Middle school student suspended for opening door

[EpyonXero]

Score one more for zero tolerance.

http://www.tidewaternews.com/2011/02/26/middle-school-student-suspended-for-opening-door/

COURTLAND—A Southampton Middle School student was suspended Thursday for opening an exterior door for a visitor.

“Students are not allowed to open the doors, and if anyone does, they will be suspended,” said Dr. Wayne K. Smith, executive director of administration and personnel.

A districtwide policy prohibiting students and staff from opening doors to the outside was recently adopted after a $10,800 security system was installed at the middle school, Southampton High School, Southampton Technical Career Center and Nottoway, Meherrin and Capron elementary schools. Riverdale Elementary had a similar system installed when it was built three years ago.

All of the schools’ doors are locked during the day. Visitors must ring a buzzer and look into a camera before office personnel can let them in.

Smith said everyone knew about the policy and its consequences. The middle school student was the first to be suspended for opening a door. Smith did not say how many days of suspension the unidentified student received.

According to an anonymous e-mail sent to The Tidewater News, the “A” student opened the door for a woman he knew, who had her hands full. The e-mail also indicated the student received a one-day, out-of-school suspension.

Smith said he could not confirm the story for confidentiality reasons. Superintendent Charles Turner said he did not know all the details behind the suspension.

Turner said the policy that prohibits anyone from opening doors was part of making the security system work.

“If it happens, it’s defeated,” he said. “You have to have a system, and that system has to be consistent. We have to stay within the rules and stay secure.”

Turner explained that part of the school district’s mission is to provide a quality education in a safe environment.

“We looked at what we’re doing in our schools for safety and looked at what others have done,” he said.

That’s why the security system was installed initially at the secondary schools and then the elementary schools.

“We notified parents a week in advance once it was installed,” Turner said. “It was so well received by our parents.”

[shmike]

Turner said the policy that prohibits anyone from opening doors was part of making the security system work.

“If it happens, it’s defeated,” he said. “You have to have a system, and that system has to be consistent. We have to stay within the rules and stay secure.”


Can't really argue with that. :idk:

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that there is a main entrance that visitors must go through and she didn't use it.

[Kaneman]

The place I used to work would hire "decoys" to try to convince people to let them in so Human Resources could fire those people. The decoys were usually nicely dressed and attractive women who had a story about forgetting their badge, and people would do something nice, let them in, and then get fired for it.

Funny thing was, when someone "bad" did actually want to get in they just threw a chair through the two GIANT glass doors and ran in.

[CasterTroy]

Can't really argue with that. :idk:



Ditto.

While the kid did something nice, and now gets punished for it....rules are rules. :idk:

[Kaneman]

.rules are rules. :idk:

That sounds suspiciously like "zero tolerance."

[pauldun170]

All of the schools’ doors are locked during the day. Visitors must ring a buzzer and look into a camera before office personnel can let them in.

Smith said everyone knew about the policy and its consequences.

“We notified parents a week in advance once it was installed"

...the “A” student opened the door for a woman he knew, who had her hands full.

the student received a one-day, out-of-school suspension.

Kid decided rules were not worth following and he got suspended for 1 day.

Meh...
Alarmist story is alarmingly alarmist

[Trip]

suck it up kid, that's life. as stated above, people lose jobs for this reason. it's just good training for his future.

[CasterTroy]

That sounds suspiciously like "zero tolerance."

When the sign says "use other door" I don't think there's a hidden sentence somewhere in there that says "unless you really don't WANT to, then of course it's OK to use this door"

When I was a kit I was told without any question. Don't touch my uncles rifle that was in the closet.

Of course I touched it when he wasn't home. Got it out, and aimed it. Loved messing with it.

When he checked the closet when he got home....of course the hair he wet and stuck to the barrel and wall wasn't there, so he knew I messed with it.

He wasn't very understanding. He didn't "give me a pass this time" because I felt bad.

He knocked my ass to the floor.

Can't say I subscribe to a great deal of "tolerance" to this day as a result of times like that.

[defector]

Schools lock all the doors nowadays? Is this pretty standard?
My kid's school has security at all entrances, but to my knowledge the doors aren't locked.

[Tmall]

I don't see the problem either. I assumed it was because he held it for a girl and that was taken as harassment. It wasn't.

[goof2]

Schools lock all the doors nowadays? Is this pretty standard?
My kid's school has security at all entrances, but to my knowledge the doors aren't locked.

The doors are only locked so they can't be opened from outside. Someone inside can still open them though. School designers worry about having enough exits in case of a fire so they put doors all over the place. The school administrators worry about having a ton of unmonitored doors all over the place allowing people to come and go as they please so they lock the doors to entry. I still remember a few of the more "problematic" doors when I was in school being chained shut.

I don't see the big deal about this. It doesn't sound like the school made any secret of this rule. The kid, even though he apparently had noble intentions, broke the rule and received the specified punishment. I doubt a (justified) one day suspension in middle school will keep this A student out of the Ivy League. I just hope the woman he let in was also informed of the result of her decision to not follow the policy.

