Zero tolerance Case analysis
Date of Artifact: May 8, 2024
Course #: EAD 505
Part 1: Case Analysis
Brief summary of the case:
Carterville Unified School District implements a zero-tolerance policy district-wide. Rancho Elementary, favored by Littletown parents, includes this policy in its plan, overseen by the principal. In the principal's absence, the assistant principal approves and distributes the plan. A student brings an antique handgun for a presentation, causing parental distress and potential escalation to the superintendent and media.
Identify the issues to be resolved:
Policy Implementation Oversight: Ensuring that district policies are consistently implemented and followed across all schools, particularly regarding zero-tolerance policies.
Administrative Authority: Clarifying lines of authority and decision-making in the principal's absence to prevent unauthorized actions, as seen with the assistant principal approving and distributing the school plan.
Safety Concerns: Addressing the incident of a student bringing a potentially dangerous item to school and the resulting distress among parents, focusing on ensuring a safe learning environment.
Communication: Improving communication between school administration, staff, and parents to address concerns promptly and transparently, preventing potential escalation and misinformation.
Stakeholders involved in the issues:
Superintendent, School Board, Principal and AP, Teachers and Staff, Parents/Guardians, Students
One or two existing laws or court rulings that relate to the issues:
CA Penal Code § 626.9 PC California's Gun-Free School Zone Act
Seal v. Morgan 229 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2000)
District policies that relate to the issues:
California Education Code Section 48926
Possible solutions to the issues:
Suspend the student
Expel the student
Have another form of discipline for the student
The solutions you are choosing to resolve the issues:
I will have a
Action steps (2-5) for implementing your solution, including a timeline for each step:
Inform my superintendent of both the failure to include the zero-tolerance policy and the pistol situation.
Speak with and hear out the angry parents
Investigate the situation fully including speaking with Ms. Idleman, the Becky, students who saw the gun, and Becky’s parents
With the input of a disciplinary board, decide the consequence
Potential moral and legal consequences of the solutions:
The efficacy of zero-tolerance policies
Lawsuit from parents of classmates
Part 2: Rationale
Student safety is the highest priority for me as a school leader. Anything that jeopardizes the safety of my students must be addressed promptly and appropriately. Policies are key in addressing situations of student safety as they provide guidance to how a school should address these issues. This case has for major areas of concern: the failure to include the zero-tolerance policy in the school plan, the approval of the plan without principal review, the bringing of a weapon to school, and the lack of an appropriate response to the possession of a weapon. A school must have a well-informed comprehensive safety plan that encompasses students’ physical, mental, and emotional well-being.
Effective leaders delegate and give subordinates responsibilities and opportunities to stretch and grow, while providing feedback and guidance. Ultimate responsibility, however, falls upon the leader. In this situation, the principal delegated the school plan to Ms. Idleman and made it clear to her to include the zero-tolerance policy. While Ms. Idleman did not include it and Ms. Boxer approved the plan, the principal is responsible for the approval and distribution of the plan. As soon as the principal learned of the mistake, he should have contacted the superintendent to learn about their options. One solution to this oversight could have been to send out an amended school plan outlining the zero-tolerance policy.
All policies should be well-informed and have the good of the school and students in mind. While zero-tolerance policies seem to be sensible, they negatively impact students by practicing a “one-size-fits-all approach to school discipline” (Borrego & Maxwell, 2021). These policies do not only marginalize students, but they are also ineffective and do not deter undesired behaviors (Borrego & Maxwell, 2021). As an administrator, I understand that each situation has varied factors that must be considered when deciding disciplinary consequences. Enforcing a zero-tolerance policy goes against the principles of equity and social justice. It does not take into consideration the individual needs of a student and doles out the same consequences for all cases. However, the superintendent and school board have adopted this policy and despite its inadequacies must be implemented at my school site.
It is unacceptable that the student brought the pistol, the teacher did not report this to administrators, and the teacher returned the pistol to the student. The case seems to indicate that since this pistol was an antique, the teacher made a professional assessment that it was not a threat and therefore took the steps that she did. From the information provided in the case, it seems that the pistol was, in fact, non-operational and therefore not a safety threat. Despite that, a weapon at school, operational or not, is not acceptable at a school and in the context of this school district, a violation of the zero-tolerance policy. Ms. Idleman should have alerted the principal of the weapon to allow the school to properly address it. Even if the zero-tolerance policy was not published in the school plan, Ms. Idleman clearly understood the pistol was not appropriate at the school. She certainly should not have returned the pistol to the student at the end of the school day. Had Ms. Idleman alerted the principal, the school could have addressed the issue and avoided the further concerns of a lack of action by the school. I would have a serious conversation with Ms. Idleman regarding her response and the implications of her response. Depending on district policy, she may even need to have additional training or face disciplinary consequences.
The final factor to be solved is addressing Becky, her parents and the concerned parents. Becky needs to understand how inappropriate her actions were. Depending on district and campus policy she may even need to face a retroactive disciplinary action. This would be tricky as it is not advisable to retroactively discipline a student. Because Ms. Idleman sent the pistol back home and gave Becky an “A,” her parents may fight back against the discipline. Conversely, the concerned parent does have valid concerns. I would schedule a meeting with those parents to hear their concerns and seek a way to come to a fair resolution. After consulting with my superintendent, we would implement a communication plan for the other parents in Ms. Idleman’s class. This plan may also include a prepared statement for the press if the parent contacted the newspaper.
References:
Borrego, R., & Maxwell, G. M. (2021). The Lingering Effects of Zero-Tolerance: Perceptions of Educators and Former Students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 40. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1296451.pdf