As long as jelly filled doughnuts remain illegal I'm cool with this. There's valid arguments for allowing people to carry sidearms. But shirt destroying pastry grenades? That's where I draw the line.
So he's suggesting a zero-tolerance policy for schools that have zero-tolerance policies.
I never cease to be amazed by those who think that the way to deal with schools that have to resort to drastic measures to deal with budget cuts is to cut off funding for those schools. I realize zero-tolerance policies aren't always the result of budget cuts, but more funding could provide better training, counseling services, and things that schools actually need.
Bill to cut off funding to schools than ban brandishing a pastry in a
Should it be, "Bill to cut off funding to schools THAT ban brandishing a pastry in a gun-like manner?" Or perhaps, "Bill to cut off funding to schools, THEN ban brandishing a pastry in a gun-like manner?"
I usually find that the best way to deal with bureaucracies implementing zero tolerance policies is to deny children an education.
I propose shooting any politician who proposes zero tolerance policies. With a gun-shaped pastry, of course. We're not monsters.
Oh boy. Talk about unreasonable reasons for reasonable reactions to unreasonable actions...
(And remember, the bun is mightier than the sword.)
the main reason the US govt passes bills to defund schools they don't agree with is because it's LITERALLY the only thing they can do. the federal government has no power over schools other than funding, they do not have the power to set policy, that's the school board, i think they can set standards for education but they cannot enforce them except to defund schools that do not comply.
of course there is also the "public schools don't work, let's have all kids go to private schools" push. defund schools, when they fail to produce to standards defund them more, complain that they are failing and propose sending kids to for profit schools, get payed.
Zero-tolerance policies are almost never the result of budget cuts. Zero-tolerance policies are caused by a combination of cowardice (afraid to exercise rational judgement for fear of being called to task for making the wrong decision), politics (it sounds really good for a prospective superintendent to say "I intend to implement a zero-tolerance policy towards [insert whatever the voters are most afraid of]), and a desire to flex authoritarian powers.
Cutting off funding to a school for bad policies is absolutely NOT the right answer, but nothing gets the attention of a cowardly, authoritarian politician more quickly than a threat to his bottom line.
The author of the bill was probably projecting his own worst fear on the school administrators
Zero-tolerance of guns in schools (unless it's a real gun and there's a responsible adult like a police officer holding it). 100% tolerance in the adult world. Makes sense
They could make it an actual crime.
Because zero zero-tolerance policies would be entirely too close to right...
So a Texas Republican is attempting (by means of questionable value, but still) to do something I find inherently sensible? And it has to do with A) public schools, and B) gun policy?
This is exactly what 'gobsmacked' feels like.
Yo, parent of child victimized by zero-tolerance here. My kid did not commit suicide, so I figure I got off light, but believe me it was no fun at all.
The only thing that could be better than denying funding to zero-tolerance schools would be to publicly execute every single politician who ever voted for such evil nonsense and publicly flog every citizen that ever voted for said politicians with barbed wire.
If you haven't been through the mill, I sincerely doubt you can truly understand the horrors it grinds. For one thing, these policies have caused many caring school administrators to retire rather than be part of such a system, and thus it selects over time for child-hating sadists in the school principal office.
Think about it; what sort of person will consider it "all in a day's work" to enforce a policy that is proven to harm children and serve absolutely no educational purpose?
The only way to stop a bad child with a gun-shaped pastry is o my damn ffs srly?
Uh ... not that I'm a fan of zero-tolerance policies. But really?
Maybe the real, ultimate goal is to implement a law requiring all students to be armed.
Quickly followed by a law forbidding students who are rumored to have been bullied from carrying firearms on school grounds.
"No recorders for music class this year, kids. Sorry. Also if you have copies of your older siblings' math workbooks from last year, we can try to erase the answers so you can reuse them. Think about that next time you have an urge to wield pastries as if they were guns."
What are you talking about? Bullying won't exist once we arm the childrens!
They'll be able to exercise their second ammendment rights and just shoot the bullies! Or... just get shot by the bullies in the first place, I suppose, but then the bullied kid's surviving friends can shoot the bully in return! Except that then the bully's friends will return fire... but that's what the SROs are there for! They can shoot the bullies and their friends before they ever even bully/shoot anyone in the first place!
Ahh, don't you just love a polite society?
If parents value hateful anti-child zero-tolerance policies more than they do recorders and fresh math books, sure, such egregious ignorance will breed more ignorance and suffering. As it always does.
But in places where education is valued more than creating a school-to-prison pipeline for children of color, the zero tolerance policies would be eliminated, obviously. It'd take about four hours for the state legislature to eliminate the problem.
next page →