Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

[beren]

Okay, that's a good point. However, I suspect the cramping is worse initially in the teen years. Even if only 25 girls are going to the nurse's office a day, that would add quite a strain.

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

 

[Vortigern99]

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?

The authoritarian establishment of "zero tolerance" for a legal, safe, over the counter medication is excessively restrictive. There is no "drama" inherent in calling for local government offices (IE, the school board and/or city council) to permit minors to exercise personal liberties, including the freedom to self-medicate with safe, legal, non-prescription drugs at their own discretion.

The "harm" in giving legal medication to a school nurse to dispense at his/her discretion is that it unnecessarily and irrationally restricts liberty. It further places a burden of expediency on the student, who is expected between classes to traverse the school campus in order to obtain legal medicine which is rightfully the student's, a burden which may not be convenient and which may increase stress, along with adding the pressure of reaching the next class on-time, lest the student be penalized for tardiness which may lead to detention, suspension, etc.

And to what end, exactly? Limiting freedoms in this way is arbitrary and smacks of "because I said so" authoritarianism.

 

[DragonLady]

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).

 

[Vortigern99]

Tell it like it is, Dragon Lady! That's exactly what I'm talking about. I happen to have had some experience in this area myself, for while I'm a man who's thankfully never suffered from menstrual cramps (except via sympathy with my wife), I'm a Type-1 diabetic who between classes in high school had to go to the nurse's office to obtain the life-saving, legal, over-the-counter medication insulin, which I require to avoid coma and death. Insipid, because-I-said-so authoritarianism.

 

[DragonLady]

Insipid, because-I-said-so authoritarianism.

Yes; it's really a form of bullying.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And they have. And the protocol is to leave it with the nurse that way when a student is taking medication on school grounds, they are being supervised by a medical profession.

You know, a GOOOD solution.............

I think Vortigern99 and DragonLady have established that the costs to the zero-tolerance approach to the students are significant, and the cost of having the school nurse manage the meds for potentially thousands of students is also going to be non-trivial.

That's apart from the previously mentioned cost of at least one child dying because their asthma inhaler was in the nurse's office not in the child's pocket. That's a cost too.

I'm not at all clear what you think the benefits are that outweigh these costs.

 

[blutoski]

According to the kid's cousin, it really was one clearly not serious outburst. They didn't have a school shrink interview the kid first or anything like that. Sending him to a mental ward was the first and last step when he made the so-called "threat". Of course, the person telling me this was the boy's cousin and he was relating what the kid and mutual relatives had told him. So it was, admittedly, a second-hand account from a potentially biased person.

Again: a school does not have the power to pack up a kid, transport them to a completely unrelated facility, and order them to hold somebody against their will for four days no questions asked. That is a very serious legal power that is restricted to psychiatric intake and the psychiatrist has to justify it to all parties since disputes can and do end up in court. All the cousin can say is that the school may have reported it to the parents. At some point, the kid was physically brought to a psychiatric intake environment for a structured interview by somebody.

The kid's cousin was not present during the psychiatric interview so would not know what factors led to the involuntary assignment.

Or the kid fabricated the story.

Either way... would removing ZT really make this situation better? It would mean that a teacher who felt a kid was getting squirrelly could use their own judgement without guidelines to pack him off to a mental institution.

So, as with some above comments, I'm not sure if the issue is ZT or questioning teacher judgement (the latter is what ZT is trying to mitigate).

I agree that sometimes a "joke" can be a real threat, veiled in faux innocence. But sometimes a joke is just that: a joke.

I work with troubled teens who sometimes give me a huge headache. I've privately joked about murdering my students. I've joked about killing myself, too. As you might be able to tell, I'm still here. Otherwise, I wouldn't be typing this right now. Oh, and all of my students are perfectly fine and dandy, thank you very much. Physically, that is. What is going on upstairs is a different story!

