Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
...national resistance to thinking movement. Why deal with an event in a fair and effective manner when you can make a rule, set a standard or develop a procedure and then let the "professionals" (who may be more concerned with keeping their jobs) carry on?
I had to point out to another poster there that Zero Tolerance had nothing to do with either Ahmed Mohamed or the pop tart kid:
http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=181872
Hey, your pop tart kid was never going get a White House invite under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE
The mere fact that you brought it up in the first place as a comparison to Ahmed Mohamed's clock and then just now diminished the relevance of your boy's pop tart accomplishment as a justification to be invited to the White House most definitely demonstrates your own high level of intellectual dishonesty. Let's face it, you exposed yourself by moving the goalposts after the error of your point was explained to you.
We know exactly why Ahmed Mohamed and his clock would get the invite… The White House expressly explained that they wanted him to go there and show it off. So, what would be the point of the White House inviting pop tart kid to go there to show off his pop tart gun? You can't explain that, can you? Because it doesn't make any sense.
And when I made the mistake of conceding to your point earlier that these were flagrant examples of zero tolerance in action, what I should have done instead was show you that zero tolerance had absolutely nothing to do with either case.
Really, as far as zero tolerance policies go in Mohamed's case, exactly which policy did he violate? The one about self-initiated electronics projects? The one that exposed his teacher, principal and the police as being ignorant, scared and willing to rail-road an innocent kid, who from the beginning explained that his device was nothing more than a clock? The school never cited some zero tolerance policy as their justification for suspending Mohamed… So, why are you doing that?
And in the other case, sure, pop tarts that are gnawed into the shape of a gun, which then renders a suspension, may expose some level of ludicrousness on the part of the school district. That is, of course, if you're also willing to go along with gun lobby turning this kid into a martyr: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/pastry-gun-suspension_n_3357680.html
But as a further demonstration to your own degree of intellectual dishonesty, we both know that you're not even bringing up the entire story about the case. Turned out that your pop tart kid was a repeat troublemaker:
The boy's family has been seeking to clear his school record, according to the story, and challenged the March 2013 suspension. School authorities told the Post that the boy had been suspended previously. The report from the hearing examiner also noted a principal's assertion that the suspension was based on a history of problems.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/ruling_upheld_on_suspension_of.html
IF pop tart pop tart kid was an example of zero tolerance gone wild, why then did the school let him amass a "history of problems" before choosing to suspend him? Which, might I add, happened eleven days AFTER Sandy Hook. You had a "gun grabber" angle just lying out in the open there for you, and you went for the nonexistent "zero tolerance" instead.
My, my, you must be slacking.
Again, we both know why President Obama would go out of his way to invite a budding young STEM student who's in the news to the White House. Because, he has a history of doing it, which any cursory examination of the White House net page about the subject would reveal: https://www.whitehouse.gov/science-fair
You know, I do agree with you that reversing zero tolerance policies in our schools is a worthwhile endeavor. They really don't do any student any favors. But I have to point out to you that you're not doing those kids any favors yourself, when you misrepresent anecdotes that have absolutely nothing to do with zero tolerance policies.
Criticizing the President for not speaking out about zero tolerance policies, especially when neither case has anything to do with them, only goes to show us that you're quite willing to be intellectually dishonest in order to put him down. Am I right?
Of course, I am.
Hey, your pop tart kid was never going get a White House invite under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE
The mere fact that you brought it up in the first place as a comparison to Ahmed Mohamed's clock and then just now diminished the relevance of your boy's pop tart accomplishment as a justification to be invited to the White House most definitely demonstrates your own high level of intellectual dishonesty. Let's face it, you exposed yourself by moving the goalposts after the error of your point was explained to you.
We know exactly why Ahmed Mohamed and his clock would get the invite… The White House expressly explained that they wanted him to go there and show it off. So, what would be the point of the White House inviting pop tart kid to go there to show off his pop tart gun? You can't explain that, can you? Because it doesn't make any sense.
And when I made the mistake of conceding to your point earlier that these were flagrant examples of zero tolerance in action, what I should have done instead was show you that zero tolerance had absolutely nothing to do with either case.
Really, as far as zero tolerance policies go in Mohamed's case, exactly which policy did he violate? The one about self-initiated electronics projects? The one that exposed his teacher, principal and the police as being ignorant, scared and willing to rail-road an innocent kid, who from the beginning explained that his device was nothing more than a clock? The school never cited some zero tolerance policy as their justification for suspending Mohamed… So, why are you doing that?
