Zero Tolerance Case Analysis and Rationale

Part 1: Case Analysis

1. Brief summary of the case:

A new superintendent and school board had come into the Carterville Unified School

District and established a zero-tolerance policy. The principal (in this case, me) of Rancho

Elementary School (considered the best elementary school), delegated the task of doing so to 5th

grade teacher—and a recent administrative program graduate—Ms. Idleman. Once completed,

the task was sent it in for approval, but the principal was gone. Ms. Boxer, the A.P., approved the

plan—based on a preconceived assumption the principal would approve it because the principal

voiced doubt of any student breaking it—and sent it home with the students later that day.

Days went by and a student in Ms. Idleman’s class was going to present a project took

out a 19th century pistol (presumably for the project, but that is unspecified). Ms. Idleman quietly

confiscated the but gave it back to at the end of the school-day and told her to give it back to her

father. The student was not punished by Ms. Idleman.

The next day, a parent of another student in the class called the principal (me) and told

them of the situation. They demanded something be done and, if not, they would contact the

superintendent, the paper, and other parents in the class.

2. Identify the issues to be resolved:

 When did the new superintendent and school board become established? It

appears as if it was in the middle of the year, so are abrupt changes like this to the

policy effective?

o Why not wait until the new school year to make the change?
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 1 of 11
  What if students are absent, how would the new school plan be distributed to

parents?

 Why did the principal delegate an important new policy for the school plan to a 5th

grade teacher instead of the A.P. or doing it themselves?

 Ms. Idleman didn’t report the incident to anyone. Regardless of new policy or not,

this violates PSEL standards of keeping students safe.

o Additionally, why didn’t Ms. Idleman report the gun, call home, or have

the parent pick up the gun instead?

 Did Ms. Idleman even put in the new zero-tolerance policy in the school plan?

 How is Becky Skutter getting home? If she is taking the bus, what would happen

if other students or the bus driver saw the gun?

 Why didn’t Ms. Boxer read the newly submitted school plan before approval?

o Was there an attempt to contact the principal before approval?

 Even with the principal vocalizing doubt, the policy still must be followed.

 There seems to have been no communication between anyone in charge about the

event that happened.

 Legal liability to have a student with a weapon on campus, as well as one to not

be reported.

 Reputation of the school, school district, and school officials is potentially on the

line.

3. Stakeholders involved in the issues:

Ms. Idleman, the principal (me in this case), Ms. Boxer, the superintendent, the school

board, students and parents of Rancho Elementary School, Becky Skutter, and the Skutter

family.

4. One or two existing laws or court rulings that relate to the issues:
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 of 11
  Supports Disciplinary Action

o RCW 28A.600.420:

 “Any elementary or secondary school student who is determined to

have carried a firearm onto, or to have possessed a firearm on,

public elementary or secondary school premises, public school-

provided transportation, or areas of facilities while being used

exclusively by public schools, shall be expelled from school for

not less than one year under RCW 28A.600.010” (Washington

State Legislation, RCW 28A.600.420: Firearms on school

premises, transportation, or facilities—Penalty—Exemptions,

2022).

 For purposes of this section, "firearm" means a firearm as defined

in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921, and a "firearm" as defined in RCW 9.41.010

(Washington State Legislation, RCW 28A.600.420: Firearms on

school premises, transportation, or facilities—Penalty—

Exemptions, 2022).

 RCW 9.41.010:

o “‘Antique firearm’ means a firearm or replica of a

firearm not designed or redesigned…and

manufactured in or before 1898” (Washington State

Legislation, RCW 9.41.010: Terms defined, 2022).

 Supports Skutter Family

o Goss v. Lopez

 In this case, ten total students were given 10-day suspension

without a hearing. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 of 11

 the students, for the school had violated their Fourteenth

Amendment right. The court stated Due Process must “not be

taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause”

(Oyez, 2022).

 Note: This case does not give specifics as to what the

students were punished for, so this is a loose connection of

support for the Skutter family.

5. District policies that relate to the issues:

 Policy No. 3230: (Adopted 5/15/2006)

o “School officials have authority to maintain order and discipline in the

schools and to protect students from exposure to illegal drugs, weapons,

and contraband” (Marysville School District [MSD], Policies, Students:

Student Privacy and Searches, Policy No. 3230, 2006).

o “‘[C]ontraband’ means…any object that can reasonably be considered a

firearm or a dangerous weapon” (MSD, Policies, Students: Student

Privacy and Searches, Policy No. 3230, 2006).

 Policy No. 3247P: (Adopted 8/26/2015)

o “Restraint devices may be used as needed to obtain possession of a known

or reasonably-suspected weapon or other dangerous object on a person or

within the control of a person” (MSD, Policies, Students: Restraint,

Isolation, and Other Uses of Reasonable Force, Policy No. 3247P, 2015).

