Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Paul -- NJ on September 21, 2009:

It's great to see that some common sense was actually able to trump ZT stupidity. Something occurred to me now as I read the story again tho. In reference to Young's comment about the policy applying anywhere, one has to wonder if they'd try applying it when a teacher/counselor went to a student's house on "official duties"?

---

I'd guess you already know the answer to that! -rc

Posted by Aliza, California on September 21, 2009:

The truly sad thing is that it would have been perfectly possible for the school to write up an official policy that simply prohibited the consumption of alcohol at any school-related event attended by students. (You'd need common sense, of course, so that you didn't prevent your football team from having dinner on the road at a restaurant serving alcohol to an unrelated party at the next table.)

(That still doesn't explain why it was Young instead of the parents who got the book thrown at him, unless there's more to the story than the press reported.)

The lack of common sense, though, is what these ZT stories are all about.

P.S. Why on earth does it matter that Young donated his salary back to the school? Do people only get outraged about ZT idiocy when it happens to popular figures? (OK, I shouldn't have asked....)

---

It's still a fair question. One common criticism of my ZT stories is, What If they had real problems with a bad student/teacher/staff and the ZT thing was just a way to get rid of them, when other methods have failed? The answer: at least in the cases I've been writing up, there's no real sign of that. They're popular, and upstanding, giving, talented, positive people to have around, whether honor students, teachers who donate their salaries back to the school, or whatever. You're right that it "shouldn't" matter, but no, they're not just using ZT as an excuse to get rid of someone terrible, they're using ZT to get rid of someone who's wonderful. -rc

Posted by Jeff (Wilmington, Delaware) on September 21, 2009:

Young was definitely smart to put forward a hypothetical, which was the proper way to point the finger at the policy, rather than at the person who had done the firing. It doesn't matter that whoever fired him is actually at fault, but if you want your job back, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Posted by Patricia, Michigan on September 21, 2009:

Few things gets my dander up more than the idiocy of Zero Tolerance! Although the Superintendent made the correct decision to reinstate Coach Young, she needs to take the thought process one step further and fire the Principal for HER poor decision making.

Here you have a well-liked member of your staff, he's basically been working for FREE for 5 years while giving his team the essential and non-essential (but nice to have) equipment AND he's on his own PRIVATE property WITH his students' PARENTS in attendance (pretty much one-up on ANY school permission slip). Are all graduating Seniors in danger of being expelled or losing their diplomas when they have a Graduation Party and the adults bring alcohol to consume?

If this is an example of the types of decisions coming out of the Principal's office, I would have serious questions about her competency. I mean, I could understand it IF the party was busted by the police, IF someone got drunk and caused an accident or IF one of the girls was hurt in any way, but the only way the school was embarrassed was by the Principal's own inept decision.

It's gratifying to know that THIS ZT situation was handled with a modicum of sense and, yes, tolerance!

Posted by Willa (Reston, VA) on September 22, 2009:

I'm taken aback a bit by this update. After reading the original story, I looked up Brad Young and found him on Facebook...wrote to him and added him to my friends. He also had a group page on Facebook in support of the two coaches affected by the ZT action.

All of Coach Young's friends and supporters on Facebook were anxiously awaiting word of his reinstatement after his hearing with Superintendent Linda Burgee (July 30), waiting all through the month of August, many of us expressing dismay that he had not heard her decision yet. Brad himself posted a few times during that period that he was still waiting, and he did not announce the rehiring until September 3rd. So if Superintendent Burgee was telling the truth ~ that she informed Brad of this early in August ~ then she must've instructed him to be silent about it for more than a month! Something doesn't add up.

In any case, I'm delighted that he and fellow coach Danny Cleveland were rehired (the latter was just announced yesterday!)

---

I hope you will point coach Young to this page. He should know his support is widespread. -rc

Posted by Matthew, Chicago on September 22, 2009:

When I first read this, It occurred to me that one way to make the point would be for an irked parent to bring a 6 pack to a school board meeting with the superintendent present. That would make the superintendent 'guilty' of the same crime.

Better: a parent or group of parents show up at the superintendent's home claiming to want to talk about official school business, and then point out the bottle of wine in the fridge.

I am relieved (and disappointed) that the issue was resolved without the need for guerrilla cleverness.

