Lakewood High's Zero Tolerance for Fighting

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:01 am

I know I have been posting a lot lately and I apologize. When certain causes strike me I always go here first!

A friend of mine has a daughter aged 15 who has worked (at Ennis) since she was 14, has been a good student, comes from a good hard-working family and has not been in trouble before. A friend of this girl became angry and jealous of her and started posting threats on MySpace that she was going to beat her up. She posted this a total of three times. Immediately, my friend took copies of the threats to the high school. She was told there to take it to the police. She took it to the police and they said "Take it to the school". The third threat was that this girl was going to beat up my friend's daughter at Homecoming. This was brought to the school's attention and the girl was allowed to attend. At homecoming, the girl who made the threats hit the other girl right in the mouth. After, I don't know what ensued except that others jumped in.

Now, LHS has a "zero tolerance" policy so BOTH girls got suspended for 10 days!!!! Both equal punishment even though one made public threats, they were brought to the school's attention, and she got assaulted by this girl! AND the policy at LHS states that YOU CANNOT DO ANY SCHOOL WORK DURING A SUSPENSION!!! Therefore, you can and will fail the subjects!!!!

This situation happened to another girl my son knows last year! A girl 50 pounds heavier than her hit her and when she dropped her books to defend herself-they both got suspended for ten days and the assault victim failed her classes!!! What is wrong with this picture!! This is not the law, but LHS policy and should be taken as a case by case situation!

Channel 19 thinks so and is interviewing the victim's family tomorrow. What do you all think and what legal recourse does this family (yes a homeowner paying taxes) have??? They asked me to write a letter on behalf of their daughter and her character, which I am doing, but what else can be done?

I would teach my child never to hit first, but to absolutely defend yourself if assaulted! This policy seems insane to me and failing students also hurts the school district! Let them do their work during suspension! The family did file a police report but we all know what will happen in the juvenile court with that one. Any advice for this family or ways to change this unfair policy for victims of assault defending themselves? Jeff???

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:39 am

Justine,

zero tolerance means...well..zero tolerance.

I've had plenty of disagreements with teachers and administrators on the policies from dress code to attendance, etc. but at the end of the day it didn't make things better to fight the system.

This was a new policy put in place two years ago (?) because I remember being lectured about it at our yearly assembly in the beginning of the year. Regardless of who threw the first punch, both individuals will be punished. And for the most part it's worked great.

I don't know about not being able to do school work while being suspended. I threw away my planner from last year so I don't have the code of conduct in front of me, but I doubt that's really the case. I know plenty of students that did work when suspended. They just can't be at school functions or on school property during those 10 days.

Maybe we can get Mrs.Donnelly to post on here to clarify. She's been the one I always went to when I was in trouble or when I needed clarification on something.

The direction the school is heading into I don't blame them for going zero tolerance two years ago. It brings up questions where I want to raise my kids and have them go to school..

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:12 am

Ivor,
The policy stated to them was that they could choose to do work but NONE would be counted. The girl my son knows failed last year because of this, and this girl stands the same fate. I don't agree wtih this policy. First someone who assaults another should have a stiffer penalty than someone who defends themselves. And the person defending themselves should have a case by case basis. In this case, the threats were brought to the school and to the police before the assault. Nothing was done and the girl was assaulted at homecoming and now suspended for ten days with no chance to turn in work. So she will fail. Where is the fairness in that?

I will always teach my child to defend themselves regardless of the rules in place. I would rather deal with that then have them become a punching bag. And although I am not a fighter by nature, if I am hit, my instinct would be to defend myself.

This should be case by case and this scenerio should be the exception to the rule, considering all facts.

Frank Murtaugh · Post by **Frank Murtaugh** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:23 am

If the policy and its application are as stated it is obviously unfair. Most informed readers would need to see the printed policy before giving their reasoned opinions. This is an issue that needs to be discussed. If the referenced policy exists, it should be changed.

Parents of students injured by violent intentional actions of individuals under age 18 need to know they may sue the perpetrator and his/her parents for damages.

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:25 am

Thank you for your reply Frank. They are pursuing all options but frantically trying to appeal this before the suspension causes their daughter to fail! I encourage her to get the work, do it, and if the appeal goes through after the fact at least her work is done. This policy is not right.

