgun you get sent to an alternative school for two quarters. It actually seems that the zero-tolerance policies may be more understanding and lenient than we think.

The complaints will change when it's your child stabbed, maced or otherwise injured from a weapon a student brought to the school. There is NO place for that stuff in a school and there must be consequences. Haven taken more than my share of weapons from students in my time as a principal in the City I feel no guilt and hope that I prevented another child from being hurt.

@James is correct and quite frankly with the Code of Conduct suspension game BCPSS will be making it even tougher to take action against weapon violations in schools.

Instead of reporting a few isolated cases without the whole story and attacking a policy, perhaps reporting the general use of the so-called "zero tolerance" policies along with the back story and reasoning behind the policy would be better warranted. I personally know of several cases that are supposedly "zero tolerance" cases where the student was supposed to be expelled or suspended and they have gotten off with a much lighter sentence.

One of the main reasons behind the "zero tolerance" policies of school districts is because when fairness and discretion were used to determine individual cases and intent, students, parents, and lawyers of chronic rule breakers and students carrying weapons for reasons other than "fixing their lacrosse sticks" exploited this discretion and had arbitrators and judges reverse many a justly deserved punishment.

And furthermore, let's face it. There are no really long suspensions and there is no longer anything resembling a true expulsion anymore. Students are suspended very briefly if at all for offenses that in the past would have warranted a longer suspension. In terms of an expulsion, students are sent to an alternative school for a maximum of a year. Students are also excused for their suspension meaning that they can make up all of their class work and tests without penalty. The only true penalty for a suspension is the missed classroom and socialization time for these students as well as the suspension going on their record. And all of the students and parents who are complaining receive a student policy handbook and are well aware of the school rules and so-called "zero tolerance" policies. Perhaps, we all should be placing the blame where it squarely belongs, on the students and parents, including the two lacrosse players, who violated a rule of bringing weapons to school when they were clearly informed at the beginning of each school year that this action would result in suspension. Plus, common sense should tell you not to bring a weapon to school.

One final thought. If I am not allowed to bring toothpaste or other innocuous items in a carry-on on an airplane, why are people defending students for bringing an obvious weapon onto a school campus?

As stated before, "zero tolerance" policies often really mean, "a little tolerance, depending on how many suspensions the school already has, what mood the principal is in, and how much of a fuss a student's parent kicks up" policies. This year we have had four separate children bring weapons to school. One got 10 days, one got expelled, and two were back in class within the hour. Our principal has also informed us that the newest city policy states that students can only be suspended for "knives longer than 4 inches." God only knows if that is true, but that was the justification for allowing a student who brought a razor to class back the same day. So, you know. The students can knife each other, as long as they only knife each other a little.

As a classroom teacher, I admit--zero tolerance can occasionally suck and isn't always fair. I get that. But what some of the non-teachers who are opposed to it don't seem to understand is that it is us--the classroom teachers--who will more than likely have to be the person who wades into a knife fight if a student's *lack of judgment* continues past just bringing the weapon to actually using it. And, I'm sorry, but if a student's judgment fails to the point that they brought the weapon, then I have to believe that it is capable of lapsing to the point of using it. What do they say in theater...don't introduce a gun in the first act unless it will get used in the last?

Will most kids use the weapon? No. But could they? Yes. And ultimately, it will be on *us* to jump in and resolve that situation. It is bad enough that I have to break up fights on a weekly (sometime daily) basis, I need my school system to at least pretend like it is not okay to have those fights turn into knife fights. Even if it means that occasionally a kid who makes a bad choice gets punished. Even if that kid never made a bad choice before. Even if they have a "reason" for having the weapon. A weapon is a weapon and a bad choice is a bad choice. Period. If a parent really feels like their child should not be punished for that bad choice, then the only other solution that resolves the issue for me is to require that parent to spend the next two quarters coming to school with their child--and if their child makes a second bad choice, the parent can be the one breaking up the knife fight.

@You break it up

Hate to tell you but your principal lied. In the City's Code of Conduct a knife is automatic long term. Many principals don't process so they can keep their numbers low. I run every one through because the students are so unpredictable it's a serious safety issue.

There is almost no excuse for a kid to have a knife in school. Most people who fight with knives end up getting cut themselves. Either way it's a lose lose situation for the kids. No child should be walking around a city with a knife.

It's easy for people who don't work in schools to wax philisophical about zero tolerance since they don't have to see the reality of our day to day.

In the world of weapons a razor can be worse than many of the knifes our kids carry.

"For the Record" says, "let's face it. There are no really long suspensions and there is no longer anything resembling a true expulsion anymore."

I think this is one important cause of discipline problems in schools.

Later, "For the Record" says, "Perhaps, we all should be placing the blame where it squarely belongs, on the students and parents"

If you're talking about root causes, I think this part is wildly wrong. If we were to start throwing a small number of the worst offenders out of school for good, I think the rest would get the message very quickly and change their behavior. At the root, it's not the parents and students, it's the bureaucracy, ridiculous rules and the governance structure.

This business of too much tolerance is one reason our schools have become the way they are. Bad choices warrant consequences. There is a behavior handbook that must be signed by parent and student at the beginning of each school year. As a teacher, I deserve to be safe, but so do all the other students. We have become so politically correct that we are afraid to give students consequences for their behavior.

To the parents that think zero tolerance isnt fair...

Send your kids to Baltimore City Public Schools, they tolerate everything and punish nothing. See if you like it that way.

The zero tolerance policies are why I believe in homeschooling. I would not want my children to have even the possiblity of a criminal charge over a simple possession mistake with a common household object.
Zero tolerance policies make me feel less safe, not safer.
I would go so far as to say that I would prefer to be maced or even stabbed than convicted of a felony. The injury from the former is only temporary. While I could die from the second, I might prefer that to being convicted of a felony.
Therefore, even if these policies were proven to be effective, I would still feel safer without them.
Airplane analogies are inapt. While one might be arrested for a gun, that would not happen with a common household object. The airport would like confiscate the object. The airport would certainly not arrest anyone for having a kinfe in his/her car.
Part of the reason that data shows little safety effect from zero tolerance policies is that effective weapons, such as tire irons, are always readily available. For those who actually injure others, if they are not deterred by potential assault or murder penalties, they will not be deterred by possession penalties.
The fact that certail school employees claim to offer first-hand experience does not impress me. The only reaction I have is that I become more certain in not wanting my children educated by them.
The only offenses that should merit a long expulsion or felony charges should involve serious actual violence or proven violent intent or drug dealing. Possession of common household objects (or mace in the case above, the risk was low and harm caused by misuse is simply not great enough to merit criminal charges) inside a school building should only result in,at most, a short suspension and no criminal charges.
Studnets should be allowed to have common household objects in their cars with no penalty.
Rules, in themselves, are not character-building. There is not moral merit in enforcing illegitimate ones. Fewer rules would make schools a more comfortable and less stressful place. That could reduce violence in itself.

I'm with Zero on this one. I'm all for kids rights but where are the rights of the kids that are trying to learn and where are my rights to a safe work place?