MOUNT VERNON — Parents have a right to expect that their children will be safe in school, and in recent years educational facilities have made it known that violence or threats of violence will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Nearly all of the schools in the area have what is called a zero tolerance attitude toward student use of drugs, weapons, bullying and alcohol.
Many of the policies are similar to Mount Vernon High School’s Zero Tolerance Policy for Major Offenses, which follows: “For major offenses such as possession or use of dangerous objects, weapons, drugs or alcohol, the first offense will result in expulsion from school and notification of appropriate law enforcement agency. There will be a mandatory conference as soon as possible with the student, parent and principal. Any student who brings a firearm, as defined under federal law, to school shall be expelled from school for at least one year unless the superintendent reduces the punishment for reasons justified by the particular circumstances of the incident.
“When circumstances warrant, the principal has the option to select another misbehavior management schedule and/or level of punishment to an internal post-review by the Mount Vernon administration team.”
Regarding Mount Vernon’s policy, assistant high school principal Sam Shuman said, “We have followed this policy and looked at every violation on a case-by-case basis. It is always our desire to take into consideration all of the facts and circumstances related to an individual violation before we make a final decision. Our goal is to provide a safe learning environment for all students and we try to take a common sense approach to resolving zero tolerance issues.”
Knox County Juvenile Judge James Ronk said he is a supporter of zero tolerance policies with regard to drugs and weapons.
“First and foremost the school has to maintain a safe environment,” he said. “I have absolutely no quarrel with the schools — you have to remove those students. But then, what do you do with them? If you just put them out on the street, that’s not much of a solution. Frankly, that’s why we have The Alternative Center. ... That accomplishes two purposes. It separates the offenders from the general school population, and still they’re not on the street finding more trouble and are hopefully advancing their education in the probate environment.”
Ronk said the vast majority of the cases he sees, especially with regard to weapons at school, are what he calls a “show and tell” offense. The student brings in a penknife or something but has no sinister intent to harm anyone.
“Nevertheless,” Ronk said, “you have to respond to that. You just can’t tolerate it. The school has to do whatever they have to do, whether it is suspension or expulsion.
“The first step has to be to maintain the safety for the 99 percent of the kids there at the school. The second step is to mold a response [to the offender] that fits the situation and the crime. We’re in the business of trying to help kids and part of helping them, of course, is helping them understand what they did wrong.
“If you had a kid who was depressed or suicidal or homicidal, you’d have to respond differently than with a kid who, for example, brought to school a rusty old revolver his grandpa had. It didn’t work. It wasn’t a threat to anybody. It truly was a show-and-tell-type of thing. But, nevertheless you have to respond to that. However, you don’t respond to that the same way you would to a kid who you thought was mentally ill and a threat to himself or others; that would be a whole different ballpark. One size doesn’t fit all here, that’s for sure.”
Some people do not like zero tolerance policies. Like Mount Vernon Middle School Principal Bill White, those individuals feel that zero tolerance policies can put an A student, an honor roll student, in the same slot as a gang member.
“I understand where zero tolerance policies come from,” White said. “Almost every zero tolerance policy that we have has resulted from some incident where a community has reacted, and said ‘we don’t want that in our school. We want our kids safe.’ Nobody is going to question that we want our kids safe, and I think our goal should be to stop the behavior. But zero tolerance is like a Band-Aid. It doesn’t get to the root of the issue. Ultimately it’s not going to prevent anything, because it is just a reaction to something that has already occurred. Zero tolerance is trying to ‘scare the kids straight.’ The trouble is, you’re going to scare the kids who don’t need to be scared.”
White said a zero tolerance policy can limit the response of school administrators and hamper an administrator’s ability to tailor the intervention to the needs of the student.
“I understand why boards adopt zero tolerance policies,” he said. “They’re trying to be fair to everyone and put everybody on an equal playing field. The problem with being fair is, what you’re really doing is you’re being equal, and equal is not always fair. The consequence has to fit the person.
“Because I have to treat all [the offenders] the same, with zero tolerance, it ties my hands. It ties my hands to be able to work with a family in crisis or to be able to work with a child in crisis, or to be able to address the child that makes a bad choice who has never made a wrong choice before.
“Every place is different,” White continued. “Every community is different. Every community has a different group of zero tolerance offenses. We are fortunate in this community because we have good kids. And we have great families. And at school we have a great group of teachers who basically act as a family. Relationships are the most important thing. If you develop relationships, you don’t need zero tolerance policies.”
