School Zero tolerance policies can eat a D___!

[Tyjenks]

I understand the intent of zero-tolerance laws, but there has to be some wiggle room for administrators on these fucking things. Of course, school administrators appear, in most cases, loathe to use judgment and would prefer to refer to rules, shrug and say, "My hands are tied" so they do not have to actually make a decision they have to stand behind.

Cub scout tool leads to suspension and possible 45 days in reform school for 6 YEAR OLD!!! (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html?no_interstitial)

Alright, lets hear the arguments for zero tolerance laws where the school has no discretion from one incident to the next.

[Mordrak]

"Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously,” said Debbie Christie, Zachary’s mother, who started a Web site, helpzachary.com, in hopes of recruiting supporters to pressure the local school board at its next open meeting on Tuesday. “He is not some sort of threat to his classmates.”


Lol, what?

[Anti-Bunny]

Alright, lets hear the arguments for zero tolerance laws where the school has no discretion from one incident to the next.

They would rather sacrifice this kid's early childhood in the face of the liability involved in kids bringing sharp instruments to school.

[Angie Gallant]

One of the rare areas where Texas is doing right (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1927441,00.html?iid=digg_share).

[Phil_Stein]

Charles P. Ewing, a professor of law and psychology at the University at Buffalo Law School who has written about school safety issues, said he favored a strict zero-tolerance approach.

“There are still serious threats every day in schools,” Dr. Ewing said, adding that giving school officials discretion holds the potential for discrimination and requires the kind of threat assessments that only law enforcement is equipped to make.

Yes, only law enforcement is equipped to make a threat assessment of a 6 year old with a camping utensil.

Pfffffffffffffff...

[Mordrak]

Yes, only law enforcement is equipped to make a threat assessment of a 6 year old with a camping utensil.

Pfffffffffffffff...

Well, I think it's clear this was a mistake and the kid shouldn't be expelled or spend time in reform school, but just because the kid is in scouts doesn't mean he should be bringing a knife to school. They should be able to determine if the first time warrants a warning or something more serious, but if it happens again he and the family should know better. Being in boy scouts doesn't absolve the kid of anything.

[Phil_Stein]

He probably shouldn't be bringing in the camping utensil.

And kids probably shouldn't pass notes or talk in class when the teacher is teaching.

But the latter can be easily handled with escalating warnings, maybe a trip to a vice-principals office, and, as probably a very late resort, a minor suspension.

The former, in this case, led directly to a 45 day suspension.

[Mordrak]

He probably shouldn't be bringing in the camping utensil.

It's not just a utensil, it's a knife. And even in just showing it off to his friends, there's the potential for them to be seriously hurt.


And kids probably shouldn't pass notes or talk in class when the teacher is teaching.


This is a ridiculous parallel. A knife does a lot more than leave paper cuts.


But the latter can be easily handled with escalating warnings, maybe a trip to a vice-principals office, and, as probably a very late resort, a minor suspension.


Bringing a knife to school is not the same as talking in class or passing notes. The principal should have leeway for honest mistakes like this to provide warnings, but repeated offenses should be dealt with harshly.

[Tim James]

These outrageous news stories are easier to swallow when you think of public school as prison. Also explains the bus system, bad food, bland block walls, exercise hour, and ringing bells.

The comparison breaks down because they learn fewer life skills than you gain in prison, such as bank robbery and keeping prostitutes under control.

[WarrenM]

It's not just a utensil, it's a knife. And even in just showing it off to his friends, there's the potential for them to be seriously hurt.
Are you trolling? 6 year olds want to show each other cool stuff. I think the possibility of someone getting seriously hurt here are pretty friggin' remote.

And no, he shouldn't be bringing it to school. Have his teacher take it away and give it back to him at the end of the day with a warning not to bring it again. If he brings it again, involve his parents.

[Mordrak]

Are you trolling? 6 year olds want to show each other cool stuff. I think the possibility of someone getting seriously hurt here are pretty friggin' remote.

Is Phil trolling by comparing a knife to a note in class? Should we just let 6 year olds walk around the playground with knives? I mean, they are just notes right? Minor disturbances? Accidents do happen. If it's as easily preventable as not allowing knives on campus and taking the infractions seriously, why not?


And no, he shouldn't be bringing it to school. Have his teacher take it away and give it back to him at the end of the day with a warning not to bring it again. If he brings it again, involve his parents.

Are you nuts? A parent should be involved right away. The kid is six.

[Tim James]

I'm more worried about parents sending him to school in a suit at 6...Don't be. He'll probably front a killer punk rock band in about 12 years time.

[Phil_Stein]

Mordrak - how do you read my post and think that I'm advocating letting 6 year olds walk around the playground with knives?

It's a question of how you respond, and the flexibility of such a response. And no, I don't think the first offense of a 6 year old bringing in a camping utensil is particularly severe. Maybe more so than talking or note passing, but if a reprimand from a teacher is a 1 on the school response scale, and a visit to the vice principal is a 2, and a 45 day suspension is a 9, then a first offense of bringing a camping utensil to school should fall somewhere in the 1 to 3 range in terms of response, not automatically be a 9.

[Stepsongrapes]

It's not just a utensil, it's a knife. And even in just showing it off to his friends, there's the potential for them to be seriously hurt.

This is a ridiculous parallel. A knife does a lot more than leave paper cuts.

Did you look at the "knife" in question? It's the fold-out backend of a spork. This kid could do harm with it- the same harm he could do with a good pair of craft scissors or a pen.

Unlike the rest of our society, these schools are enforcing strict punishments without any actual consideration or adjudication. They get away with this because the kids aren't supposedly deprived of education, there just sent to an "equivalent" reform school.

Did you read the even crazier case in the story of the girl getting expelled because her grandmother sent a knife to cut the birthday cake? Yeah, these sure are reasonable rules.

[Mordrak]

Mordrak - how do you read my post and think that I'm advocating letting 6 year olds walk around the playground with knives?


I clearly said (first thing) that the kid shouldn't be expelled or sent to reform school, but the infraction should be taken seriously.

Your response to that was giving note passing as similar example.

How else should I have taken it?

[Talisker]

It's not just a utensil, it's a knife. And even in just showing it off to his friends, there's the potential for them to be seriously hurt.
A cub scout knife with a fork and a spoon on it will be about as sharp as a butter knife. You're acting like he's waving around a razor honed Ka-Bar.

In 4th grade, I brought in a pocket knife that I got by sending in 10 Bazooka Joe comics + 40 cents. It couldn't cut a damned thing, but I thought it was cool. Teacher found it, put it in an envelope, and sent it back home with a Note from the Teacher.

That's all that should happen to this kid.

Danger, schmanger. Kid's aren't fucking fragile, it's not like they were running out for a game of mumbly peg.

[Tyjenks]

A 6 year old does not know to NOT bring some cool thing to school. I would never have thought to tell my six year old to avoid such things. I am pretty sure I did not expressly forbid her to bring a knife to school.

The parents, I guess, should have addressed it when he was given the utensil in the scouts and........then frisk him each day to be sure. The punishment is crazy harsh.

At least the local legislature carefully reviewed the wording of the new law, which applied to expulsions (oops, did they forget to mention suspensions?) and I am sure it was passed quickly to avoid similar looniness

[Tyjenks]

A cub scout knife with a fork and a spoon on it will be about as sharp as a butter knife. You're acting like he's waving around a razor honed Ka-Bar.

In 4th grade, I brought in a pocket knife that I got by sending in 10 Bazooka Joe comics + 40 cents. It couldn't cut a damned thing, but I thought it was cool. Teacher found it, put it in an envelope, and sent it back home with a Note from the Teacher.

