Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Neil, UK on July 27, 2008:

Mia, the point about prescription drugs is that they should only be used by those to whom they were prescribed; the "charge" against Savana was distributing them as well as having them in her possession, which would have been contrary to any doctor's instruction had it been true.

Of course, this point is entirely negated in this case because the school, we are told, applied ZT to all drugs. It seems that merely mentioned the prescription aspect later as another excuse for their indefensible actions.

Posted by Luke in DC on July 29, 2008:

I would say this is unbelievable but then I'm a regular True reader.

I don't think the law should have shielded those who conducted the search. The phrase, "we were only following orders" comes to mind. A soldier is required to refuse an unjust order. A school nurse & an assistant should have the common sense to do the same. My response to the vice principal would have been, "call her parents or the police because I'm not searching her." The reality is, in order for a child to relieve menstrual cramps at school, they must:

1. Have a doctor prescribe medication for them
2. Fill out forms in triplicate for the school
3. Have to go to the school nurse to administer said drug
4. Can only go at a particular time (ie lunch)
5. Must take the pill on a daily basis in order for the school nurse to be able to administer them.

I know this because my son used to take medication for asthma and it was painful trying to get the school to administer it. We actually had to threaten a school Vice Principal with a lawsuit because he took my child's inhaler (ZT at work again). He claimed that kids were using inhalers to huff glue. I told him if my child had an asthma attack due to not having his inhaler on him because of the vice principal, not only would I sue him out of existence but I would come by the school with a baseball bat and cause him grievous bodily injury.

We took away the ability of a school nurse to actually perform nursing duties like administer pain relief or give a child something more than a band-aid for fear of getting sued. If we allowed nurses to actually be nurses, we wouldn't have this problem. Girls could just pop into the nurses office, get some motrin and head back to class.

---

The procedure you describe may be exact for your particular school district, but isn't necessarily what other districts follow. -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on July 29, 2008:

I graduated high school in 1970. Although these days it's called Zero Tolerance, it is nothing new, just a different label for mental laziness. As a child of a military family, I attended elementary and high school in several different states, and in every one, I saw the same lack of rational thought. Even then, it was plainly visible that school was never an institution of education, but simply an institution of government control over families. As a father, myself, whose children have attended different schools in various states and cities, I've found nothing to change my impression of the so-called 'educational' system. School employees, and school authorities, have always suffered from a megalomaniacal belief that they KNOW what is best for children, for the parents of children, and for society as a whole, simply because they spent some money to attend college for awhile, and now they're Educated Idiots. And I've mentioned before that the School Systems are nothing more than a 4th Branch of Government insulated from the Checks & Balances of the other three. Even a successful lawsuit can easily be dismissed as a 'miscarriage of justice which is all too common these days'.

For those who insist we not denigrate the system as a whole on the basis of boneheaded decisions of a few, I reply that the system as a whole is the very basis of those boneheaded decisions. Only the most incredible incidents make the news, and then are shortly forgotten, while people reassure themselves that it doesn't happen in THEIR hometowns.

Randy, I applaud your attempts to keep the current ludicrous concept of Zero Tolerance in the forethoughts of your readers, but I myself have long since lost faith of any possibility for change. The reason is due to 1) the lifelong evidence of its pervasiveness, and 2) I'm convinced that it's a human failing that can never be removed from the people's psyche. It's only a matter of WHICH person's Zero Tolerance decision is offensive to WHICH person's sensibilities.

Posted by Kia, MA on August 1, 2008:

I attend private school. I'm not entirely certain of the policies, but I know you can at least get suspended for having your own. Which is ridiculous -- the Lower School was done away with decades ago, leaving us with no one younger than ninth grade. And this policy holds true even after you turn eighteen -- you still need a parent or legal guardian's permission to take any sort of med. They don't search us, though. Given the concentration of socially conscious free thinkers (we're somewhat known for it), I doubt they'd be able to. We all know our Constitutional rights.

However, I don't have to justify going to see the nurse at whatever point during the day. I just need to ask -- and the nurse can give me Advil if I ask for it. He will even give it to me preventatively -- in fact, he was the one who suggested that I come in the morning before the cramps start to get it preventatively. I only keep a dose or two for those little gaps where he's not available -- on his lunch break or before he opens for the day. My summer camp works the same way -- parents fill out a form beforehand saying what I can and can't be given, and as long as I can be given it and it makes logical sense, I will be given it. (And I've never had their estimation of "logical sense" disagree with mine. They use their judgement of what to give me.)

Posted by Karl Lembke on August 4, 2008:

There have been a few comments to this post saying things like "don't judge all schools by these few incidents."

Well, that is certainly reasonable, and most sensible.

However, if I chose to approach this from a "zero tolerance" perspective, then I would most certainly hold all schools responsible for these isolated incidents, without regard to what is reasonable or sensible.

I say, zero tolerance for "zero tolerance"!

Posted by Marti from MN on September 17, 2008:

Two things: one, menstrual cramps are indeed a barrier to education, and those who have them (and in many cultures are considered mature enough to be married with their own children by reason of this same biological function) know how to administer an appropriate dose when needed. Here's a solution, if administrators are that concerned: Student's parents provide the school with a bottle of the preferred medicine. Maybe even a doctor's note (which at this point, let's face it, is nothing more than a character reference, as we are talking about an OTC drug). Student picks the medicine up at the nurse's office before classes begin on the days she thinks she might need it (mid-day, if it's a "surprise visit"). Student (along with her parents) is informed, in a written consent-to-consequences form, that she will be punished in specific ways if she violates school policy by bringing her own medicine, sharing with other students, etc.