Yes, but that's the challenge. The narrative is that teachers are too stupid to use zero tolerance, but yet simultaneously smart enough to tell when a kid who says he's going to hang himself is 'just joking'. For most parents, this is the environment the kid stays in 8+ hours per day and most rank safety as a high priority.

It's led to this damned-if-you-do;damned-if-you-don't situation where ZT may be the best solution from a liability standpoint, even though there are occasional optics blunders.

You've never said anything like "I could kill you for that!" or "This job is going to kill me" ? Not once in your life?

The first one, no, not at work. The second one, maybe. I don't think they're the same.

 

[Hellbound]

I think Vortigern99 and DragonLady have established that the costs to the zero-tolerance approach to the students are significant, and the cost of having the school nurse manage the meds for potentially thousands of students is also going to be non-trivial.

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.

That's apart from the previously mentioned cost of at least one child dying because their asthma inhaler was in the nurse's office not in the child's pocket. That's a cost too.

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. I would be suprised if this isn't pretty much standard at public schools. It wouldn't suprise me to know that a similar policy existed, even at that location, and the parents simply never read the manual to know the policy or followed the steps required to allow the child to have the inhaler on his person. That being said, without knowing the details, that's just speculation.

I'm not at all clear what you think the benefits are that outweigh these costs.

The benefits are mainly in the schools capacity as surrogates for the parents. A lot of the policy is to make sure that:
The parent knows the child is taking medication
The school knows the child is taking medication
The school nurse knows what medications the child is taking, so as to better recognize drug reactions, and avoid giving contra-indicated drugs or treatment to the child if something else goes wrong during the day

The first one is a key element, I think. Do you allow your children to simply buy whatever OTC mediciation they want and take it as they will? If your children are older and you trust them, that may be. But for some, and especially for younger children, I would not make that decision for someone else's child. And that's basically the school's position.

As stated before, the risks are things like potential drug interactions, poor drug choices (OTCs taken when the student has a contra-indication, such as NSAIDs with gastric problems or Aspirin with flu), lack of control, a lack of awareness of the school that a child is sick/having issues, and the potential for the spread of illness among the student population. All of these are directly or indirectly addresses by a policy of having the nurse involved.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how most adults use OTC medications, and if any adults were under my care for any reason, I would require that they notify me of any medications they were taking as well, whether OTC or not, as well as herbal suppliments and dietary suppliments (which can also cause various non-trivial interactions with some OTC and prescription medications). The children are the responsibility of the school, so the school needs to (at the least) be aware of the child's conditions.

Again, that being said, I think a manadatory suspension for any violation of the policy is rather stupid, but I don't have any issue with the policy itself (the policy of no drugs except thorugh the nurses office or with a prescription for emergency medications). I don't think zero tolerance, in the sense that everyone who violates this gets the same punishment, makes any rational sense at all. It removes all element of proportion when punishments for taking an OTC yourself and snorting a line in the bathroom are essentially punished the same, and I don't think it sends the message the school intends. I don't like zero tolerance, but I do see the point of having a policy against even OTC drugs. I would be alright with an exception to policy for certain common OTC meds, where the child can keep and self-administer with a note from the parents. But I think a policy of "anything goes" is about as irrational as zero tolerance is.

 

[pgwenthold]

Those running schools can simply confiscate the Midol and give the girl a bit of detention, rather than suspension. Punishment doesn't have to be so harsh. .

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

What is this thread about then?

 

[Hellbound]

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

What is this thread about then?

Part of the problem is that people quit attacking zero tolerance and started attacking the policie(s) themselves.

 

[rwguinn]

It is the equivalence portion of the ZT policy that is the problem, not necessarily the policy. The fact that two kids playing " cops and robbers" with their fingers as weapons get the same punishment as the kid who brings daddy's pistol to school is ludicrous. The plastic knife is the same as an AK is the same as a pocket Knife is stupid, unrealistic, and sendsthewrong message. .In some school systems, if a kid is sucker-punched by someone else, he is "fighting" and receives exactly the same punishment as the attacker. Raising an arm in defense is nearly always considered fighting and/or retaliation.
Those types of things are the real problem.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

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".