 Policy No. 4210: (Adopted 8/2/1999; revised and readopted 11/18/2013)

o “It is a violation of district policy and state law for any person to carry a

firearm or dangerous weapon on school premises, school-provided

transportation, areas of other facilities being used exclusively for school

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 11

 activities including all other district owned properties” (MSD Policies,

Community Relations: Regulation of Dangerous Weapons on School

Premises, Policy No. 4210, 2013).

 Policy 4210P: (Adopted 11/18/2013)

o “Administrators or other designated school officials will confiscate any

article identified as a weapon. Such weapons will be submitted to the

appropriate law enforcement agency. A student having in his or her

possession, or in his or her desk, locker, or other personal property

brought onto school grounds, or to a school sponsored event, any weapon

defined above, will be recommended for arrest” (MSD, Policies,

Community Relations: Regulation of Dangerous Weapons on School

Premises, Policy No. 4210P, Section II, 2013).

6. Possible solutions to the issues:

 According to Washington State Laws, I would have to suspend and/or expel the

student.

 Suspend and/or expel the student because of the zero-tolerance policy.

 Take legal actions upon the Skutter family for allowing easy access to the weapon

for the child to bring to school (child is a minor).

 Convene with the parent who addressed the issue in the first place and assure

them that appropriate action will be taken (i.e., student suspension/expulsion,

faculty discipline as well).

 Contact the superintendent and the school board to let them know of the situation

and make it known that Ms. Idleman will have to have some disciplinary action

(e.g., temporary leave) while the situation unfolds.

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 of 11

  Speak with Ms. Idleman, Ms. Boxer, and the Skutter family (separately and then

together) and discuss the event that took place, how the situation was handled,

and appropriate ramifications.

 Assign disciplinary actions to the student as well as to Ms. Idleman for not

following the zero-tolerance policy or Washington State Law (i.e., leave of

absence, investigation, firing).

7. The solutions you are choosing to resolve the issues:

My solution would be a combination of those listed above. I would convene with the

parent who addressed the issue first to assure them that disciplinary actions would take place,

and then shortly after contact my superintendent to notify them of the incident and request action

be taken place with Ms. Idleman. Following each meeting with the parent and superintendent, I

would have Ms. Idleman come to my office to discuss the situation, remind her of the school’s

policies and state laws, and let her know that disciplinary actions are coming her way—either a

temporary suspension or possible termination. After taking care of those at the school, my last

meeting would be with the Skutter family to discuss the events that took place, the new school

zero-tolerance policy, the state laws, and the disciplinary action that will follow (anywhere

between a 10-day suspension and a year of expulsion). Lastly, I would send an email out to the

district and community members addressing the issue and any possible concerns.

8. Action steps (2-5) for implementing your solution, including a timeline for each step:

 Call the parent who brought up the concern, invite them in for a meeting, but—

regardless of in person or over the phone—assure them you understand their

concerns and that actions will be taken to resolve the issue.

 Immediately meet with my superintendent to address the parent’s concern and the

overall event that took place. Suggest disciplinary action for the teacher who

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 of 11

 ignored the gun, didn’t report it, and returned it to the child. Possible termination

as well.

 Schedule a meeting with the teacher, Ms. Idleman. In the meeting, thank her for

confiscating the gun quietly, but addressing that that was possibly the only action

done correctly. I would discuss all the events that took place, her actions/decisions

during and after the event, discuss the new zero-tolerance policy, remind her of

the Washington State laws that must be followed, and tell her to keep in contact as

disciplinary action will possibly be on its way.

 Call the Skutter family and set up a meeting. During the meeting, ask for Becky’s

side of the story, ask for her parents’ knowledge of the events and of the gun,

discuss the state laws and disciplinary actions that it requires, and remind them of

the new school zero-tolerance policy. End the meeting recognizing the notion that

this situation was most likely not what was intended, but the actions cannot go

without punishment, so inform the Skutter family that charges will not be filed,

but a 10-day suspension will be given as stated in the Washington State RCW.

 Send out a district-wide email to all parents, families, students, and community

members addressing the events that took place and recognizing that the event

should not have happened. I would like to remind all of how important the safety

is of all the students and staff, and address the newly adopted zero-tolerance

policy along with the Washington State. Lastly, I would assure them that

accountability will be held and events such as the one that happened will not be

tolerated.

9. Potential moral and legal consequences of the solutions:

 Morally

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 7 of 11

 o I would have to take responsibility myself for the distribution of the new

school plan with the zero-tolerance policy, as well as how the plan was

approved.

o Internal conflict with Ms. Idleman knowing I had asked her to create the

new school plan, but ultimately having discipline put on her for events that

took place.

o Recognizing although the student had no ill-intent with the gun, but was

presumably just a part of her project, I would still have to discipline her.

o Going against the Model Code of Ethics Principle IV, which states

educational leaders must keep “student safety, education, and health

paramount” (National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education

and Certification [NASDTEC], Section B, 2021).