Posted by Stephen, Birmingham (England) on September 25, 2009:

You mentioned in your reply the Aliza's comment that there is often a query about what if the person had actually done something wrong and ZT was just a way of getting rid of them.

As a former union steward I have seen a lot of cases where someone should legitimately have been sacked for something they did, or failed to do, but management have gone for them on something unrelated because it was 'easier'. In the vast majority of these cases the person has kept their job, or successfully appealed and either been taken back or compensated, because the case that was brought was either bogus or fatally flawed. If management later go after that person for what they actually did then that case is tainted by the earlier failure and is open to accusations of victimisation and falsehood ("They've made things up before, look what they're making up now!") so making it harder to prove.

That is not a hypothetical, a few years ago I helped a friend who is a parent-governor at the school his children attend in preparation of a case to sack a teacher who had been found to be committing offenses involving inappropriate sexual behaviour with a child. Two previous attempts to sack him for other things (technical breaches of procedure, not quite ZT but close enough) had failed because there was no evidence. This meant that when the case for what he had actually done was brought it was tainted with a suspicion of victimisation and harrassment. Even the police and crown prosecution service were loathe to get involved because of the stigma.

ZT is seen by those who use it as easier. They don't have to think, they don't have to investigate, they don't have to look at mitigation, they don't have to provide evidence that can survive even cursory (let alone rigorous) examination and testing. All they have to do is say what they thought they saw, not bothering themselves with the actual facts, and let the knee jerk reaction take effect. This serves nobody (especially not the wrongly accused nor the actual victims) except possibly the lawyers billing hours to deal with appeals and counter suits. It certainly does not serve justice.

Posted by Bill, Davidson, NC on September 26, 2009:

The tragedy of these incredibly stupid examples of ZT is that ZT is really needed for real problems. As a 38-year teacher in public schools I've seen far too many incidents where assault, battery, possession of real weapons or open alcohol and a variety of crimes that would get children arrested at the mall are excused by administrators because "he didn't mean to bring that gun" or because the parents had social status or wealth or political connections. Zero Tolerance for knives should extend to a sharpened screw driver, but not to a 1/2" pocket knife left in a pair of jeans after a camping weekend. Zero Tolerance should apply to a student who repeatedly (for 3 years) threatens another in subtle, sneaky and vicious ways, but not to the victim who finally slugs him once after three years of requests for a "restraining order" have been ignored by the principal. And perhaps most pernicious is the bullying. Years ago I worked with an African-American assistant principal who rightly responded quickly to verbal assaults involving racism, but totally ignored similar homophobic character assassination as "just funning". One such problem festered for over 2 years with the gay (quiet, scholarly) boy suffered his daily humiliation from the brassy bully in silence. When he decided, rationally, to respond with a well-placed punch he was charged with assault and the verbal assaulter was treated with care and concern.

I wish I had a dollar (inflationary value) for every minor but real incident that was not addressed which later blew up into a real fight where early counseling or negotiation could have resolved the real or imagined problem.

The problem with ZT is it's an excuse for administrators to add another knee jerk and not think.

Posted by Patricia, Michigan on September 26, 2009:

Bill from Davidson, NC is absolutely correct in his assessment of the need for true and logical ZT. There seems to be no logic applied at the "Principal" level today.

10 to 15 years ago, I volunteered at my children's elementary school to help supplement the teacher in helping students with their classroom work. There were a couple of children who would disrupt while everyone else was trying to complete the work, so I would end up in a glorified broom closet with the disrupting students haranguing me, instead of sending them to the Principals office for discipline or detention. The teacher actually told me that they were specifically told NOT to send the children to them and that it was the teacher's job to deal with the situation (all while trying to teach 27 OTHER students).

Middle school was better, but high school was even worse. I actually witnessed 6 boys jump one boy in the library at the start of my youngest daughter's senior year while picking up her schedule and the teachers and counselors just stood around watching until a beefy gym teacher finally showed up. I was amazed and dumbfounded. This wasn't the first time issues came up. We actually had at least two first-rate teachers resign because of the lack of control the administration had over the 'children', one actually had a nervous breakdown after teaching for 15 years.

Posted by Jennifer, Astoria, NY on September 26, 2009:

Bill, what you are describing is the exact opposite of Zero Tolerance. What you are describing requires someone at some level to make a decision about when something that seems not ok is, in fact, excusable (Though there are those that would argue that punching someone in the face is never excusable, even when it is understandable.)