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:34 pm

But if you bend the rules this time, why not bend them again next time?

that's something that you don't want to promote and get a habit of doing...
because with 2000+ students, every one of their parents thinks their kid should get the benefit of the doubt since their kid is better than the next.

So lets say we bend the rules for this case, then the next one that pops up will ask for the same thing, and when the rule is enforced, then they're being unfair and unjust because the person before them got off easier.

If a rule is in place, it should be enforced on everyone.

I don't agree that the one that threatened should get the same penalty as the other girl, but something had to be done for her to make that threat.

the street goes both ways I guess.

A case by case scenario would be way too much paperwork and time for administrators. I've seen office workers carry in their own printers and buy their own ink because the school can't afford to buy new ones. To hire more office workers is out of the question. There's not enough manpower and money to make this a case by case rule.

This isn't a 400 student middle school we're talking about...these are 2100 students that say what they want and do what they want because they're "young adults".

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:36 pm

But one thing I never agreed with in my years at LHS is all their policies cause you to miss out on school days and education.

I never understood that.

When you miss class, they send you home on a 3-day suspension from school. I don't know about you guys, but if I'm skipping class and I'm told to go home and I'll be excused... I'm out the door.

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:43 pm

Here is a link to the student handbook

http://www.lnoca.org/lakewood/lhs/ADMIN ... udents.pdf

Page 18 states that out of school suspensions "the absence will be unexcused in all classes"

The bullying section looks like the school should have done something before this resulted in a fight.

ryan costa · Post by **ryan costa** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:42 pm

yeah. rules are frequently stupid. sometimes the people in charge of enforcing them are a-holes.

Diane Helbig · Post by **Diane Helbig** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:56 pm

Sounds like this never should have gotten to the point of a physical altercation. It sounds like the school and the police failed this young lady and now she is paying the price - physically, emotionally, and with her education.

I thought public threats were taken seriously these days. ???????

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:11 pm

Public threats are taken seriously depending where you are. I remember a thread months ago from Beejay where the safety of her daughter also went ignored and she was sexually harassed horribly.

As far as "bending" the rules, I am saying this should NOT be the rule. Zero tolerance is not appropriate in all cases, especially when you are being assaulted and told to do NOTHING but stand there.

If the school is too busy to deal with this then that is a legal issue and the family is seeking legal counsel, while their daughter is currently suspended.

Before this incident happened, the mother asked a school official, how can you help the assure the safety of my child while on school grounds. He replied "I will get back to you" and never did.

J Hrlec · Post by **J Hrlec** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:24 pm

I would certainly agree that this rule is ridiculous if someone is "jumped" or attacked and now are held accountable at any level for defending themselves or even for being a target of an assault.

Sure there are probably difficulties for faculty in determining what happens and who is responsible in every offense... but this certainly is not the right way to go about it.

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:03 pm

It seems like a deeply flawed policy borne by necessity. In cases where only the end of the fight is witnessed, who's to say who started it? Both parties are engaged in the activity, so in some cases it should be logical that both share equally in the punishment. Otherwise, the 'she-started-it-no-SHE-started-it' arguments would go around and around endlessly.

But obviously, this was the consummation of a threat and clearly instigated by one party. It's a flawed policy because it does not appear that the school offers any positive suggestions or guidance on what is expected of a student if they are assaulted.

Justine Cooper · Post by **Justine Cooper** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:10 am

The policy is absolutely flawed. How convenient for the schools to just suspend both for ten days then actually taking time to look at some of these case by case. What if your child was harassed for days and weeks and months and the harasser eventually assaulted him/her? If your child defended, including hitting to defend, should he/she be suspended for ten days and fail classes? There are case scenarios that beg for this policy to be reviewed.

Ivor,
I appreciate your argument for teachers, but as a soon-to-be teacher I can tell you I don't feel educators are underpaid. I feel that the salary for the ten months worked is fair and the retirement beats all others. I don't think asking for protection of kids while in school should be too much to add to the schedule.

Dee Krupp · Post by **Dee Krupp** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 9:13 am

Where was the zero tolerance when the girl was being publically threatened? I think this is absurd and hope the family takes necessary measures to prevent their daughter from failing.