That's all that should happen to this kid.
Back in my day (20 years ago), everyone carried a knife to school. I had a lockblade Case knife that was probably 3-4 inches long. Some of the manlier students brought their shotguns and would go hunting with the coaches. We had an archery class. Amazingly, we never had a single incident in 4 years.

edit: Corrected time period because I am old, but not quite 920 years ago old.

[Pogo]

If this kid isn't taught a harsh lesson about the dangerousness of knives now, he may wind up becoming a knife wielding maniac that permanently carries it wherever he goes.

[Talisker]

Back in my day 920 years ago), everyone carried a knife to school.
Yeah, well, you're old (40! Ha ha!).

(Edit: btw, please don't ask how much longer I have to taunt you about your age)

[Staff Sergeant]

Are you trolling? 6 year olds want to show each other cool stuff. I think the possibility of someone getting seriously hurt here are pretty friggin' remote.


LOL Yeah, we all know how meticulous 6 year olds are about proper knife safety. If you have kids, please delegate all decision making about their safety to someone else.

EDIT: disclaimer: obviously zero tolerance is stupid and this kid got punished way more severely than necessary, but... dude.

[Mordrak]

Did you look at the "knife" in question? It's the fold-out backend of a spork. This kid could do harm with it- the same harm he could do with a good pair of craft scissors or a pen.


One of a my former bosses sons died from a stab wound a little more than an inch and a half deep. He drowned in his own blood. Now, this wasn't in school, but it was with a knife in a violent situation. But the point is, it doesn't take much though.

I know someone would trot out the scissors or pen bullshit. Bringing a knife to school adds an additional layer of danger, given there's the likelihood if uncaught by the teacher (with 30+ students seems likely) could end up on the playground. If kids are using sharp objects in projects they should be under adult supervision. It is not the same thing.

I don't remember this, when I was 7ish, I beat a kid over the head with a lunch tray and choked him until other kids had to get an adult to pull me off him. If I had a knife, maybe I would have stabbed him and lived to be haunted by what I had done.

[Jason McCullough]

I understand the intent of zero-tolerance laws, but there has to be some wiggle room for administrators on these fucking things.

Well I don't. Can someone explain it to me?

[Stepsongrapes]

I know someone would trot out the scissors or pen bullshit. Bringing a knife to school adds an additional layer of danger, given there's the likelihood if uncaught by the teacher (with 30+ students seems likely) could end up on the playground. If kids are using sharp objects in projects they should be under adult supervision. It is not the same thing.

At some point (way above spork level) the real danger is the INTENT of individuals to harm. The tools become irrelevant. When a "weapon" is no more dangerous than a common item, the solution is to address intent, not tools.

People can die from getting punched, I think it's time to have kids always wear big giant puffy gloves. Or... we could adress violent intent.

So, if a kid put a classroom pen or craft scissors from a "supervised" project into their pocket and carried it to the playground- bam, suspension and expulsion?

As to your story, good thing you had a lunch tray instead of a pen, eh? Cause then, you could have stabbed him just as well with the pen as with a spork.

[Staff Sergeant]

Well I don't. Can someone explain it to me?

As stated upthread, the intent is for school administrators to not have to make decisions for themselves. Luckily these administrators have the panicky BUT THINK OF THE CHIIIILDREN crowd in the PTA helping them push these rules through to save their little angels them the hellspawn of all the other parents.

[LesJarvis]

Some kid accidentally stabbing himself/someone else seems far more likely than deliberate violence IMO, but either way the school obviously has a strong interest in avoiding the type of liability incurred by letting a 6 year old run around with a knife unsupervised, whether we judge that knife to be sharp or not based on unrelated anecdotes from our youth.

Obligatory: zero tolerance policies are short sighted, and obviously it doesn't make much sense to punish a 6 year old for poor parental judgment.

[jason]

Well I don't. Can someone explain it to me?

The intent of a zero tolerance law is not to protect the covered, but to remove liability for the enforcers. This way no one can pick their favorite "-ism" and cry out how unfairly they are being treated.

[Mordrak]

At some point (way above spork level) the real danger is the INTENT of individuals to harm. The tools become irrelevant. When a "weapon" is no more dangerous than a common item, the solution is to address intent, not tools.


No, the tools don't become irrelevant when they are an unknown. I've already addressed this, but there's probably more potential of accident with it than the kid intentionally stabbing someone with it.


As to your story, good thing you had a lunch tray instead of a pen, eh? Cause then, you could have stabbed him just as well with the pen as with a spork.

Why are you being so wacky? Look at the picture in the article, it wasn't a spork. It was a flip out fork, knife, and spoon. It looks a bit sharper than a butter knife to me in that picture, but it's hard to tell.

And again, let me reiterate, I wholly agree that punishment far exceeds what's called for here, but bringing unaccounted for knives on campus should be taken seriously. It's not just note passing or whatever else you guys want to call it.

[Tim James]

the school obviously has a strong interest in avoiding the type of liabilityI've made this refrain about other bureaucracies before, but the real reason you see a lot of absurdities like this is they have no interest in avoiding false positives, leading to gross inefficiency. Why reform when there's no downside other than some rare and easily-deflected criticism? They're used to that!

[WarrenM]

EDIT: disclaimer: obviously zero tolerance is stupid and this kid got punished way more severely than necessary, but... dude.
Dude. It's a spork.

[Slainte Mhath]

In 4th grade, I brought in a pocket knife that I got by sending in 10 Bazooka Joe comics + 40 cents. It couldn't cut a damned thing, but I thought it was cool. Teacher found it, put it in an envelope, and sent it back home with a Note from the Teacher.

That's all that should happen to this kid.

This. Total agreement. Given the kids age, the fact that it was a cub scout eating utensil and not some hunting knife or other obvious danger to himself or other students, and the intent behind his bringing it to school (he wanted to use the fork to eat lunch with) it should have been a note home to the parents, end of story.

If we take away the abilty of administrators to make judgement calls in cases like this, then we are subjecting our children to a different kind of harm than the kind the rules and regulations were meant to protect them from in the first place. Obviously kids should not be allowed to bring weapons into schools, even pocket knives and kitchen knives from home. And yet, do we really need Zero Tolerance kickers to these rules? What does that teach children? Never trust authority because even in the face of common sense authority will stubbornly refuse to do the right thing? That's great.

I understand that the administrator in this case and others like it are simply protecting themselves and the school systems the work for. In today's litigation happy society, if someone's kid brings in a picket knife and you don't crack down on them like the Inquisition, it gets back to some parents or community activists and suddenly you're under fire for treating some kids differently than others. Zero Tolerance isn't about treating everyone the same to prevent another Columbine, it's about treating everyone the same to prevent litigation and protect the school system in the event someone actually exercises some common sense and someone else takes offense to it.

[Mordrak]

Dude. It's a spork.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/12/us/discipline600.jpg

Ya, a real spork there.

http://www.hrabaconsulting.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/te_spork_detail.jpg

[Staff Sergeant]

Dude. It's a spork.

Scouts knives are not the fucking plastic knife your mommy gave you to go with your tea-set when you were a little girl, buddy, they are dangerous, and not "remotely" so.

EDIT: Background: I had a friend in grade 3 or 4 sever his own finger almost completely from his hand on a pocket knife he brought in to school.

[Tim James]

What does that teach children? Never trust authority because even in the face of common sense authority will stubbornly refuse to do the right thing? That's great.I agree completely.

I'm underestimating the value of teaching moments like that. More zero tolerance policies, please!

[WarrenM]

Scouts knives are not the fucking plastic knife your mommy gave you to go with your tea-set when you were a little girl, buddy, they are dangerous, and not "remotely" so.
Buddy? OK, chief.

Anyway, if you believe a 6 year old with a dull flip out camping knife is a serious threat to those around him or to himself, you're insane.

[Stepsongrapes]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/12/us/discipline600.jpg

Ya, a real spork there.