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

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.

 

[Hellbound]

It is the equivalence portion of the ZT policy that is the problem, not necessarily the policy. The fact that two kids playing " cops and robbers" with their fingers as weapons get the same punishment as the kid who brings daddy's pistol to school is ludicrous. The plastic knife is the same as an AK is the same as a pocket Knife is stupid, unrealistic, and sendsthewrong message. .In some school systems, if a kid is sucker-punched by someone else, he is "fighting" and receives exactly the same punishment as the attacker. Raising an arm in defense is nearly always considered fighting and/or retaliation.
Those types of things are the real problem.

I hate people that can make my point comprehensibly in much fewer words.

 

[rwguinn]

I hate people that can make my point comprehensibly in much fewer words.

Sorry. Didn't see you post. Stupid mobile device. ..

 

[Hellbound]

Sorry. Didn't see you post. Stupid mobile device. ..

No, no, it was a backhanded compliment. Or maybe a forehanded insult. You got to the point I've been rambling towards succintly and accurately; bravo

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.



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. I would be suprised if this isn't pretty much standard at public schools. It wouldn't suprise me to know that a similar policy existed, even at that location, and the parents simply never read the manual to know the policy or followed the steps required to allow the child to have the inhaler on his person. That being said, without knowing the details, that's just speculation.



The benefits are mainly in the schools capacity as surrogates for the parents. A lot of the policy is to make sure that:
The parent knows the child is taking medication
The school knows the child is taking medication
The school nurse knows what medications the child is taking, so as to better recognize drug reactions, and avoid giving contra-indicated drugs or treatment to the child if something else goes wrong during the day

The first one is a key element, I think. Do you allow your children to simply buy whatever OTC mediciation they want and take it as they will? If your children are older and you trust them, that may be. But for some, and especially for younger children, I would not make that decision for someone else's child. And that's basically the school's position.

As stated before, the risks are things like potential drug interactions, poor drug choices (OTCs taken when the student has a contra-indication, such as NSAIDs with gastric problems or Aspirin with flu), lack of control, a lack of awareness of the school that a child is sick/having issues, and the potential for the spread of illness among the student population. All of these are directly or indirectly addresses by a policy of having the nurse involved.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how most adults use OTC medications, and if any adults were under my care for any reason, I would require that they notify me of any medications they were taking as well, whether OTC or not, as well as herbal suppliments and dietary suppliments (which can also cause various non-trivial interactions with some OTC and prescription medications). The children are the responsibility of the school, so the school needs to (at the least) be aware of the child's conditions.

Again, that being said, I think a manadatory suspension for any violation of the policy is rather stupid, but I don't have any issue with the policy itself (the policy of no drugs except thorugh the nurses office or with a prescription for emergency medications). I don't think zero tolerance, in the sense that everyone who violates this gets the same punishment, makes any rational sense at all. It removes all element of proportion when punishments for taking an OTC yourself and snorting a line in the bathroom are essentially punished the same, and I don't think it sends the message the school intends. I don't like zero tolerance, but I do see the point of having a policy against even OTC drugs. I would be alright with an exception to policy for certain common OTC meds, where the child can keep and self-administer with a note from the parents. But I think a policy of "anything goes" is about as irrational as zero tolerance is.

Thank you for taking the time to type all that up. I have never attended a school that allowed kids to self medicate with OTC drugs and neither have my children.

I have one child who is allergic to the dye in common benadryl, and therefore must take "dye-free". Every year I drop of a box of dye-free benadryl with the nurse and a note saying that she can take it as needed for allergies*. This has not caused my daughter to suffer unduly nor has it caused the nurse at any of her schools to be overburdened. In fact, they seem almost prepared for me and almost act like it is their job to look after such medical issues on campus. Odd, isn't?


* So long as she shares it with my daughter. (Making my own grammar jabs!)

 

[Dr. Keith]

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).