 Legally

o Potential lawsuit against the school board, the district, the school, and

myself if disciplinary actions do not taken place.

o Potential lawsuit against the school board, the district, the school, and

myself if disciplinary actions do take place.

 As stated earlier in section 4, the Supreme Court case of Goss v.

Lopez does show some support for the disciplined students having

their Fourteenth Amendment right violated; however, Goss v.

Lopez does not give specifics as to what the students were

punished for, so this may or may not apply to Skutter family.

Part 2: Rationale

If I were the principal in this situation, I would have to suspend the student for bringing

the weapon to school and put in suggestion for disciplinary action or termination to the

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 8 of 11

superintendent of the district to the teacher, Ms. Idleman, for her actions and response to the

incident.

To begin, this situation is one that is not to be taken lightly, not only for the fact that a

gun was brought to school, but because of the response of the teacher who was involved in the

situation. Additionally, as the principal and a parent, emotions may get in the way. For example,

the zero-tolerance policy that was established by the superintendent was a new addition to the

school plan and the teacher tasked to create it for my particular school was the teacher involved.

All that being said, as the principal, emotions cannot get in the way of rational decisions.

According to our educational leader standards, PSEL 5a states, leaders must “maintain a safe,

caring, and healthy school environment that meets…[the] needs of each student” (National

Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2015).

According to Washington State Law, any student who has a firearm “shall be expelled

from school for not less than one year” (Washington State Legislation, RCW 28A.600.420:

Firearms on school premises, transportation, or facilities—Penalty—Exemptions, 2022) as long

as the firearm meets the required definition. Becky Skutter brought a 19th century pistol. Whether

a replica or designed to shoot or not, it matches the requirement by Washington State Law of an

antique firearm. Setting aside the zero-tolerance policy that had just been put into the school

handbook, Becky—unknowingly or not—broke a state law. Therefore, she must be punished.

My principal mentor once told me that we can’t expect students to follow the standards if

we don’t follow them ourselves. As my school mission/vision statement says, we will empower

all students and provide “an engaging, rigorous education in a safe and supportive environment”

(Marysville Getchell High School [MGHS], 2021). Accountability is something with which

educators work to show their students. As the leader of the school, it is my job to show the

students that all staff members should also be held accountable for their mistakes. As the

principal, it was my mistake to tell Ms. Idleman that I had doubts any student would push the

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 9 of 11

point of a zero-tolerance policy. However, in our school handbook, there is a specific section for

safety procedures which states the “teacher will explain to [the students] where [they] are to

report” (MGHS, 2021). Moreover, Ms. Idleman not only didn’t report the incident to anyone, but

she returned the gun to the student at the end of the day. As a result, Ms. Idleman—although

initially she made the correct choice to quietly confiscate the gun in the first place—has violated

the school handbook in multiple ways, but has put the district in legal trouble according to

Washington State Laws.

Weapons of any kind on school property is not something to be taken lightly, especially

guns. In 2014, my school district was the victim of a school shooting in which five students lost

their lives. Therefore, a gun being present in a classroom and returned to the student at the end of

the day, is cause for concern. The parent who called me to demand action be taken has the right.

By no action being taken, I would be ignoring PSEL 8 and its focus on community and family

(NPBEA, 2015), but it would open a litany of legalities for the school district. There may be

push back from the Skutter family and those close with them, especially with the possible year of

expulsion. However, in order to provide justice to those who were put in this situation, I believe

—although the Supreme Court Case of Goss v. Lopez ruled in favor of the students as it was a

violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights—in Becky Skutter’s case, there had already been

preexisting policies for weapons on campus and Washington State Laws prohibiting them, so the

disciplinary actions of a suspension and/or potential expulsion is the appropriate action.

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 10 of 11

 References

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-

898

Marysville Getchell High School. (2021). Student Handbook.

Marysville School District. (2022). School District Policy and Procedure. Marysville School

District 25. (2022). eConvene Website. (2022). Retrieved 1 July 2022, from

https://app.eduportal.com/publicfolders/1110787/list/46999. Retrieved 1 July 2022.

Model Code of Ethics for Educators (MCEE) – NASDTEC. (2021). Retrieved July 1, 2022, from

https://www.nasdtec.net/page/MCEE_Doc

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (2015). Professional Standards for

Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author

RCW 9.41.010: Terms defined. (Effective until July 1, 2022.). (2022). Retrieved 1 July 2022,

from https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.010

RCW 28A.600.420: Firearms on school premises, transportation, or facilities—Penalty—

Exemptions. (2022). Retrieved 1 July 2022, from

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.600.420

© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved. Page 11 of 11