<t>Every day it seems like we hear of another story that makes us shake our heads.<br/>
<br/>
Now I hear about a 5-year-old kindergartner who was suspended from school for telling a friend that she was going to shoot her . . . with a pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles. The context of the discussion is still somewhat unclear, but the little girl was suspended for ten days (later dropped to two days) and labeled as a “terrorist threat.” Yep, a five-year-old is now a threat to the greater good of society.<br/>
<br/>
When I read that, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. The big scary five-year-old with her pink bubble shooting gun was going to wreak havoc on the world. Really?<br/>
<br/>
I get that zero tolerance was created to make rules more uniform and to send the message that schools were going to get tougher where violent crimes were concerned. Unfortunately, zero tolerance has seemed to take away common sense. When did common sense become not so common? <br/>
<br/>
I remember when my now 20-year-old daughter was in junior high. A few of the girls thought it would be funny to tie up one of the gym's bathroom stalls with paper towels. It wasn't the brightest move, sure, but they thought the next class would find it funny, which they did. My daughter, being the creative type, thought it would look even better with a bow, so she took some paper towels, made a pretty little bow out of it, and placed it on the stall. End of story, right?<br/>
<br/>
No, it resulted in a three-day suspension for “destruction of school property.” What was destroyed? A five-dollar roll of paper towels? I fought and I fought hard, clear up to the superintendent, but zero tolerance was “their rule.” Um, okay, so why did the kids who wrote with permanent marker on the bathrooms only get lunchroom duty for a week? If anything, that was destructive. <br/>
<br/>
Don’t get me wrong. I do think the girls needed some kind of punishment. While the prank was well received by the other girls, it was definitely wrong. But wouldn't a natural consequence have worked better? At most, they created maybe five extra minutes of work for the janitor, so doesn't it make more sense to have them help the janitor for a couple of days? Honestly that’s what the girls thought was going to happen, and they all felt that the prank was worth it. Had they known that suspension was the punishment, they certainly would have thought twice.<br/>
<br/>
So I ask, am I the only one who thinks zero tolerance has gone too far?</t>
<br/>
Now I hear about a 5-year-old kindergartner who was suspended from school for telling a friend that she was going to shoot her . . . with a pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles. The context of the discussion is still somewhat unclear, but the little girl was suspended for ten days (later dropped to two days) and labeled as a “terrorist threat.” Yep, a five-year-old is now a threat to the greater good of society.<br/>
<br/>
When I read that, I couldn't help but laugh out loud. The big scary five-year-old with her pink bubble shooting gun was going to wreak havoc on the world. Really?<br/>
<br/>
I get that zero tolerance was created to make rules more uniform and to send the message that schools were going to get tougher where violent crimes were concerned. Unfortunately, zero tolerance has seemed to take away common sense. When did common sense become not so common? <br/>
<br/>
I remember when my now 20-year-old daughter was in junior high. A few of the girls thought it would be funny to tie up one of the gym's bathroom stalls with paper towels. It wasn't the brightest move, sure, but they thought the next class would find it funny, which they did. My daughter, being the creative type, thought it would look even better with a bow, so she took some paper towels, made a pretty little bow out of it, and placed it on the stall. End of story, right?<br/>
<br/>
No, it resulted in a three-day suspension for “destruction of school property.” What was destroyed? A five-dollar roll of paper towels? I fought and I fought hard, clear up to the superintendent, but zero tolerance was “their rule.” Um, okay, so why did the kids who wrote with permanent marker on the bathrooms only get lunchroom duty for a week? If anything, that was destructive. <br/>
<br/>
Don’t get me wrong. I do think the girls needed some kind of punishment. While the prank was well received by the other girls, it was definitely wrong. But wouldn't a natural consequence have worked better? At most, they created maybe five extra minutes of work for the janitor, so doesn't it make more sense to have them help the janitor for a couple of days? Honestly that’s what the girls thought was going to happen, and they all felt that the prank was worth it. Had they known that suspension was the punishment, they certainly would have thought twice.<br/>
<br/>
So I ask, am I the only one who thinks zero tolerance has gone too far?</t>