Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

[Joecool]

Seems that zero tolerance doesn't allow for common sense.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm not sure that it would create much strain.

Possibly true. However, consider Dragon Lady's post # 103.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'll post and run here. As a teen/young adult, I suffered debilitating cramps every month. I also broke school rules, and carried my own meds in my purse.

For one thing, I absolutely HATED having to ask a male staff member if I could go to the nurse's station, but if I didn't ask I wouldn't have time before the tardy bell. So it meant going to class, seeking out the teacher, explaining I was going to see the nurse, then waiting for the nurse...all to get the friggin' Tylenol or Midol or whatever I had already purchased for myself but wasn't allowed to simply carry on my person.

Repeat that routine two or three times a day for the first two or three days of every period, and you start getting damn tired of having to explain yourself -and teachers would often stop allowing it, thinking you were just blowing off 15 minutes or more of class to goof off (or go smoke cigarettes).

Thank you for this post! I was hoping to get female input on this, and you've nailed it. As intrusive as having to ask male authority figures to go see the nurse for menstrual cramps as it would be for an adult woman, this must be multiplied several times for adolescent girls.

 

[TimCallahan]

Once shool let out she's no longer the liability of the school. Zero tolerance sends the message that it intends to send. You cannot do it. Period the end.

Whenever I see these conversations spin out, I see lots of drama and very little logic.

What is the harm in a student leaving the medication with the nurse and taking it in front of the nurse?

So, the important message that so needs sending here is that, even if you are in pain, you may not have a completely legal, over-ther-counter, non-prescription medication in your possession, because we have a zero tolerance policy for addictive drugs, such as methamphetamines. Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense.

 

[TimCallahan]

So you aren't actually opposed to the zero tolerance policy, but to the extent of the punishment?

What is this thread about then?

In the stories I've heard on the subject, the authorities have reacted to comparatively minor infractions in a gratuitous manner. That's what I'm against. It's one thing to say, "School policy is that students should not have medications in their possession and should not bring weapons to school. It is quite another once the term Zero Tolerance is invoked. Then kitchen knives are equated with switchblades, and Midol with meth. Then, becuase of zero tolerance, kids get suspended from school because their parents packed a kitchen knife in their lunch box, honor students are suspended and treated as criminals for having Midol in their purses while they're suffering from menstrual cramps, etc.

For my part, there should be no problem with girls having Midol in their purses. It simply shouldn't be the school's business. However, since some schools have problems with students taking over the counter medications without supervision (again, with respect to this policy, see Dragon Lady's post #103), such a policy would be considerably less onerous were the penalties more in keeping with the minor level of the infractions.

I hope this is sufficient clarification o my position.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

That was not my intent. I meant a policy of "if it's OTC you can do whatever you want", which is basically the position that you seem to be advocating. Things like the abuse of OTC cough suppressents comes immediately to mind.

This should be a regulatory issue at the point of sale. Why are kids allowed to buy these drugs legally, without the permission of their parents or anyone else?

So should a parent should be able to restrict the OTC medications their 15-year old child takes?

Because if the answer to this is "yes", then it is the same answer for the school. Because the school, while the child is in their care, is acting in loco parentis. Because they have to care for hundreds of children, though, not just the few that are their own, they have to have some sort of system so they know what's going on and they are sure the parent knows what's going on.

The FDA is not going to disallow it for anyone, they leave it to the parents to make that decision. ANd the parents are assumed to be responsible for the child.

The school policy also leaves it to the parent to make that decision, with the caveat that, since they are responsible for the children for a significant time, they are made aware of the medications the children are taking and insure that they are taken safely and appropriately. This is because the school is acting in place of the parents for the time the children are there.

Your argument basically comes down to "parents can't have any oversight of their children's use of over-the-counter medications".

That is not my argument at all, and it ignores the circumstances that make these cases newsworthy. The schools are not leaving the decision to the parents. They are enforcing their own policy, which the parents think is ridiculous.

 

[Hellbound]

This should be a regulatory issue at the point of sale. Why are kids allowed to buy these drugs legally, without the permission of their parents or anyone else?

Because the person is a minor, and the parents are assumed to be responsible.

That is not my argument at all, and it ignores the circumstances that make these cases newsworthy. The schools are not leaving the decision to the parents. They are enforcing their own policy, which the parents think is ridiculous.

Actually, no. Many people think suspension for OTC drugs is ridiculous, and most parents are probably in that group. Parents as a group don't think the policy of having drugs kept at the nurses office is ridiculous, as I am an example of a parent that finds it perfectly reasonable.

