Hacker News Reader

> Cameras in classrooms, body cams on teachers, school police and lock up the little darlings will take a bite out of it.

This has been the status quo in many schools for a while now. Whether or not it helped is unclear and a subject of ongoing debate. If you want things to change, you need a novel intervention.

As for zero tolerance policies, they are exhausting to implement and feel deeply unjust to everyone involved. Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good. But if one doesn’t, the policy is no longer zero tolerance.

Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good.

If they are expelled for defending themselves the policies need to change. The cameras should provide evidence they were defending themselves. When enough violent kids are removed the incidence of having to defend one's self should be reduced with time.

That's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter. Defending yourself means you participated in violence and you're punished for it. Zero-tolerance is a horrible idea in general, and only sense in the context of protecting the institution from liability.

That's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter.

Your definition of zero tolerance does not align with mine. Mine is that there is the instigators are removed from the picture without question or debate and everyone else continues on with their education in a safer space. When a school also punishes those defending themselves they and their board members must be sued.

Allowing violent instigators is one of the many ways we end up with mass shooters. That and bad diets, off label prescription drugs.

I might even push for creating curriculum for teaching how to deal with violent and/or unstable people both online and in person and grade people on how well they defend themselves online and in person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance

> A zero-tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero-tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history.

If you use "zero tolerance" to mean "zero tolerance for starting a fight" you need to make that very clear, because that's not how it's used in schools currently.

because that's not how it's used in schools currently.

That's school districts being lazy. That is clearly the first thing that need to be prioritized and resolved nation wide in all first world countries. The instigators must be removed from the picture without debate.

We already have a phrase for "if you start a fight you get punished"

The phrase is "normal, non-zero-tolerance policy"

As long as "if you start a fight you get punished" includes verbiage that means kicking out the instigator without debate regardless of crocodile tears and threats of lawsuit then I'm fine with that. The end result must be zero tolerance of instigating violence.

And it gets extended even more absurdly. I recall reading about a student being expelled for bringing cutlery to serve cake they brought in. But there's zero tolerance for knives, so what can you do?

If you don’t like this outcome, you should not support zero tolerance policies.

Zero tolerance denotes a policy where the root causes do not affect the consequences.

There’s no zero tolerance policy where “providing evidence” is an effective defense.

This is a retcon of the original meaning of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means the instigators are removed from the picture without question. If it is documented or implemented otherwise then we will have to fix it and schools will have to stop being lazy.

You don’t need any creepy surveillance tech, just teachers with the proper rights to punish those who violate the rules.

As long as teachers can’t say or do anything without parents rushing to the school and threatening with lawsuits, nothing will change, no matter how much surveillance tech we throw at the problem.

Yep, a proper whack, in my opinion, will solve many problems.

Also it should legally be allowed to whack a parent, as long as it is justified.

That is what school police or local police and sheriff are for. They are taught when whacking or more is appropriate and their job requires they accept the risk. Teachers should not be required to accept this risk even if they are physically capable.

Cops in the U.S. don’t accept risk; they shoot whatever makes them nervous.

Yeah, I remember these videos when there is a school shooter and cops are just chilling outside.

I'd be not against the idea of teacher-whaking feature. Also, if there is a kid who bullies my kid, I'd not be against the idea to whack a parent of that kid, if nothing else works.

Obviously everything should be at the reasonable level.

I am heavily against the idea that certain powers should be centralized into a single entity.

You can’t require mandatory attendance AND have zero-X policies. It’s impossible. Something has to give.

The attendance of the violent kids will have to give.

Not everybody even deserves school. Unfortunately, society benefits from everyone having at least some education, so making school non compulsory could have more detrimental effects with overall poorer education in the populace. With that said, I'm all for removing disruptive kids from classrooms, but they would need a more controlled environment, which is hardly feasible.

We used to have them, but most have been removed or are no longer considered acceptable options - various boarding schools for “troubled” children or military school.

I'd wager if anyone actually studied the effect of mandatory attendance on that bottom percentile of persistently violent, disruptive students, they'd find almost no improvement in their outcomes. Yet their presence has a demonstrable negative effect on other students and teachers alike. The right approach would be to base attendance policies on science, not wishful ideology.

As usual when the realities are ignored for fairy-tale dream stories. The rich and powerful don’t care to try to fix it because they have their kids in private schools anyway, and the upper middle class can move to areas the worst poor can’t afford.

So only the working poor have to suffer. But at least they’re told it is a righteous suffering.

> It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.

It's not very clear cut but sometimes it seems like kids just end up being punished for having bad parents.

> it seems like kids just end up being punished for having bad parents

Yeah, hard to make the right call, depends on the age and maturity of the kid I guess. I myself is a product of "bad parents", and it was reflected in my own behavior up until I was 15-16 years old, when I started realizing what I was doing really had an impact on my fellow humans, so at one point I started consciously working on myself to not be like that anymore.

So a 6 year old will most definitely just be a product of how the parents act, but once you get older you need to also take responsibility for how you yourself are as a person. What exact age that is seems to differ by country.

This is the crux of the matter and any "solution" offered that ignores that young children are primarily the product of their parenting is no solution at all

Well, this gets dark really fast but the scientific solution is to sterilize the kids and their parents to end a bad blood line. Obviously that will never be legal to do. It won't solve doctors prescribing off-label anti-psychotic drugs, people eating garbage and excessive drinking of fermented crap which leads to compulsive behavior.

> but the scientific solution is to sterilize the kids and their parents to end a bad blood line

Not even a good solution, the amount of good people we'd be missing out on would be huge. Plenty of great people come from shit parents/backgrounds.

How do we break the cycle?

If there is risk of getting less great people, should we even risk that by breaking the cycle?

Yes. The earths population could be decimated and society would continue on. We could certainly benefit by losing the violent ones.

> The earths population could be decimated and society would continue on

Which it has, in the past, multiple times. But how would we know if we're better off with those "decimation events" or not? Kind of hard to know without some alternative reality where those didn't happen.

Well, I guess we have to run some experiments decimating the earth then list the pros and cons. Someone else can write the thesis, of course.

"We should sterilize 90% of the population because we can" is certainly one of the opinions of all time.

> I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.

I feel that this would only further embitter the violent children and would cause more problems than it would theoretically solve.

>zero tolerance on violence

Why do you think kids should be punished for getting bullied?

Edited to say instigating violence.

>I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.

Children didn't "earn" being born to shit heads. Fuck off.

Children didn't "earn" being born to shit heads. Fuck off.

No thanks. If it can be proven the parents are negligent or responsible there are processes in place for this too. Whether or not a state or provincial government has the wherewithal to invoke the process is another question.

They must've done bad shit in a prior life.