Does that actually look more dangerous to you than a pair of craft scissors? Really?

What if the kid brought in a 6-inch long flathead screwdriver? I can gurantee you I'd rather have that in a fight then the spork. But hey, screwdriver isn't a knife, right?

The whole point is you see the word "knife" and all of the sudden they're all equal. No, they're not. There has to be at a least a degree of reason and decision-making involved.

[LesJarvis]

I've made this refrain about other bureaucracies before, but the real reason you see a lot of absurdities like this is they have no interest in avoiding false positives, leading to gross inefficiency. Why reform when there's no downside other than some rare and easily-deflected criticism? They're used to that!

That makes no sense. If the issue is not liability and the goal is efficiency, the obviously correct course of action is to just let the student population carry around knives at will. The part you quoted was intended to address weapon policies, not zero tolerance policies, that latter of which I'm opposed to, as I disclaimed. There seem to be a number of people that think it's perfectly OK for kids of all ages to have knives at school, which I might diplomatically call short-sighted.

[Mordrak]

Scouts knives are not the fucking plastic knife your mommy gave you to go with your tea-set when you were a little girl, buddy, they are dangerous, and not "remotely" so.


Yeah, the seriousness this should be taken with is mostly to prevent accidents, not necessarily the next Columbine. Even in my case, it's likely I would have seriously hurt only one person.

It was a serious transgression (even if by accident) and should be treated as such, not dismissed as not a big deal.

[Tim James]

Speaking of that picture, when did photographers perfect the glancing away look for upset-citizen human interest stories? That shit is more tired than zero tolerance.

And LesJarvis, you're right that I misread you, so insert a generic zero tolerance argument into that quote instead. :)

[Sharpe]

Yeah, I can't really think of a good rationale for the "zero tolerance" part of a prohibition. There can be many kinds of extenuating circumstances, and good judgement is key. In theory, I think "zero tolerance" is a misguided attempt to avoid favoritism and corruption, but honestly, its a cure far worse than the disease. I would rather have a little bit of occasional cronyism as a part of individual judgement than the sort of foolish consistency shown here.

[Staff Sergeant]

Yeah, the seriousness this should be taken with is mostly to prevent accidents, not necessarily the next Columbine. Even in my case, it's likely I would have seriously hurt only one person.

It was a serious transgression (even if by accident) and should be treated as such, not dismissed as not a big deal.

Exactly, this doesn't warrant a suspension, but it did need to be dealt with in some way, i.e. the teacher confiscating it for the day and telling the parents it was inappropriate to let him bring it to school.

[Mordrak]

Does that actually look more dangerous to you than a pair of craft scissors? Really?


It depends on the craft scissors. The difference is A) one is unaccounted for which leads to B) the scissor would be used under adult guidance and supervision. So yeah, there are some craft scissors that I feel would be inappropriate for the class room and some that are more appropriate. Both should be given proper safety considerations in activities as well.

What part of that do you not understand?


What if the kid brought in a 6-inch long flathead screwdriver? I can gurantee you I'd rather have that in a fight then the spork. But hey, screwdriver isn't a knife, right?


And again, it's not a fucking spork. Bringing in an unaccounted screwdriver should also be seriously dealt with.


The whole point is you see the word "knife" and all of the sudden they're all equal. No, they're not. There has to be at a least a degree of reason and decision-making involved.

No that's not my point and the fact that you're blindly keep attacking me says you're the one lacking in "reason" and "decision-making" ability. I'm not defending the decision to suspend the kid for the transgression, I'm saying it is a serious danger compared to other tools available to the kids with adult supervision and considered safety practices.

[Stepsongrapes]

Exactly, this doesn't warrant a suspension, but it did need to be dealt with in some way, i.e. the teacher confiscating it for the day and telling the parents it was inappropriate to let him bring it to school.


This is a perfectly fine solution. My problem with Mordrak's need for severe treatment is that he ASSUMES that punishment is needed instead of education.

This is a failing of the ADULTS who created these policies or failed to explain them to the point where they can get a reasonable number of other ADULTS to agree what falls in or out of the policy. Yet, it's the child that gets punished.

This kid, and other kids, need to educated that this kind of thing shouldn't be done, he doesn't need ANY form of "severe" punishment.

[Sharpe]

You know it occurs to me that one reaons these laws exist (and note, I think this is a bad reason, not a good one) is to help substitute for backbone for some school admins on disciplinary issues. When Little Johnnie goes berserk and becomes disruptive, and the principal tries to discipline him, Little Johnnie's parents may balk at anything negative happening to their little prince. So "zero tolerance" rules let the Principal do the passive aggressive thing: "I'd love to be kind to Little Johnnie, but my hands are tied".

Either way you spin these rules, IMO they smell strongly of poor judgement or poor management skills by school adminstrators. There's a lot things in life that just have to based on judgement, not rules. And broad based rules with harsh consequences and no excepctions, like "zero tolerance" policies, are the worst kind.

[Stepsongrapes]

Bringing in an unaccounted screwdriver should also be seriously dealt with.

Seriously? You're actually willing to up the serious, judgement-free punishment to screwdrivers, too?

[Staff Sergeant]

This is a perfectly fine solution. My problem with Mordrak's need for severe treatment is that he ASSUMES that punishment is needed instead of education.

This is a failing of the ADULTS who created these policies or failed to explain them to the point where they can get a reasonable number of other ADULTS to agree what falls in or out of the policy. Yet, it's the child that gets punished.

This kid, and other kids, need to educated that this kind of thing shouldn't be done, he doesn't need ANY form of "severe" punishment.

Mordrak and myself are saying the same thing, he is just using bigger words and longer sentences. You keep beating that strawman, though, don't mind me.

And again, let me reiterate, I wholly agree that punishment far exceeds what's called for here

EDIT: Also I agree that a screwdriver should be treated the same way as a knife: confiscate, tell the parents not to do it again.

[Phil_Stein]

On the scale of dangers that a 6 year old kid is exposed to, a camping utensil with a small, presumably dull blade rates pretty low in my book. And I have a 10 year old, an 8 year old, and a 4 year old.

FWIW, just today we had a medical emergency (of sorts) with the 4 year old. She had been playing with a hollow plastic ball with round holes all over it, stuck her finger in one, couldn't get it out, and the panic and tugging apparently caused swelling. Her mom and I couldn't get the finger out with oil or soap lubricating it, so I performed delicate surgery on the ball with a pair of garden snips and a kitchen scissors, and a successful result.

The point is, kids will hurt themselves with all kinds of things. Do I think, as a matter of policy, it's reasonable to exclude things like this camping utensil from school? I guess, though frankly, it wouldn't bother me (much) as a parent (rules aside) if my kid or another kid brought such a thing to show and tell.

My wife and I sometimes joke about her desire to wrap our kids in bubble wrap so nothing in the world will hurt them. It's a joke, obviously. Yes, you need to provide reasonable guidance in separating kids from dangerous objects and activities. But you can't eliminate all danger to kids, and they're likely to hurt themselves a few times along the way, often with unexpected things and/or in unexpected ways.

[Stepsongrapes]

Mordrak and myself are saying the same thing, he is just using bigger words and longer sentences. You keep beating that strawman, though, don't mind me.

I don't read your posts with the words "severe" and "serious" in them. Nothing more than confiscation and a note or call home is needed here, for a 1st time transgression of this nature.

If that's what Mordrak classifies as "severe" than I have no qualms with that.

[Mordrak]

Seriously? You're actually willing to up the serious, judgement-free punishment to screwdrivers, too?

o.O

45

[Tim James]

FWIW, just today we had a medical emergency (of sorts) with the 4 year old. She had been playing with a hollow plastic ball with round holes all over it, stuck her finger in one, couldn't get it out, and the panic and tugging apparently caused swelling. Her mom and I couldn't get the finger out with oil or soap lubricating it, so I performed delicate surgery on the ball with a pair of garden snips and a kitchen scissors, and a successful result.Should've got her Mainway's Bag O' Glass instead.

