Zero Tolerance when it comes to violence has nothing to do with alcohol or other other forms of school contraband. Dennis Cauchon’s post highlights how Zero Tolerance means more than just stopping violence. Like the example of Lisa Smith, there is no curbing of violence in the example, instead it is punishing a student for a first time offence. Implementing the Zero Tolerance policy like this do nothing to curb violence, a school can still make parents and students understand they are serious about stopping school violence without making the policy so strict for non-violent problems. Now, obviously, each example given in Cauchon’s article are case studies, and do not accurately show the majority of Zero Tolerance related incidences. The schools, instead of …show more content…
But, when it comes to fights, bullying, or other offences things that may lead to violence, the schools need to be firm on removing students from school if they choose to fight rather than learn.
Continuing on with this thought, there is the second question; which asks if the rules should be flexible for grade school offenders vs older students. Personally, I think it should. Take for example the second grader from Alexandria, La, these may be case studies brought forth by Cauchon article, but it is also ridiculous to punish a second grader for using a knife to cut an apple. The reasons for these rules are because of increased safety concerns, but if students get punished for even giving the tool in question to a teacher, there is a lapse in common sense that needs to be reevaluated. Older students should know what to bring and what not to bring, and if an older student brought a knife for cutting an apple they would bring one. The next question is, does it matter if it is a plastic knife, butter knife, or steak knife? Obviously, bringing anything above a butter knife to school as just something that should not be done and should be dealt with maybe perhaps