The fact of the matter is that the school is responsible for the safety of the child while the child is at school. While a parent might trust their child to take OTC medications responsibly, the school can make no such assumption. Therefore, it sets policies that allow it to insure the safety of the students.

If you want to release schools of all liability for the safety of students in their care with regard to improper use of any medication, then fine. But if we hold the school responsible for the safety of the students, then they have a right and a responsibility to set policies to insure that safety.

 

[DragonLady]

The schools are not leaving the decision to the parents. They are enforcing their own policy, which the parents think is ridiculous.

This.

A few years ago, the school gave my son a Saturday detention. I was madder than hell, because I had plans that weekend, and they ruined them.

When I complained, and said "Never, ever, ever tell ME what to do on a Saturday again" they tried to say: "It's HIS choice."

Wrong. He's a 10-year-old boy, and the same school just a week before was saying he couldn't use his own bottled saline solution to rinse an inflamed eyeball, but OTOH thought he could make the decisions for how the whole family would spend a weekend.

The fact is, schools want to enforce whatever they want to, and force compliance by instituting ridiculous penalties that are completely out of line and defy common sense.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The fact of the matter is that the school is responsible for the safety of the child while the child is at school. While a parent might trust their child to take OTC medications responsibly, the school can make no such assumption. Therefore, it sets policies that allow it to insure the safety of the students.

If you want to release schools of all liability for the safety of students in their care with regard to improper use of any medication, then fine. But if we hold the school responsible for the safety of the students, then they have a right and a responsibility to set policies to insure that safety.

Very well said.

I would only add that children can overdose and misuse OTC drugs, even nice ones like Midol. But especially not so nice ones, like cough syrups and decongestants. Having a nurse monitor the administration does not preclude these things, but it does make it harder.

 

[Hellbound]

The fact is, some schools want to enforce whatever they want to, and force compliance by instituting ridiculous penalties that are completely out of line and defy common sense.

I made a correction to a statement that I find more accurate.

I apologize that you've had bad experiences, but not all schools are like this. I've had no problems with my children and their medications at the schools they've attended, nor other issues like Saturday detention problems. And as to medications, both my children have mild asthma, my oldest has allergies, and my younger has had kidney problems as well as suffering from chronic headaches for about 6 months. We had no issue nor problems with the medications for all those conditions being kept at the nurses office.

And speaking of Saturday detention, I've actually been able to reschedule that with one school due to a conflict of plans.

People are taking the most extreme examples and generalizing them across the entire school system...I don't think that's the right way to approach it.


More generally (i.e.-not to you specifically, DL):
In any case, this is getting far off topic, and I feel I've made my position clear. If you don't agree, you don't agree, and that's fine. We can have differing opinions, and that's fine. I just don't see how the school can be responsible for the safety of the students yet be denied the means to insure that safety, and that's the foundation of my position. I'm not opposed to changes, as I said I don't think I'd have a problem with the students being able to carry OTC medication if there were a note from the parents, for example. But I think it's unreasonable to assume the school should have no involvement at all.

 

[Hellbound]

Very well said.

I would only add that children can overdose and misuse OTC drugs, even nice ones like Midol. But especially not so nice ones, like cough syrups and decongestants. Having a nurse monitor the administration does not preclude these things, but it does make it harder.

Just as an aside, some "nice" drugs can be very dangerous. Ibuprofen is a perfect example. I assisted in treating a person who came to the ER in Germany for an overdose. He'd taken valium, hydrocodone, and Ibuprofen.

The ibuprofen was by far the most dangerous. It takes a lot to do it, but symptoms of ibuprofen overdose include things like "sudden cardiac death" and "sudden respiratory failure". We had to check vitals every five minutes for the next 4 hours, and every 15 minutes for the next 4, and so on.

OTC drugs are OTC because they are considered safe when used at the dosages and with the instructions on their label. Going off-label for use can be very dangerous, depending on what is done.

As a parent, I would be very upset if my children were taking OTC drugs without my knowledge. I can't fault the school for having the same attitude.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Because the person is a minor, and the parents are assumed to be responsible.

That is a non-answer. The state makes no such assumption with tobacco or alcohol. If parental oversight is so important with OTC meds, then why are kids allowed to buy them without parental permission?

Actually, no. Many people think suspension for OTC drugs is ridiculous, and most parents are probably in that group. Parents as a group don't think the policy of having drugs kept at the nurses office is ridiculous, as I am an example of a parent that finds it perfectly reasonable.

The fact of the matter is that the school is responsible for the safety of the child while the child is at school. While a parent might trust their child to take OTC medications responsibly, the school can make no such assumption. Therefore, it sets policies that allow it to insure the safety of the students.