[Phil_Stein]

:)

345

[Mordrak]

I don't read your posts with the words "severe" and "serious" in them. Nothing more than confiscation and a note or call home is needed here, for a 1st time transgression of this nature.

If that's what Mordrak classifies as "severe" than I have no qualms with that.

I don't know why you're putting severe in quotes. I never used that word. I said it should be taken seriously, which it should. The fact people walked away from this thinking it was a spork says that people aren't taking it seriously.

[Stepsongrapes]

I don't know why you're putting severe in quotes. I never used that word. I said it should be taken seriously, which it should. The fact people walked away from this thinking it was a spork says that people aren't taking it seriously.

My mistake on the severe part. Apologies for the misquote.

On taking this seriously, I certainly would take this LESS seriously than news that my son got into a fist fight. Something which I fully expect I will get news of, at some point in his future academic career.

[Tyjenks]

How do kids eat there lunch? I mean, if there was anger and intent in a child, why would he not just pocket a lunchroom utensil? Hell, I could poke the shit out of someone's eye with a finger and you know what, I had a friend that got poked and had to wear a patch after a basketball incident.

I understand weapons should not be brought and there is no way to have a comprehensive detail of approved and not approved items. Just some common sense please. There are probably 10,000 stories like this one. Cannot find it, but there was one where a kid had a tiny, plastic key chain toy gun and was treated similarly.

There is no reason we should be having to ask lawmakers to write new laws to protect kids from their own school officials.

[Cubit]

I agree with what Talisker and Slainte have expressed. It saddens me that shit like this (along with insane sex offender laws) can turn kids into criminals for simply being kids.

[Jason McCullough]

The intent of a zero tolerance law is not to protect the covered, but to remove liability for the enforcers. This way no one can pick their favorite "-ism" and cry out how unfairly they are being treated.

What on earth do "isms" have to do whether or not kids take things that might or might not be weapons to school?

[Creole Ned]

Well, you know...sporkism, knifism, screwdriverism, stuff like that.

[jeffd]

Scouts knives are not the fucking plastic knife your mommy gave you to go with your tea-set when you were a little girl, buddy, they are dangerous, and not "remotely" so.

EDIT: Background: I had a friend in grade 3 or 4 sever his own finger almost completely from his hand on a pocket knife he brought in to school.

Shenanigans. I own a pretty sharp / nice pocket knife, and if I wanted to "almost completely sever" my finger with it, I'd have to do some serious cutting. I'd buy that he cut himself pretty good, but c'mon.

[Mordrak]

Shenanigans. I own a pretty sharp / nice pocket knife, and if I wanted to "almost completely sever" my finger with it, I'd have to do some serious cutting. I'd buy that he cut himself pretty good, but c'mon.

You're also an adult. Are you a midget? We also don't know the circumstances.

Is this really how far the conversation has degenerated?

[Staff Sergeant]

Shenanigans. I own a pretty sharp / nice pocket knife, and if I wanted to "almost completely sever" my finger with it, I'd have to do some serious cutting. I'd buy that he cut himself pretty good, but c'mon.

He was closing it and had his finger in between the blade and the little pocket thing it goes into, bam: finger barely attached to hand. I don't understand the assumption that all knives are dull, sharpening knives involves sliding them along something to wear the edges of the blade, making it sharper. It's not rocket science.

EDIT: And yeah, it was an 8-9 year old, genius. How thick were your fingers in elementary school?

[Athryn]

Some of the manlier students brought their shotguns and would go hunting with the coaches. We had an archery class. Amazingly, we never had a single incident in 4 years.



Yeah, I remember my dad telling me about how when he was in high school, kids took rifles with them to school all the time and stored them in their lockers, because they used them to hunt game on the way to and from school.

It's weird how much things have changed.

[Ranulf]

Bah, this case is nuthin. Kid is probably a killer in the making anyway. Cub scout? Death scout!

A couple of my favorite zero tolerance stories:

6-Year-Old Accused Of Sexual Harassment in MA
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/6836257/detail.html

Same case:
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/02/08/boys_suspension_in_harassment_case_outrages_mother/


13 year old Girl strip searched for advil, case went to Supreme court:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/19/scotus.strip.search/index.html

Ruling:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/25/scotus.strip.search/index.html

[jeffd]

He was closing it and had his finger in between the blade and the little pocket thing it goes into, bam: finger barely attached to hand. I don't understand the assumption that all knives are dull, sharpening knives involves sliding them along something to wear the edges of the blade, making it sharper. It's not rocket science.

EDIT: And yeah, it was an 8-9 year old, genius. How thick were your fingers in elementary school?

Kid sized, but I duno - I just can't imagine someone nearly severing one. That's a lot of force to cut through all the gristle and whatnot!

[Damien Falgoust]

The next generation will be so pussified they won't stand a chance in the zombie apocalypse.

Speaking of kids and knives, my grandfather used to play mumble peg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumblety-peg). He and his friends also used to swim in the Mississippi River (usually having to walk back a mile to where they started due to the current) and climbed and swung from the uppermost branches of some big-assed trees. If someone got hurt, it was considered a character-building episode -- bet the kid won't try that stupid thing again.

He died at 85 and I'd bet well into his 60s that no zombie would have dared fuck with him.

[Tyjenks]

Yeah, I remember my dad telling me about how when he was in high school, kids took rifles with them to school all the time and stored them in their lockers, because they used them to hunt game on the way to and from school.

It's weird how much things have changed.
ARRRRRG!!!

[kerzain]

Finding character witnesses when you are 6 years old is not easy. But there was Zachary Christie last week at a school disciplinary committee hearing with his karate instructor and his mother’s fiancé by his side to vouch for him.I think it's ironic this kid showed up with his Karate instructor to help prove he isn't dangerous. I almost expect him to wave his hands around bragging about how they are registered deadly weapons, much more powerful than a chincy cub scout knife.

[Calistas]

^ more like the instructor is there to say "this kid is super kind in class, never goes too far, never gets angry and hits others out of spite".. the sort of stuff we expect of 6 year olds.

What an absolutely silly waste of school time. This is the kind of story that would appear in the human interest part of our local news broadcast along with a "only in America!" line dropped at the end by the presenter.

Poor kid.

[Athryn]

ARRRRRG!!!

Keep in mind we're talking about what is now a pretty suburban part of California. :P

[jason]

What on earth do "isms" have to do whether or not kids take things that might or might not be weapons to school?

Because when you don't have zero tolerance laws/rules that blanket all offences with hard and fast and identical punishments where the principals can throw up their hands and say "Look, its the rule, my hands are tied." then the first time a white kid gets a warning and a black kid doesn't someone is suing over racism. Replace "white" and "black" with other identifying words and choose the appropriate "-ism" for other examples. Zero tolerance policies exist to remove liability from the administration.

It is a knife. Knives are not allowed. The punishment is as follows...

[Staff Sergeant]

Kid sized, but I duno - I just can't imagine someone nearly severing one. That's a lot of force to cut through all the gristle and whatnot!

It was one of those knives that past a certain point really want to go back in the sheath, and it didn't go all the way through, the finger was dangling by some flesh.

[Stepsongrapes]

It was one of those knives that past a certain point really want to go back in the sheath, and it didn't go all the way through, the finger was dangling by some flesh.

While I can imagine this happening under some circumstances, getting your finger cut off merely by the closing action of a knife seems difficult.

I cook a fair amount. Anyone who's ever broken down a chicken will tell you that it is surprisingly hard to cut through tendon and bone. Even the smallest of chicken joints (e.g., the wing tip and drummette) can't be taken apart with even a very sharp small knife without some sawing or a hard chop. This is assuming you actually hit the joint.