That sucks. My kids have all sorts of odd medical issues and we have never had a problem talking to their teachers and their teachers have never had a problem accommodating their issues. I won't go into details, but I have often gone into the school expecting a fight and come out with a big smile on my face because the school really acted as if my kid was important to them and they would be happy to help make life a little easier for them. I'm sorry your experience was different.

 

[Modified]

In some school systems, if a kid is sucker-punched by someone else, he is "fighting" and receives exactly the same punishment as the attacker. Raising an arm in defense is nearly always considered fighting and/or retaliation.

A policy like that was started in my high school in the early 80s, before zero tolerance was a thing. It was really the beginning of one-size-fits-all punishments. They gave us a booklet with all the rules and punishments, and most of the categories were broad and without division: fighting, PDA, arson, etc. At least at that time they were not concerned about OTC drugs.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.



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. I would be suprised if this isn't pretty much standard at public schools. It wouldn't suprise me to know that a similar policy existed, even at that location, and the parents simply never read the manual to know the policy or followed the steps required to allow the child to have the inhaler on his person. That being said, without knowing the details, that's just speculation.



The benefits are mainly in the schools capacity as surrogates for the parents. A lot of the policy is to make sure that:
The parent knows the child is taking medication
The school knows the child is taking medication
The school nurse knows what medications the child is taking, so as to better recognize drug reactions, and avoid giving contra-indicated drugs or treatment to the child if something else goes wrong during the day

The first one is a key element, I think. Do you allow your children to simply buy whatever OTC mediciation they want and take it as they will? If your children are older and you trust them, that may be. But for some, and especially for younger children, I would not make that decision for someone else's child. And that's basically the school's position.

As stated before, the risks are things like potential drug interactions, poor drug choices (OTCs taken when the student has a contra-indication, such as NSAIDs with gastric problems or Aspirin with flu), lack of control, a lack of awareness of the school that a child is sick/having issues, and the potential for the spread of illness among the student population. All of these are directly or indirectly addresses by a policy of having the nurse involved.

Frankly, I'm amazed at how most adults use OTC medications, and if any adults were under my care for any reason, I would require that they notify me of any medications they were taking as well, whether OTC or not, as well as herbal suppliments and dietary suppliments (which can also cause various non-trivial interactions with some OTC and prescription medications). The children are the responsibility of the school, so the school needs to (at the least) be aware of the child's conditions.

Again, that being said, I think a manadatory suspension for any violation of the policy is rather stupid, but I don't have any issue with the policy itself (the policy of no drugs except thorugh the nurses office or with a prescription for emergency medications). I don't think zero tolerance, in the sense that everyone who violates this gets the same punishment, makes any rational sense at all. It removes all element of proportion when punishments for taking an OTC yourself and snorting a line in the bathroom are essentially punished the same, and I don't think it sends the message the school intends. I don't like zero tolerance, but I do see the point of having a policy against even OTC drugs. I would be alright with an exception to policy for certain common OTC meds, where the child can keep and self-administer with a note from the parents. But I think a policy of "anything goes" is about as irrational as zero tolerance is.

Allowing teenagers to use OTC meds at their discretion is not the same as an "anything goes" policy on drug use in general.

The FDA has decided that it's ok for a 15-year-old to walk into a store and purchase a bottle of OTC pills for personal use according to the directions on the bottle. If that's a bad policy, or if kids should require adult supervision to use these pills, that challenge should go to the FDA, which has doctors and scientists at their disposal. What is the competency of high school administrators to formulate a second tier of ad hoc regulations?

 

[Hellbound]

Allowing teenagers to use OTC meds at their discretion is not the same as an "anything goes" policy on drug use in general.

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.

The FDA has decided that it's ok for a 15-year-old to walk into a store and purchase a bottle of OTC pills for personal use according to the directions on the bottle. If that's a bad policy, or if kids should require adult supervision to use these pills, that challenge should go to the FDA, which has doctors and scientists at their disposal. What is the competency of high school administrators to formulate a second tier of ad hoc regulations?

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".