If you want to release schools of all liability for the safety of students in their care with regard to improper use of any medication, then fine. But if we hold the school responsible for the safety of the students, then they have a right and a responsibility to set policies to insure that safety.

I think schools should be released from liability for OTC meds. I don't think they should be punishing students for something that is neither dangerous nor illegal.

 

[luchog]

So should a parent should be able to restrict the OTC medications their 15-year old child takes?

Because if the answer to this is "yes", then it is the same answer for the school. Because the school, while the child is in their care, is acting in loco parentis. Because they have to care for hundreds of children, though, not just the few that are their own, they have to have some sort of system so they know what's going on and they are sure the parent knows what's going on.
(...)
Your argument basically comes down to "parents can't have any oversight of their children's use of over-the-counter medications".

No, the argument comes down to "Schools, while they do have limited in loco parentis responsibilities, are not parents, and should not be making decisions about a child's health and welfare above an beyond what the child's parents decide (ignored the fringe cases such as abuse I'm sure someone'll drag up otherwise) and what reasonable safety and security would mandate. And as many have made abundantly clear, Zero Tolerance rules are ultimately not driven by the best interests of the child; but by fear of lawsuits, and/or outright incompetence on the part of school officials.

The answer is not more Zero Tolerance, because that's been effectively demonstrated to cause more problems than it solves; particularly since it hasn't been demonstrated to actually solve any problems. The problem is better managing of schools, better policing of real problems, and tort reform. Any system that removes human judgement from the equation is a bad system.

 

[Hellbound]

No, the argument comes down to "Schools, while they do have limited in loco parentis responsibilities, are not parents, and should not be making decisions about a child's health and welfare above an beyond what the child's parents decide (ignored the fringe cases such as abuse I'm sure someone'll drag up otherwise) and what reasonable safety and security would mandate. And as many have made abundantly clear, Zero Tolerance rules are ultimately not driven by the best interests of the child; but by fear of lawsuits, and/or outright incompetence on the part of school officials.

The answer is not more Zero Tolerance, because that's been effectively demonstrated to cause more problems than it solves; particularly since it hasn't been demonstrated to actually solve any problems. The problem is better managing of schools, better policing of real problems, and tort reform. Any system that removes human judgement from the equation is a bad system.

To be clear, I have, in this very thread, argued against zero tolerance policies. I have argued, however, that requiring the school to be aware of OTC medications is not an unreasonable request.

I agree that zero tolerance policies are counterproductive and damaging, and I thought I made that point clear. Apologies if I fell short on that.

ETA: I've also stated that I would have no problem with allowing OTC medications on the basis of a note from the parents. As you said, the school is not the parents, and I think allowing OTC medications with out making sure of parental approval is just as irresponsible as disallowing them regardless of parental consent.

 

[truethat]

This isn't true (or at least varies by State). The official policy in New Mexico is that the school is responsible for children from "door to door".



Hassle and convenience. If she wants to take a Midol she has to go to the nurse during her passing period, wait for the other kids to take their medication, and then get to her next class before the bell rings.

Yes. Not that many kids are lined up with their Midol bottles you know.

 

[Vortigern99]

Yes. Not that many kids are lined up with their Midol bottles you know.

On what basis should a minority among the whole be treated differently? Either liberty extends to all within the scope of legal, safe behavior, or the system is worthless.

Go on and roll your eyes at restricting freedoms of small percentages of the total population, see how well that works out.

 

[DragonLady]

Yes. Not that many kids are lined up with their Midol bottles you know.

Under the rules that were current the last time I had a child in school, none of them were. All medicines had to be in their original containers, and left at the nurse's station. They would then dispense them when the student requested or (I assume) as prescribed.

But walking around with any OTC medications or any prescription that might be needed at a moment's notice (an inhaler or an epipen or an insulin dose) was cause for suspension; no exceptions. Thus, we get stories of the kid who defied the rules by carrying their prescriptions getting suspended for offering their meds to another student if they believe it's needed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I would disagree, as this is the policy for all the schools in my current district, and in most others my children have atteneded. Seems fairly common. If it were cost-prohibative, I would expect that to be reflected in current budgets where this is the policy. Add to this that Midol (just to take the OP example) offers an extended capsule good for 12 hours...can be given at home and no need to involve the school at all. This is true for many medication with 8-hour or longer times, which covers quite a bit.

Unless you think that the time of the school nurse, and storage space at the school clinic, and the organisational overheads involved all have zero value this response just avoids the question. All you are saying is "it must be possible to do it, because they do it", but we are all very well aware that they do it. That is not being contested. What is under debate is whether it is worth doing.