I'm thinking childhood memories of a lot of gushing blood is making you think the wound was more severe. Certainly if it made it through the joint, the knife ain't going to stop on a shred of flesh.

[Staff Sergeant]

While I can imagine this happening under some circumstances, getting your finger cut off merely by the closing action of a knife seems difficult.

I cook a fair amount. Anyone who's ever broken down a chicken will tell you that it is surprisingly hard to cut through tendon and bone. Even the smallest of chicken joints (e.g., the wing tip and drummette) can't be taken apart with even a very sharp small knife without some sawing or a hard chop. This is assuming you actually hit the joint.

I'm thinking childhood memories of a lot of gushing blood is making you think the wound was more severe. Certainly if it made it through the joint, the knife ain't going to stop on a shred of flesh.

Because of the blood, I couldn't see it very well, but it was his mother afterwards who told me the specifics of what happened (yeah that's a little messed up but oh well). I guess she could have been lying to me but it's still a fairly bad injury due to the fact that kids are dumb and shouldn't have dangerous objects unsupervised (this actually happened under supervision, I don't know how much worse it would have been if it wasn't).

[Stepsongrapes]

Because of the blood, I couldn't see it very well, but it was his mother afterwards who told me the specifics of what happened (yeah that's a little messed up but oh well). I guess she could have been lying to me but it's still a fairly bad injury due to the fact that kids are dumb and shouldn't have dangerous objects unsupervised (this actually happened under supervision, I don't know how much worse it would have been if it wasn't).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his mom had reasons to scare the crap out of you guys. Apparently, it worked pretty well because you now seem to think kids are so dumb that they can't even be given the camping tool this kid had.

Again, my point is knowing the facts we know about this story, are you saying this offense is worse than getting in to a fist fight at school or even cursing at the teacher or other intentionally disruptive action?

As a parent, I'd take this "misbehavior" on the part of my kid over a fight or intentional disruption.

[Staff Sergeant]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that his mom had reasons to scare the crap out of you guys. Apparently, it worked pretty well because you now seem to think kids are so dumb that they can't even be given the camping tool this kid had.

Again, my point is knowing the facts we know about this story, are you saying this offense is worse than getting in to a fist fight at school or even cursing at the teacher or other intentionally disruptive action?

As a parent, I'd take this "misbehavior" on the part of my kid over a fight or intentional disruption.

You are just in an arguing mood today, aren't you? I think kids should have access to whatever their parents want in the company of their parents, but when that kid is someone else's responsiblity you follow that person's rules, especially if they are going to be around other people's kids.

[Stepsongrapes]

You are just in an arguing mood today, aren't you? I think kids should have access to whatever their parents want in the company of their parents, but when that kid is someone else's responsiblity you follow that person's rules, especially if they are going to be around other people's kids.

Rather than arguing, what are your thoughts on my statement regarding what is a worse offense: 1) this kid's actions 2) getting into your standard playground brawl or 3) verbally disrupting class?

As a parent, I certainly am not willing to say that the school gets to write whatever crazy rules it wants, as you've just indicated. These are public schools, not the neighbor's house where they get to make whatever rules they want.

[Andrew Mayer]

You are just in an arguing mood today, aren't you? I think kids should have access to whatever their parents want in the company of their parents, but when that kid is someone else's responsiblity you follow that person's rules, especially if they are going to be around other people's kids.

Still, you told a literal old wives' tale as an anecdote to try and make a point in PNR. You get what you get.

"You'll put your eye out!"

[Jason McCullough]

Because when you don't have zero tolerance laws/rules that blanket all offences with hard and fast and identical punishments where the principals can throw up their hands and say "Look, its the rule, my hands are tied." then the first time a white kid gets a warning and a black kid doesn't someone is suing over racism. Replace "white" and "black" with other identifying words and choose the appropriate "-ism" for other examples.

This seems implausible as hell. Is there some overview of the history here?

[Stepsongrapes]

This seems implausible as hell. Is there some overview of the history here?

I think the article itself mentions that the old standards (which involved discretion) were criticized for being unequally applied to african american students. However true that was, this response is going WAY overboard.

[Staff Sergeant]

Rather than arguing, what are your thoughts on my statement regarding what is a worse offense: 1) this kid's actions 2) getting into your standard playground brawl or 3) verbally disrupting class?

As a parent, I certainly am not willing to say that the school gets to write whatever crazy rules it wants, as you've just indicated. These are public schools, not the neighbor's house where they get to make whatever rules they want.

The school can indeed write whatever rules it wants, and you can challenge those rules if you like.

1)brawl
2)disrupting class
3)kid's actions (this kid didn't do anything wrong, it was his parents fault)

When exactly did you let up on your strawman for Mordrak and start in on your strawman for me? I'm not saying the school can assign whatever exorbitant punishment they want for any offense, but they can indeed make rules against whatever they want (with certain exceptions, obviously).

[Staff Sergeant]

Still, you told a literal old wives' tale as an anecdote to try and make a point in PNR. You get what you get.

"You'll put your eye out!"

It was a personal experience where a child hurt himself with a knife badly enough to warrant a trip to the ER, brought out in response to people who are saying that children are so careful that they could never hurt themselves with a dull old pocketknife ("why in my day, I juggled flaming chainsaws, kids these days are too damn weak"). The exact details aren't really that important, but it's much easier to pick apart the details and ignore the whole point of the anecdote, isn't it?

[Talisker]

I don't think anybody said that children are so careful that they could never hurt themselves with a dull old pocketknife. Children can hurt themselves with damned near anything, they're very ingenious -- it's just that a cub scout knife/spoon/fork camping utensil is, realistically, no more dangerous than a rock.

Actually, given the stupid things I've seen kids do with rocks, I'd say it's less dangerous.

In any event, kids are also very resilient; it's OK if they hurt themselves occasionally, they'll heal. Heck, it's *important* that they hurt themselves occasionally, it's one of the ways you learn things.

[Mordrak]

Why do people keep saying it's just a "cub scout" knife? Is it specifically branded "cub scout?" Are cub scout knives known to have safety features that normal knives do not? Is that in the article? Do they put rubber on the ends?

I think it's a bit ridiculous to be comparing a knife to a rock. Seriously, it's an additional (and unnecessary) danger by its very presence on school grounds. It's unaccounted for (unlike typical cutlery which I doubt teachers would want 6 year old students taking out to the playground). You guys sound like the probability guy. So a kid could be hurt by a rock or hurt by a knife, rocks are at school, so it doesn't matter if knives are at school! It's the same chance! So you wouldn't mind everyone's kids bringing knives to school? Knives for everyone!


"It either happens or it doesn't, therefore it's a 50/50 chance!"

[Phil_Stein]

Talisker is right.

Lots of ways for kids to get hurt. The camping utensil thing with knife holds some danger, but so do MANY things that kids come into contact with.

I think our kids have had 6 incidents wear one or more bones were broken or significant stitches were required. They came in fairly mundane/routine situations.

[Deleted full list with details - seemed a bit much to put on the intarwebz].

[Mordrak]

So you don't mind your child being exposed to unnecessary additional dangers because they are already exposed to danger? That makes no sense by itself. Do you give your kids cigarettes as well? So we should hand out knives to toddlers? What's the difference? They can hurt themselves just playing normally!

Would you apply that standard to drinking and driving? Do you even listen to yourself?

[Phil_Stein]

Mordrak - depends on what you mean by "unnecessary".

In theory, the physically safest way to raise my kids might be to lock them into a padded room.