And in the other case, sure, pop tarts that are gnawed into the shape of a gun, which then renders a suspension, may expose some level of ludicrousness on the part of the school district. That is, of course, if you're also willing to go along with gun lobby turning this kid into a martyr: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/pastry-gun-suspension_n_3357680.html
But as a further demonstration to your own degree of intellectual dishonesty, we both know that you're not even bringing up the entire story about the case. Turned out that your pop tart kid was a repeat troublemaker:
The boy's family has been seeking to clear his school record, according to the story, and challenged the March 2013 suspension. School authorities told the Post that the boy had been suspended previously. The report from the hearing examiner also noted a principal's assertion that the suspension was based on a history of problems.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/ruling_upheld_on_suspension_of.html
IF pop tart pop tart kid was an example of zero tolerance gone wild, why then did the school let him amass a "history of problems" before choosing to suspend him? Which, might I add, happened eleven days AFTER Sandy Hook. You had a "gun grabber" angle just lying out in the open there for you, and you went for the nonexistent "zero tolerance" instead.
My, my, you must be slacking.
Again, we both know why President Obama would go out of his way to invite a budding young STEM student who's in the news to the White House. Because, he has a history of doing it, which any cursory examination of the White House net page about the subject would reveal: https://www.whitehouse.gov/science-fair
You know, I do agree with you that reversing zero tolerance policies in our schools is a worthwhile endeavor. They really don't do any student any favors. But I have to point out to you that you're not doing those kids any favors yourself, when you misrepresent anecdotes that have absolutely nothing to do with zero tolerance policies.
Criticizing the President for not speaking out about zero tolerance policies, especially when neither case has anything to do with them, only goes to show us that you're quite willing to be intellectually dishonest in order to put him down. Am I right?
Of course, I am.
And when it comes to zero tolerance policies as a whole, it IS black and brown students who are impacted by them to a greater degree than all other students. There is most definitely a racial component to zero tolerance that can't be swept up the carpet:
Zero-tolerance policies are destroying the lives of black children
By Andre M. Perry July 7, 2014
Dr. Andre Perry is the founding dean of urban education at Davenport University in Grand Rapids, Mich. He is the author of The Garden Path: The Miseducation of a City.
President Obama wants to limit the number of students expelled every year from high schools. He believes the rates of suspensions and expulsions are racially biased, arbitrary and ineffective. “Although African-American students represent 15 percent of students in the CRDC, they make up 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once, and 36 percent of students expelled,” writes the Education Department. “Further, over 50 percent of students who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American.” So the administration sent to educational leaders a Dear Colleague guidance letter on civil rights and discipline. To close the racial gap, he said, go easy with the zero-tolerance policies. Predictably, the ed-reform types, rending their garments and gnashing their teeth, see this is as a disastrous stripping of school autonomy.
The guidance “would certainly compromise the operation of schools,” according to Richard Epstein, professor of law at New York University. Some critics argue that schools need to sweat the small things — uniform violations, smoking, tardiness and singing — if they want to create a positive school culture in which students and teachers are focused on learning. For the sake of those who are focused on learning, those who aren’t ready must be forced to leave. Epstein adds that schools with zero-tolerance policies offer “no taint of any purported civil-rights violation.” And he’s right when he says, “Disproportionate rates should not be regarded as unjustified merely because they reflect higher rates of improper behavior by minority students than by white students.” Expulsions are easily justified and aren’t inherently racist. More importantly, they can be a very effective way to increase learning outcomes.
In fact, the complainers are right: Obama’s plan has a major flaw. But curbing the option to expel students is not it. The trouble is his rationale. The real reason to stop expulsions is that, in the noble cause of closing the black-white achievement gap, schools are insidiously giving up on black children by expelling those who are considered not ready to learn. While zero-tolerance expulsions myopically help the school and the majority of students in it, they destroy the student — and, ultimately, the community, too.
Zero-tolerance policies have many allies. Parents are often the most ardent supporters. (If a kid injured your son or daughter, you’d want expulsion, too.) Moreover, teachers and principals will tell you that ridding the school of disruptive behaviors accelerates achievement for the overwhelming majority of its students. Educational leaders embrace no-tolerance policies on the ground that they provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/07/zero-tolerance-policies-are-destroying-the-lives-of-black-children/
or going into teaching.
These are top students and zero are going into education. I fear for the classrooms going forward...