Or to say the same thing in a simpler way, you are equivocating between cost-prohibitive and cost-ineffective. They are two different things.

And the school policy (again, at least the ones I am familiar with) make a specific exception for medications of this sort to be kept on the student's person, usually needing a copy of the prescription and a note from the parent.

This seems to me like another instance of equivocation. The topic was zero tolerance policies, and you seem to be talking about reasonable tolerance policies. If students are allowed to have meds on their person as long as they have reasonable justification I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.

The benefits are mainly in the schools capacity as surrogates for the parents.

The cost is in the school over-reaching itself by thinking that it should be allowed to overrule reasonable parental decisions about whether a child should have immediate access to medication for things like headaches or period pain without having to beg permission from multiple teachers who might or might not decide to be difficult about it.

You are trying to create a false dichotomy by arguing as if anyone who has a problem with zero tolerance for students carrying and using some OTC medications under some circumstances must want a complete open season on children possessing and using OTC medications.

There's a middle ground between the insanity you favour and an equally insane opposite position.

 

[Hellbound]

This seems to me like another instance of equivocation. The topic was zero tolerance policies, and you seem to be talking about reasonable tolerance policies. If students are allowed to have meds on their person as long as they have reasonable justification I don't know anyone who has a problem with that.

Actually, many are arguing against even a reasonable policy, and I've tried to make clear that the reasonable policy is all I'm arguing for. I've repeatedly stated I am against zero tolerance policies.

I've mainly been arguing against those stating that any policy concerning OTC medications is some sort of violation of freedoms.

The cost is in the school over-reaching itself by thinking that it should be allowed to overrule reasonable parental decisions about whether a child should have immediate access to medication for things like headaches or period pain without having to beg permission from multiple teachers who might or might not decide to be difficult about it.

You are trying to create a false dichotomy by arguing as if anyone who has a problem with zero tolerance for students carrying and using some OTC medications under some circumstances must want a complete open season on children possessing and using OTC medications.

There's a middle ground between the insanity you favour and an equally insane opposite position.

I can only guess you've missed my posts, and the responses to them, in this thread. I am not creating the dichotomy you've indicated here. I've consistently argued that:
1. Due to the schools responsibilities regarding the safety of students, some sort of policy on medications, even OTC mediciations, is reasonable.
2. Requiring them to be kept in the nurses office, while perhaps not the best policy, does solve many of the issues. While it may not be optimal, I don't find it to be irrational.
3. Zero tolerance policies, treating OTC medications the same as any other drug violations, are ineffective means of enforcement of the policies.

Yet others have comes back to claim that ANY policy regarding OTC drugs, besides "let the kids take them whenever and however they want", is some sort of restriction of freedoms.

I don't favor an insane position, which would be clear if you read my posts in this thread. That middle ground you're mentioning has been my position all along, so I fail to see how you can claim a false dichotomy when the middle is what I've been arguing for.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Actually, many are arguing against even a reasonable policy, and I've tried to make clear that the reasonable policy is all I'm arguing for. I've repeatedly stated I am against zero tolerance policies.

I've mainly been arguing against those stating that any policy concerning OTC medications is some sort of violation of freedoms.



I can only guess you've missed my posts, and the responses to them, in this thread. I am not creating the dichotomy you've indicated here. I've consistently argued that:
1. Due to the schools responsibilities regarding the safety of students, some sort of policy on medications, even OTC mediciations, is reasonable.
2. Requiring them to be kept in the nurses office, while perhaps not the best policy, does solve many of the issues. While it may not be optimal, I don't find it to be irrational.
3. Zero tolerance policies, treating OTC medications the same as any other drug violations, are ineffective means of enforcement of the policies.

Yet others have comes back to claim that ANY policy regarding OTC drugs, besides "let the kids take them whenever and however they want", is some sort of restriction of freedoms.

I don't favor an insane position, which would be clear if you read my posts in this thread. That middle ground you're mentioning has been my position all along, so I fail to see how you can claim a false dichotomy when the middle is what I've been arguing for.

I would argue that misuse of OTC meds is generally not a pressing concern, with the possible exception of people who intentionally OD on OTC cough suppressants. Apparently the FDA doesn't think this is enough of a problem to restrict sales.

But my objection lies with the penalties schools are meting out, rather than the policy per se. Suppose a kid is found with a bottle of ibuprofen. If it's against school policy, and the teacher or administrator confiscates it and reports it to the parents, fine. If it results in a suspension or any kind of punishment, I think that is stupid.