Raising kids involves trade-offs. The dangers of the knife in question seem pretty small to me. Is it reasonable to have a rule prohibiting such items in elementary schools? Perhaps. But even with such a rule, the level of infraction by the kid (i.e. did he know he was doing something against the rules) seems low, and the incremental danger to himself and his peers also seems low - quite low, versus the background level of danger that such kids are already in from the everyday items around them.

[Mordrak]

It's not necessary for your six year old kid to take knives to school. A no knife policy seems pretty reasonable to me unless it's for a project with adult supervision and planned in advance. Do you hand your six your old a steak knife? Or do you cut their meat for them in advance if it requires something that sharp?

That's not locking kids up in a padded room, it's called common sense.

[Andrew Mayer]

It was a personal experience where a child hurt himself with a knife badly enough to warrant a trip to the ER, brought out in response to people who are saying that children are so careful that they could never hurt themselves with a dull old pocketknife

Is that what people said? I thought they're saying that there are both acceptable risks and acceptable responses.

Your story illuminates neither.

("why in my day, I juggled flaming chainsaws, kids these days are too damn weak").

I'm pretty sure you're the one who's spooning out the hyperbole here...

The exact details aren't really that important, but it's much easier to pick apart the details and ignore the whole point of the anecdote, isn't it?

And the moral is—people tend to exaggerate stuff, and that is great fuel for moral panics!

Sleep tight, kids...

[NoWayJose]

So you don't mind your child being exposed to unnecessary additional dangers because they are already exposed to danger? That makes no sense by itself. Do you give your kids cigarettes as well? So we should hand out knives to toddlers? What's the difference? They can hurt themselves just playing normally!

Would you apply that standard to drinking and driving? Do you even listen to yourself?
Uh-oh, I think someone just compared two things that are not like each other (knives don't necessarily do harm, cigarettes do). Didn't you just get done telling everyone to stop doing that?

The thing with being a parent is that things aren't absolutes. We're able to discern the difference between Crocodile Dundee's "That's a KNOIF" knife and a Cub Scout eating utensil. We're able to evaluate our kid's ability to play with one and not the other. And we're able to take steps to prevent our kids from playing with the bad kind which don't preclude staying in school for 45 days.

[Mordrak]

The thing with being a parent is that things aren't absolutes. We're able to discern the difference between Crocodile Dundee's "That's a KNOIF" knife and a Cub Scout eating utensil. We're able to evaluate our kid's ability to play with one and not the other. And we're able to take steps to prevent our kids from playing with the bad kind which don't preclude staying in school for 45 days.

People keep saying a cub scout eating utensil as if that means something. It doesn't unless you can show otherwise. The picture certainly didn't make it seem harmless. You don't need a "That's a KNOIF" knife to seriously hurt yourself or others.

But you're fine to evaluate your kids ability on your own time at your own school, but a public school cannot when it sets policy like this. Certainly, you aren't evaluating other kids. Do you trust every parent at your kid's school to adequately judge their child's ability? Perhaps, because you'll send your kid to a private school, but for the rest of the plebs, I prefer sensible policies that would minimize subjecting my kids to other people's questionable parenting via their craptastic kids.

[Andrew Mayer]

But you're fine to evaluate your kids ability on your own time at you're own school, but a public school cannot when it sets policy like this. Certainly, you aren't evaluating other kids. Do you trust every parent at your kids' school to adequately judge their child's ability?

The question is, do you trust teachers and school faculty to be able to judge their response?

Zero Tolerance policies are political theater.

[Mordrak]

The question is, do you trust teachers and school faculty to be able to judge their response?

Zero Tolerance policies are political theater.

As implemented, Zero Tolerance policies lead to the absurd and they should be relaxed within reason. I also find it a bit disturbing how many people walked away with a wrong impression of the utensil (actually calling it a spork), disregarded the age, and seemed to abandoned any concern for accident because they reflexively treated a serious concern as hysteria.

Stories about bringing rifles to high school for hunting (likely a supervised activity), or archery class in high school (another supervised activity), or somebody's grandfather stupidly throwing knives at his feet this is not.

[NoWayJose]

As implemented, Zero Tolerance policies lead to the absurd and they should be relaxed within reason.
You don't see an inherent conflict in this single sentence? You didn't write "tend to lead to the absurd," you (correctly) wrote "lead to the absurd." One is an inevitable result of the other. I'm not sure if by "relaxing" you mean "abandoning in favor of a system of fair evaluation of the 'offense,' and an appeals process which favors keeping kids in school." This by definition is not Zero Tolerance. Once you introduce "within reason," you're cementing your position against Zero Tolerance.

So, I guess I'm curious as to what you favor as regards policies on public school campuses?

[Mordrak]

You don't see an inherent conflict in this single sentence? You didn't write "tend to lead to the absurd," you (correctly) wrote "lead to the absurd." One is an inevitable result of the other. I'm not sure if by "relaxing" you mean "abandoning in favor of a system of fair evaluation of the 'offense,' and an appeals process which favors keeping kids in school." This by definition is not Zero Tolerance. Once you introduce "within reason," you're cementing your position against Zero Tolerance.

So, I guess I'm curious as to what you favor as regards policies on public school campuses?

All I can say is it depends. I was more responding automatic demonization of the concern (and staff) as a proxy for the punishment policy, with plenty of dick swinging, "In my day we walked up hill both ways," kind of bullshit.

In this case, it seems like the reasonable response is to discuss the issue with the parents and child all present and make to it a formal warning, with whatever that entails. It should be basically telling the parents don't be bone heads and don't send your kid to school with a knife, scout or otherwise and likewise making sure they at least impart that seriousness to their kid there. If it happens again, I don't see much of a problem to quickly ratcheting up the penalty to include suspension, though a month long suspension and reform school at this point though are too much. A second time isn't an accident, it's someone who perhaps thinks like Phil, doesn't see the concern, and wants to make a point with his kid or it is a kid acting out. I certainly think a no knife policy without an adult present at least in the classroom (or you know cutlery in the cafeteria) is a sensible one (even at middle and high school levels)*. What's that's doing is just removing one more thing that's not necessary to the classroom environment to help prevent accidents.

I definitely think it's more serious than Phil's series of escalated warnings (multiple!), a trip the principals office, and then a minor suspension as a "very last resort." I'd skip right to the minor suspension at the second incident if the first incident was deemed ignorance (or light stupidity). There's no reason it should happen more than once.

So I'm for a Zero Tolerance policy of kids bringing knives to school--as in it's serious and shouldn't happen--but not Zero Tolerance punishments, just relatively close to it with a concern this serious.

*Or more succinctly, a no bringing knives to school policy.

[Tyjenks]

All I can say is it depends. I was more responding automatic demonization of the concern (and staff) as a proxy for the punishment policy, with plenty of dick swinging, "In my day we walked up hill both ways," kind of bullshit.

The point was that there was rarely an issue, just as there is rarely an issue now. The difference now is that there is an insane enforcement policy that causes undue harm to the majority of children that bear no ill will towards anyone. Those with harmful intent will not whip the knife out and show classmates. They will keep it concealed until time for use and then do their damage. I am sure there is a case in the million or so where the Zero tolerance policy prevented an incident, but I am willing to bet that any anti-weapon policy would have been just as effective.

A kid is just as likely to stab a classmate with a pencil or a that thing with the point with which you draw circles as he is with a knife. Those tools are much more readily available and I do not think kids showing up with a pocket knife at school ratchets up the danger. A policy forbidding weapons is, obviously, necessary.

The demonization is of policies that are put in place to remove any sort of need for on-the-spot decision making by school officials, which is what should be and has previously been the case. Weapons should not be allowed in schools and when discovered, the infraction should be dealt with in a reasonable manner based on specific circumstances. Zero tolerance is a knee-jerk, pendulum swing reaction because no one wants to make a decision and deal with consequences.

