Zero Tolerance Case Rationale

Jennifer Amato
Grand Canyon University
EAD – 505
Dr. Patrick Tucker
ZERO TOLERANCE 2

Firearms at school are a hot topic right now. With the rise in school shootings, people are

hyperaware to the overlap of the two. Case 14: Tolerance Test for Rancho is difficult because of

the nature of the situation itself. Zero tolerance laws leave no room for subjectivity and therefore,

leaves few options for dealing with Becky and her family (Brady, 2002). Though there was no

malicious intent from Becky or her family, bringing a firearm to a school violates the Gun-Free

Schools Act and the school and district policies (A Casebook for School Learners: Linking the

ISLLC Standards to Effective Practice).

It would be easy to blame the AP, Ms. Boxer because she sent the policy out without

consulting the principal. However, she is not responsible for the actions of the Skutter family.

Mr. Skutter would have sent the pistol in for the class presentation whether the policy went out

or not. There should be a conversation held with Ms. Boxer about making sure that both sets of

eyes approve a policy or parent communication before it is sent out, but it is not the main issue in

this case. The issue is about handling a firearm brought onto school property and the teacher who

did not report the incident.

Unfortunately, Ms. Idleman did not immediately report the incident to the assistant

principal. I assume that she meant to protect Becky from punishment because she knew there

was no violent intent behind bringing the pistol to school. However, her actions harm the

trustworthiness of the school and is a detriment to its reputation. There will also have to be a

consequence for the choice Ms. Idleman made, which, according to the Aurora Public School

District could span from suspension without pay to termination (Aurora Public Schools, 2021).

Her failure to report is a failure to meet the requirements of a mandatory reporter.

ZERO TOLERANCE 3

Disciplining Ms. Idleman would be difficult; disciplining Becky would be even harder. It

is important to follow Due Process in this case. Becky did not bring the weapon as an act of

violence, and it was relevant to the topic her class was studying. However, there is still the matter

of zero tolerance and the lack of transparency from the school. The parent who called the

principal and the school board was within her rights as a firearm at school, even an antique,

violates the Gun-Free Schools Act (AIR , 2023). The Carterville Unified School District had a

zero tolerance policy in place for many years. Even if the school policy had not gone out right

away, Mr. Skutter should have been aware that sending a firearm to school with his daughter was

not only inappropriate, but a violation of district and school policies. Many states consider it an

illegal act to give a minor access to a firearm without supervision (Washington State Legislature,

2023). As a result, Mr. Skutter would be subject to a number of consequences of his own. Even

had he disabled the pistol, he should have sought approval for the presentation of the weapon as

a firearm facsimile (Aurora Public Schools, 2018). Becky should not be expelled as her case

would go through Due Process. Giving her the chance to reenter her class with restorative

practices should help mend any damaged relationships with her classmates [ELCC 3.3, 5.1, 5.5].

Lastly, the process would include repairing the relationship with the community. This

could start with a review and revision of the zero tolerance policies written for the school [ELCC

1.4, 5.3]. The community should have access to the documents in a variety of forms, including

paper copies that would go home as an amendment to the school handbook, copies available

digitally through district and school websites, and an invitation to the school for a discussion and

review of the policies and their purposes. This would give the opportunity to hear and address

community concerns in person [ELCC 1.1, 5.2]. It would be difficult to repair the relationship

between the school and the community, but providing a transparent front and showing that the
ZERO TOLERANCE 4

safety of the students and staff members is the at the forefront of the decisions made by the

administration would be a step in the right direction [ELCC 5.4].

ZERO TOLERANCE 5

References
A Casebook for School Learners: Linking the ISLLC Standards to Effective Practice.
(n.d.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

AIR . (2023). Reports on the Implementation of the Gun-Free Scool Act. Retrieved from
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments:
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/reports-implementation-gun-free-schools-
act

Aurora Public Schools. (2018, October). Section J: Students . Retrieved from JICI -
Weapons: https://aurorak12.org/pol-reg/SectionJ/jici.pdf

Aurora Public Schools. (2021, October). Aurorak12.org. Retrieved from Aurora Public
Schools: Personnel: https://aurorak12.org/pol-reg/SectionG/gdqd.pdf

Brady, K. P. (2002, March 1). Zero Tolerance or (In)Tolerance Policies? Weaponless

School Violence, Due Process, and the Law of Student Suspensions and
Expulsions: Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education
School District. Bringham Young University Eduacation and Law Journal.

National Policy Board For Educational Administration. (2011). NPBEA.org. Retrieved

from Educational Leadership Program Standards: https://www.npbea.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/ELCC-Building-Level-Standards-2011.pdf

Washington State Legislature. (2023). Washington State Legislature. Retrieved from

https://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/LAW/Documents/SummaryOfStateChildA
ccessPreventionLaws.pdf