Zero Tolerance explained

We're beginning to understand what this "Zero Tolerance" thing is all about.

Kimberly Swygert at Number 2 Pencil has an excellent post about an extremely normal 13-year old who did something harmless on his school computer network, breaking no rules of any sort, getting him suspended for three days.

First read her post (quoting from James Taranto's Best of the Web and columnist Dave Lieber)--she tells it much better than we can--then come back here.

Earlier this week in "Zero Tolerance: Death of Due Process " we wrote that Zero Tolerance policies essentially teach kids that the adults of the school are out of control, and that this is the wrong message to send.

But what we're coming to realize, especially in this case of student Carl versus teacher Ms. Sweeney, is that Zero Tolerance is because the adults are out of control!

Ms. Swygert writes, "Ms. Sweeney's demand for Carl's suspension and her comparison of his behavior to hacking demonstrates a profound ignorance of computers and how children learn to use them."

We'd go one step further, to say that Ms. Sweeney knew exactly that what Carl did was harmless, but that he threatened her turf. Since teachers cannot permit themselves to be one-upped by students, (even intelligent and curious and well-behaved students such as Carl), they must be put in their place.

Ms. Sweeney's little domain is the computer lab, and gosh darn it, she's going to be the master of her domain.

Hence her DefCon-4 response to Carl's actions, along with her histrionic rationalizations about how "the public just doesn't understand." We think someone needs to retire, and soon.

Add this to the ten thousand reasons why we desperately need school choice for all students.