[Gav]

So I'm for a Zero Tolerance policy of kids bringing knives to school--as in it's serious and shouldn't happen--but not Zero Tolerance punishments, just relatively close to it with a concern this serious.
This makes no sense. What does that mean to have a zero tolerance policy that doesn't include zero tolerance punishments? Zero tolerance means that there's an automatic punishment, with no leeway for discretion.

Meanwhile, if we're going to have dueling anecdotes, a kid in my high school stabbed another kid through the hand with a pencil -- second kid needed to go to the hospital.

There was an article in the NYT a couple of years back about how most school injuries are caused by back-packs. Kids swing them at each other and get hurt. So I think maybe schools should consider a zero-tolerance policy on backpacks.

[jason]

There was an article in the NYT a couple of years back about how most school injuries are caused by back-packs. Kids swing them at each other and get hurt. So I think maybe schools should consider a zero-tolerance policy on backpacks.

You joke, but a school near me has done exactly that. Of course, it wasn't for injury but for prevention on concealment of other items (drugs, weapons, etc). No backpacks, and for all classes kids are issued a book to take home and the classrooms keep on hand books enough for class, so kids don't have to carry books around, just a notebook or folder plus pens/pencils. They also don't use lockers (since kids don't have books to put in them). On one hand, its nice for the kids not to have to haul books around. On the other hand, you can only do homework at home or in the class where you have access to the book (or the library, they do have textbooks available for use there).

[Slainte Mhath]

I don't think anyone is really arguing that the school shouldn't have the right to ask that this child not bring the offending utensil/gadget/whatever back to school again. What people here are saying is simply that sending this kindergartener to reform school because he brought a camping utensil to school so he could use the fork to eat lunch with (i.e. non-violent intent) is ridiculous and against all common sense. Thus the zero tolerance policy, and others like it, should be re-examined.

Zero tolerance policies exist for two reasons. One, they eliminate the need for anyone to make a judgement call. Two, without judgement calls, there is no exposure to risk for the administration involved, in other words, nobody can sue them because the decision they made was different for little Johnny than it was for little Frankie, despite any differences in their respective situations. These policies protect the people who put them in place just as much as they supposedly protect the people they're enacted upon. Common sense and responsibility are tossed out the window in favor of having your ass covered in the event of an angry parent filing a lawsuit. What happend to this boy is just an extreme example of how ridiculous these policies can become, but no matter how much bad publicity the school receives, they're still exempt from any liability in this case because they followed a published policy to the letter.

[Nellie]

And I thought we had the market cornered on unintended consequences of well meaning but badly thought out legislation.

I do think Slainte pretty much sums it up.

[Bahimiron]

I'm with Mordrak, guys. They should've tased this kid the moment he showed himself to be a reckless threat to common decency.

[WarrenM]

Throw in a strip search for good measure. If he's willing to bring a deadly weapon to school to attack his lunch with, who knows what else he's capable of.

[Jason McCullough]

I think the article itself mentions that the old standards (which involved discretion) were criticized for being unequally applied to african american students. However true that was, this response is going WAY overboard.

You hear "zero tolerance" for prescription drugs and birth control too, though, which makes no sense from a racial angle. I don't get it.

[jason]

You hear "zero tolerance" for prescription drugs and birth control too, though, which makes no sense from a racial angle. I don't get it.

I'm just not sure what you don't get...

Racial was just one example. It could be sexism (girls treated differently than boys), or whatever the -ism is for wealth disparities (rich kids getting different treatment from poor kids), etc... The point of zero tolerance policies is to establish a standard that applies to everyone equally, cannot be altered by judgment calls on the part of the administrators of the schools. Knife at school = reform school. Period. End of discussion. The type of knife doesn't matter, the student doesn't matter, the situation doesn't matter, there are no extenuating circumstances, this is the rule, it was broken, and this is the punishment. Do not pass "GO!" Do not collect $200. This sort of policy prevents people from appealing the decision with reasons like "they only did this because my son is [insert skin color here]!" or "the boys don't get treated this way, why is it different for girls?" or "the rich kids get away with this all the time, discrimination!!"

And just as a side note... what makes prescription drugs and birth control make no sense from a racial angle? It is somehow not possible for someone to let a [insert skin color here] kid get off with a warning while [insert a different skin color here] kid gets punished for those items?

[TheTrunkDr]

I'm just not sure what you don't get...

Racial was just one example. It could be sexism (girls treated differently than boys), or whatever the -ism is for wealth disparities (rich kids getting different treatment from poor kids), etc... The point of zero tolerance policies is to establish a standard that applies to everyone equally, cannot be altered by judgment calls on the part of the administrators of the schools. Knife at school = reform school. Period. End of discussion. The type of knife doesn't matter, the student doesn't matter, the situation doesn't matter, there are no extenuating circumstances, this is the rule, it was broken, and this is the punishment. Do not pass "GO!" Do not collect $200. This sort of policy prevents people from appealing the decision with reasons like "they only did this because my son is [insert skin color here]!" or "the boys don't get treated this way, why is it different for girls?" or "the rich kids get away with this all the time, discrimination!!"

And just as a side note... what makes prescription drugs and birth control make no sense from a racial angle? It is somehow not possible for someone to let a [insert skin color here] kid get off with a warning while [insert a different skin color here] kid gets punished for those items?
First, any policy that is strictly defined and adhered to will eliminate the "isms" from the debate. So what makes a zero tolerance policy better than a three strikes or some similar policy? Why throw an otherwise good kid into reform school over a single mistake?

Second, the point was that many schools have zero tolerance policies that extend to prescription drugs, which makes absolutely no sense when a child actually has a prescription and needs to take the drug during school hours. Is little Timmy just not supposed to take his penicillin?

[Jason McCullough]

And just as a side note... what makes prescription drugs and birth control make no sense from a racial angle? It is somehow not possible for someone to let a [insert skin color here] kid get off with a warning while [insert a different skin color here] kid gets punished for those items?

I can't for the life of me figure out how someone, or any bureaucracy, would decide complaints about racial punishing disparities in schools is best solved by creating mandatory minimum sentences. Which is effectively what this is.

For what it's worth, finally looking around the internet I find stuff like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance_%28schools%29) which gives a criminology background which at can least theoretically see someone deciding in favor of, unlike the racial/whatever theory. I still think it's comically useless, but it's not insane.

[Mordrak]

I'm with Mordrak, guys. They should've tased this kid the moment he showed himself to be a reckless threat to common decency.

I really don't get this. I never suggested the kid be expelled or sent to reform school for this particular infraction. In fact, in my first post, I put the requisite disclaimer there, yet that's how people continue to construe my posts, that or I think we should lock kids in a padded room.


A kid is just as likely to stab a classmate with a pencil or a that thing with the point with which you draw circles as he is with a knife. Those tools are much more readily available and I do not think kids showing up with a pocket knife at school ratchets up the danger. A policy forbidding weapons is, obviously, necessary.


You're just as likely to be in an accident with someone because they are sleep deprived as you would be if they were drunk. You are actually probably more likely to be in an accident with someone who is sleep deprived because I'd reckon there are more sleep deprived drivers on the road than drunk ones. Does that mean we shouldn't have drunk driving laws or adequate penalties to prevent it? Is it no big deal?

The point is the six year old shouldn't be bringing that to school, unless it's for show and tell, under teacher supervision. If a kid continues to bring it to school, after being told not, after the parents are informed... that is a serious issue.

Unlike pencils, a cool new "toy" like this, would be something to show off. I could see a stupid kid doing something stupid with it. Do you want your kids exposed to stupid kids with knives? Do you want your well meaning, but good kid, pressured into giving it to a stupid kid to play with? It doesn't need to be on campus and shouldn't be.