[Homeslice]

The place I used to work would hire "decoys" to try to convince people to let them in so Human Resources could fire those people. The decoys were usually nicely dressed and attractive women who had a story about forgetting their badge, and people would do something nice, let them in, and then get fired for it.


What line of work was this? Unless it was a defense contractor, I can't see any private enterprise being worth that kind of security.

Sounds like a make-work project by HR dipshits with nothing better to do than interfere with the lives of those who pay their salary.

[goof2]

What line of work was this? Unless it was a defense contractor, I can't see any private enterprise being worth that kind of security.

Sounds like a make-work project by HR dipshits with nothing better to do than interfere with the lives of those who pay their salary.

I can see this making sense at any place where theft is, or could be, an issue.

[defector]

I don't see the big deal about this. It doesn't sound like the school made any secret of this rule. The kid, even though he apparently had noble intentions, broke the rule and received the specified punishment. I doubt a (justified) one day suspension in middle school will keep this A student out of the Ivy League. I just hope the woman he let in was also informed of the result of her decision to not follow the policy.

Sounds about right to me. Learning experience.

[Homeslice]

I can see this making sense at any place where theft is, or could be, an issue.

Even including firing people for it?

As for theft, you could (correctly) make the argument that theft is a risk at EVERY workplace. But some industries justify severe measures more than others. Defense contractor yes. Dippy little mortgage or insurance company no.

Maybe they should also require that laptops be screen-locked after a mere 10 seconds of inactivity, based on the remote possibility that someone might read or steal your data during those 10 seconds (more like 2-3 seconds since the thief would have to wait 7-8 seconds for the owner to walk away) :rolleyes:

[Kaneman]

What line of work was this? Unless it was a defense contractor, I can't see any private enterprise being worth that kind of security.

Sounds like a make-work project by HR dipshits with nothing better to do than interfere with the lives of those who pay their salary.

Auto finance. And it didn't have anything to do with security or the safety of employees. If they cared about that they wouldn't have made the entry wall out of BREAKABLE GLASS. No, this was simply an excuse to lay people off without paying unemployment once the economy started tanking and they needed to thin the herd.

[goof2]

Even including firing people for it?

As for theft, you could (correctly) make the argument that theft is a risk at EVERY workplace. But some industries justify severe measures more than others. Defense contractor yes. Dippy little mortgage or insurance company no.

Maybe they should also require that laptops be screen-locked after a mere 10 seconds of inactivity, based on the remote possibility that someone might read or steal your data during those 10 seconds (more like 2-3 seconds since the thief would have to wait 7-8 seconds for the owner to walk away) :rolleyes:

Sure, why not? If an employer is willing to trade the loss of productivity that would naturally result from a policy like that for the dubious additional security where is the problem? Either way having uncontrolled random people walking around their facility can be a bad idea for a number of reasons. I already mentioned theft, but there can be liability issues as well. I fail to see how setting a simple policy to prevent that is unreasonable.

[Trip]

Even including firing people for it?

As for theft, you could (correctly) make the argument that theft is a risk at EVERY workplace. But some industries justify severe measures more than others. Defense contractor yes. Dippy little mortgage or insurance company no.

Maybe they should also require that laptops be screen-locked after a mere 10 seconds of inactivity, based on the remote possibility that someone might read or steal your data during those 10 seconds (more like 2-3 seconds since the thief would have to wait 7-8 seconds for the owner to walk away) :rolleyes:

If you leave your computer unlocked when you leave your desk where I am at, you can technically get in a lot of trouble for it. It's rarely enforced.

If you leave doors open, you will be talking to guys carrying assault rifles.

[Homeslice]

Yeah but don't you work at a nuke plant?

That's a lot different than some generic business.

In most cases I think security policies are dreamed up to help IT & HR people justify their jobs.

[Kaneman]

If you leave your computer unlocked when you leave your desk where I am at, you can technically get in a lot of trouble for it. It's rarely enforced.


My former employer fired people for that too, and for leaving paperwork on their desk when they got up to go to the bathroom. It didn't even have to be confidential type information.

[101lifts2]

It is a cover your ass policy so the school will not get sued if something happens to a kid. Hence the punishment.

[tallywacker]

I'd do it as a way to get outta school that my parents wouldn't have been pissed at me for.

[Particle Man]

Had it been someone who shouldn't have been in the school and got in that way and hurt or kidnapped some kid, people would be screaming at the school for not doing enough.

I have to side with the school on this one.

[azoomm]

Had it been someone who shouldn't have been in the school and got in that way and hurt or kidnapped some kid, people would be screaming at the school for not doing enough.

I have to side with the school on this one.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

[Lamnidae]

Yeah but don't you work at a nuke plant?

That's a lot different than some generic business.

In most cases I think security policies are dreamed up to help IT & HR people justify their jobs.

Nope.....

That is exactly what I was thinking.

x2