Let's face it, schools do have a legitimate concern about kids safety and also parents overly-litigious natures. My mother, who (as a well-informed teen who carried my own ibuprofen, acetaminophen, naproxen, and generic "Benadryl" to school with me at various times when needed) lectured me constantly about not keeping drugs that looked alike in the same bag or bottle, and definitely not sharing, even if it was a friend -- had a very scary experience one day. A friend was allergic to aspirin (asthmatic reaction), but had a nasty headache. My mother offered her a generic "Tylenol" on the way to a luncheon. About an hour later...yep, you guessed it, severe (what looked like) asthmatic reaction, winding the friend up in the hospital. My mother was sick with worry and guilt -- she was certain she'd mistakenly given her friend aspirin, that she'd mistaken what was in the little pill-pouch.

Now, it didn't turn out to be the medicine (which actually was acetaminophen -- the ER doctor took one look at one of the remaining pills and absolved my mother); the friend had developed an allergy to shrimp, which she'd eaten in abundance.

The point is, if that had happened to a litigious person, a lawyer could have tried to claim contributory factors resulting from what might have been an aspirin. If it had been a school setting, the school would have been at fault, and even if the case was found in favor of the school, the cost of the trial (not to mention the publicity) could have hurt the school system badly.

So, yes, be cautious. Be overly cautious, even. But when a student has a reasonable request for accommodation, don't shout ZT -- it's pathetic and simple-minded. Kids have to become adults at some point. Let them take the scary baby-steps of it in a safe environment...and when they (inevitably) screw it up, help them learn from the mistake with sensible punishment -- whatever happened to helping the teachers perform some incredibly tedious task? Automatic suspension punishes the kid's future, not the immediate wrong-doing. Make the kid help out in the special needs classrooms, and see kids who are struggling to learn how *not* to break the rules.

I hope I haven't reiterated what others have said too much -- there were a *lot* of posts to go through, and I'll admit I gave up!

Posted by Allan, Rancho Cucamonga on December 24, 2008:

Has there been any update on this case, since this story was posted last July? Specifically, has a court date been set?

---

I haven't seen any updates on the case so far. -rc

Posted by C in Rochester on January 19, 2009:

I laud your efforts, but the real problem with zero tolerance is that there is no alternative. If you presume to inject judgment, then you'll most certainly be accused of bias because those who're disciplined probably won't reflect fairly vis-a-vis their gender or racial representation as a percentage of the student body. That's what we've seen in the past. The only thing schools CAN do is to treat every case the same. We've seen this same problem with nail-clippers and other "weapons" in the schools. It' a shame.

---

We pay our school administrators to have judgment and discretion. If they're not going to exercise it, then we need to not bother with them getting graduate degrees, and reduce their salaries to the level of the clerks they're acting like lately. Last, I hope you are ZT'd yourself so you can fully understand how ridiculous and unreasonable it is. -rc

Posted by Rafe, London UK on March 28, 2009:

If drugs for treatment of menstrual problems are too dangerous to be allowed in that school, then surely nobody should be allowed to take them into that school.

That principal would presumably not allow a teacher to bring heroin into the school, so should equally not allow any teacher to bring drugs for treatment of menstrual problems into school.

Any claim that teachers are immune to this could be quickly sorted with a few headlines in the local paper along the lines of TEACHER TAKES FORBIDDEN DANGEROUS DRUGS TO SCHOOL! PRINCIPAL REFUSES TO ACT!

Re the comments about pupils not being allowed to carry inhalers even when a delay of a few minutes would be dangerous: This is perfectly simple to solve.

The principal has decreed that it is dangerous for the pupil to carry the inhaler. The doctor has given a written opinion that the inhaler must be immediately available. The answer is obvious. The school must ensure that a trained, medically qualified adult must follow the child everywhere, carrying the inhaler. The adult must never leave the child alone even for a moment. If they have to go elsewhere they must provide a suitable substitute first. Failure to do this will amount to reckless endangerment of the child's life, and should be punished accordingly.

Randy, you say elsewhere in the comments that children have died due to these policies. Do you have a link to a list of all the dead children and the circumstances of their deaths? Every school principal who tries to implement these policies should be directed to such a list. Any later claim on their part to not have known of the dangers can then be punished as perjury.

---

There is (unfortunately) no clearinghouse for statistics on who ZT has killed. I wish there was one. -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on March 28, 2009:

"We pay our school administrators to have judgment and discretion. If they're not going to exercise it, then we need to not bother with them getting graduate degrees, and reduce their salaries to the level of the clerks they're acting like lately."

Randy, I agree with you completely, but change "school" to "corporate" and you'll see why we're paying CEOs obscene salaries to bankrupt a company and then beg for taxpayer bailout so that they can then reward themselves for bad administration. This is not a diatribe about the current economic situation so much as pointing out that they learned it from SOMEplace, like the educational system.

---

A good point indeed. Today's students, learning under ZT tyranny, are tomorrow's educators, corporate officers, cops, judges, politicians.... What, exactly, are we teaching them? -rc