1  3 4 5 6 7 8 11
... Indeed. Also, zero judgement ==> zero prejudice (except for ... small price to pay for fairness and formality of operations.

If I understand you correctly, Jerry, I see your point. However, one hopes there is some way through which appropriate ... choice, IMO. No matter what a specific policy entails, the name alone makes it a target for ridicule and parody.

Especially the way it's being practiced in elementary schools around the country post Columbine. Being kicking out for giving another student an aspirin? Gimme a break.
Maria Conlon Never mind religion. What the world needs is a loving set of parents who will take charge when we follow the wrong paths. Who's in charge now? No one, I think. And there is no one in training, either.

See, Maria? Even you are coming around to the benevolent dictator as the best form of government. Once you get past the negative associations attached to "dictator", it sounds ok. Just think of her as a loving mother.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
If I understand you correctly, Jerry, I see your point. ... name alone makes it a target for ridicule and parody.

Especially the way it's being practiced in elementary schools around the country post Columbine. Being kicking out for giving another student an aspirin? Gimme a break.

I have to disagree with you about that. Students should not be giving medications to each other, and in the case of aspirin the results can be disastrous, as Reye's syndrome is a particularly nasty illness.
Maria Conlon Never mind religion. What the world needs is ... I think. And there is no one in training, either.

See, Maria? Even you are coming around to the benevolent dictator as the best form of government. Once you get past the negative associations attached to "dictator", it sounds ok. Just think of her as a loving mother.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Yes, referring specifically to jello prepared with vodka not before or after I was in college, though.

An advantage of the Jello shot is that it can be consumed on a bikini'd midriff.
I have to disagree with you about that. Students should not be giving medications to each other, and in the case of aspirin the results can be disastrous, as Reye's syndrome is a particularly nasty illness.

This is true. I said aspirin but should have said painkiller since I'm not sure it was actually "aspirin". The problem is that the school authorities didn't send the kid home because of your stated reason but because it was considered a "drug". The zero-tolerance drug policy was being enforced. Had they administered a lecture on the dangers you point out, I would have no complaint.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
Yes, referring specifically to jello prepared with vodka not before or after I was in college, though.

An advantage of the Jello shot is that it can be consumed on a bikini'd midriff.

Or perhaps a bit lower, unbikini'd.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
My thought about this: We, the people, have gone mad. All the "zero-tolerance" rules mean there is "zero judgment" used by the school boards.

I don't think this is as simple as you paint it. Let's say that you are the principal of a high school with 1,800 students. You do not want drugs to be brought to school or used in school. You are aware that drugs take many forms and new "designer" drugs are being introduced on a routine basis.
If you impose a judgement rule, you have to examine each and every case of reported drugs. If some girl is observed taking pills from a bottle of Midol you have to examine the pills and assume the ones she took are the same as the ones remaining in the bottle. You have to know enough about drugs to be able to tell a Midol pill from a designer drug that looks like a Midol pill.
Obviously, as principal, you don't have time to personally make a determination about each and every case, so you have to delegate this to staff. To be effective at this, you have to train the staff in recognizing illicit drugs and periodically provide in-service programs to the staff to keep them up to date on what is illicit. You have to recognize that some of your staff will not feel this is part of their brief as educators, and be either too tolerant or too lenient. Therefore, there will be some unfairness inherent in the system.

You will have to contend with the borderline cases and make determinations about caffine-laced "pep pills" and abuse of legitimately prescribed drugs like Valium The student may have a prescription, but does the prescription call for one a day or six, and how many has the student taken.
You then have to have hearings to determine just punishments for abuse. You feel that even a child should have some representation at a hearing, so you have to schedule evening hearings to allow working parents to attend. You or your staff have to attend these hearings. With 1,800 students, in today's times, every evening will an evening when you or a member of staff to be at school.
The zero tolerance policy allows you to say that no one can bring or use any kind of drug or medication in school unless it is left at the school nurse's office (or with someone in your office) and that the parents must provide written authorization for this. It doesn't require that the staff become involved in decision making, and it puts the responsibility on the parent and makes sure the parent knows what his/her child is up to. It allows the staff to teach or do whatever job they were hired to do.
Draconian (we haven't used that word for a while) zero tolerance rules with automatic expulsion or excessive suspension periods are wrong, but a zero tolerance rule in itself is a reasonable program for a school. Fining a motorist $1,000 for a speeding offense is wrong, but having a rule that imposes a reasonable fine for speeding is not. It's not the rule, but the way the rule is written.
The zero tolerance rules allow you as a principal to
don groves wrote on 09 Dec 2004:
I said aspirin but should have said painkiller since I'm not sure it was actually "aspirin". The problem is that the school authorities didn't send the kid home because of your stated reason but because it was considered a "drug".

Aspirin is a drug, but an over-the-counter drug to which some people are allergic. The same is true for peanuts, which contain chemical structures that are fatal to some and allergenic to many people. To be fair to allabout this distribution policy, it ought to be illegal to share anything in school because almost everything that can be shared presents a possible danger to some segment of the population, however small
The zero-tolerance drug policy was being enforced. Had they administered a lecture on the dangers you point out, I would have no complaint.

They probably had, but who can take such talk seriously? Certainly not school children.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
don groves wrote on 09 Dec 2004:

I said aspirin but should have said painkiller since I'm ... your stated reason but because it was considered a "drug".

Aspirin is a drug, but an over-the-counter drug to which some people are allergic. The same is true for peanuts, ... school because almost everything that can be shared presents a possible danger to some segment of the population, however small

Fair and clearly ridiculous. There is no workable way to solve this problem we have made for oursleves. The only sensible thing to do, imho, is to realize that we can't protect everyone from everything and quit trying. Let our educators get back to educating, it's a hard enough job to do well as it was.
The zero-tolerance drug policy was being enforced. Had they administered a lecture on the dangers you point out, I would have no complaint.

They probably had, but who can take such talk seriously? Certainly not school children.

The case I'm on about involved a 12-year-old, iirc. That should be old enough to understand such talk.

dg (domain=ccwebster)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
don groves wrote on 09 Dec 2004: Aspirin is ... possible danger to some segment of the population, however small

Fair and clearly ridiculous. There is no workable way to solve this problem we have made for oursleves. The only ... quit trying. Let our educators get back to educating, it's a hard enough job to do well as it was.[/nq]I have to wonder how we could arrive at this "only sensible thing" you propose given current conditions. Laws would have to be changed to make it more difficult to sue school authorities, since one of the main things motivating them is the fear of being found personally liable. (It seems to me that there has been a trend toward making it easier to sue government figures, as part of the effort to make them more accountable to the public, and such a practice would go against that trend.) And then we have to consider that in the US many such policies are made at the school board level, that is, they are decided by local politicians, which makes it difficult if not impossible to have all schools in the country follow sensible practices (provided that we can agree on a national level about what such "sensible practices" might be).
They probably had, but who can take such talk seriously? Certainly not school children.

The case I'm on about involved a 12-year-old, iirc. That should be old enough to understand such talk.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Show more