A pocket knife is not harmless. All this nonsense about kids being hurt with backpacks more often or pencils or whatever. No shit, but guess what, you start giving every kid a pocket knife and you'll see pocket knife accidents rise. Unlike backpacks, pencils, or a compass, a pocket knife has no reason for being at school while being an additional danger, therefore it shouldn't be there.

Or let's put it yet another way, look at the knife in question (and it's mechanism) pictured in the article and tell me if you'd be comfortable equipping every 6 year old at the school with it to use and take with them as they please?

[Phil_Stein]

Mordrak - IIRC, everyone in this thread is in agreement that the punishment in question is way over the top. (I didn't just re-read the whole thread in making that claim - if I've missed/forgotten opinions in favor of the 45 day suspension, please point them out.)

That said, the only real point being substantially debated at this point is the particular danger of the camping utensil/pocketknife.

Most of us (I think) feel that the incremental danger of a small pocketknife, brought one day to school, is not particularly high, relative to all the dangers (most of them essentially incidental) that kids are exposed to.

I could see reasonable school policies regarding such things ranging from banning knives* to allowing them in certain circumstances (rural schools where outdoorsy-type activities are normal - as with the mention of guns and hunting earlier). I would think that at most schools, a policy against kids bringing in knives, except, perhaps, with advance permission, would be reasonable.

Given some anti-knife policy, kids are likely to break it from time to time - intentionally or unintentionally. What I'm saying is that response to such a situation should be determined in much the same way as responses to other school rule infractions should generally be handled - with reasonably judgement about context from the teachers and/or administrators involved.

In the case of this specific 6 year old bringing in this specific utensil, while we perhaps do not know all the context, it seems, on the surface, to have been a pretty harmless mistake, and an appropriate response might be something like a teacher or administrator sitting the kid down, explaining what the rule is and why it exists, confiscating the knife, and sending it to the parent with a note (or having the parent pick it up).

Do you disagree with the above? If so, please point out specifically where your point of disagreement is and in particular if you disagree with my suggested response, suggest an alternate response.

* Edit - I am referring here and throughout the above to knives with sharp blade on them. Not butter knives. Blanket policies may or may not adequately distinguish between them.

[Mordrak]

Given some anti-knife policy, kids are likely to break it from time to time - intentionally or unintentionally. What I'm saying is that response to such a situation should be determined in much the same way as responses to other school rule infractions should generally be handled - with reasonably judgement about context from the teachers and/or administrators involved.


I've never disagreed with that in this thread, just the assumption that a six year old with a six year old's judgement and a pocket knife isn't somehow a danger. It is a danger and serious one.


In the case of this specific 6 year old bringing in this specific utensil, while we perhaps do not know all the context, it seems, on the surface, to have been a pretty harmless mistake, and an appropriate response might be something like a teacher or administrator sitting the kid down, explaining what the rule is and why it exists, confiscating the knife, and sending it to the parent with a note (or having the parent pick it up).


What makes it "harmless" is that no harm was committed. The kid is six years old. You don't start with the kid. Any punishment for a violation like this should be communicating to the parents as much as the kid. It's the parents who should be checking their six year old before they take the bus or dropping them off. It's the parents who should be fully aware of the school's policies. I wouldn't start with talking to the kid. I'd start with talking to the kid and parents.

And if said kid repeatedly brings a pocket knife to school, that is serious. I disagree with all the purposefully stupid bravado in the thread.

[Ed Solomon]

When spifes are outlawed, only outlaws will have spifes.

[Tyjenks]

If a kid continues to bring it to school, after being told not, after the parents are informed... that is a serious issue......

.....No shit, but guess what, you start giving every kid a pocket knife and you'll see pocket knife accidents rise......

.....tell me if you'd be comfortable equipping every 6 year old at the school with it to use and take with them as they please?
I don't think anyone is arguing that a repeat offender should be let off the hook. I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of allowing any of this and I do not think any of our arguments for changes would result in any of those things happening.

Not having certain rules does not result in every kid arming themselves.

[Mordrak]

Not having certain rules does not result in every kid arming themselves.

Nor can the school sit there and adjudicate which kids are safe with knives and which aren't and try to separate them out to make sure they don't mingle. Hence, a no bringing knives policy is a sensible one based on a reasonable and serious concern.

Phil is the one I originally responded to, who gave a pretty ridiculous comparison of passing notes in class and then proceeded with an laughably light series of escalations (which means a repeat offense).

Then everyone else wanted to talk about how their grandfathers fought zombies by throwing knives at their feet and went hunting the most dangerous game with their coaches in high school or something.

[Phil_Stein]

Mordrak, I believe you're referring to this post:

He probably shouldn't be bringing in the camping utensil.

And kids probably shouldn't pass notes or talk in class when the teacher is teaching.

But the latter can be easily handled with escalating warnings, maybe a trip to a vice-principals office, and, as probably a very late resort, a minor suspension.

The former, in this case, led directly to a 45 day suspension.

I think you're drawing a rather strained conclusion about the intent of my post, and that post (#7 in the thread) is apparently still bothering you enough to be posting about it with post #110, but hey, you seem to be having fun, so keep posting...

[Mordrak]

I think you're drawing a rather strained conclusion about the intent of my post, and that post (#7 in the thread) is apparently still bothering you enough to be posting about it with post #110, but hey, you seem to be having fun, so keep posting...

No, you've since said that wasn't your intent and I've since been compared to wanting to taze kids, strip search them, lock them up in padded rooms or in similar, but not quite as hyperbolic, fashion, supporting a punishment that from the start of this conversation I said was too severe. All the while people offering examples of our "pussified" culture and misunderstanding the actual utensil and concern in question that led to invoking the policy.

I'm mainly responding to all the other bullshit, not your post.

[Tyjenks]

Then everyone else wanted to talk about how their grandfathers fought zombies by throwing knives at their feet and went hunting the most dangerous game with their coaches in high school or something.
Yeeeaah, we were just kinda giving examlpes of the stark changes in attitudes and rules and comparing how the incidents of violence did not appear to be any worse, anecdotally. You were making our examples appear unrelated by exaggerating them, but that's fine. You don't agree that the differences and evolution (or de-evolution) of school administrators stances has no bearing on the discussion.

The kid got a reprieve so my work is done here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_re_us/us_zero_tolerance_boy)

"When that common sense is missing, it sends a message of inconsistency to students, which actually creates a less safe environment," said Kenneth S. Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a consulting firm. "People have to understand that assessing on a case-by-case basis doesn't automatically equate to being soft or unsafe."

[Brian Seiler]

Nor can the school sit there and adjudicate which kids are safe with knives and which aren't and try to separate them out to make sure they don't mingle. Hence, a no bringing knives policy is a sensible one based on a reasonable and serious concern.

Errr....

Ummm.....

Uhhh......

Wait, why? The difference between people and robots, aside from being a whole lot sexier, is that people have the ability to make informed judgments without somebody needing to program a rigorous rules set into their brains. Our society seems to think that it can distinguish people that should be able to have guns from those who shouldn't (i.e. not the criminally insane, felons, or anybody else we reasonably think might want to go out and shoot somebody for fun or profit) - how are knives in a smaller environment any different at all.

Now, sure, if a kid is walking around the school with a memmer fleffing machete, somebody needs to tell the principal so that he can maybe look into things and figure out what the deal is. That's a good idea. Authorities should involve themselves in situations that could turn ugly before they turn ugly to try and stop them from turning ugly. That, however, is not a zero tolerance policy. A zero tolerance policy would say that any kid that was caught carrying anything that could be construed as being "machete-like," possibly up to and including prop swords for the freaking school play or replacement blades for the riding lawnmower that the grounds staff use to keep things neat, would have to be punished in exactly the same way as a kid who came to school in a set of black pyjamas with a bunch of throwing knives and a hit list.

Refusal to exercise the basic judgment to determine the difference between the kid who brought his great grandfather's unloaded and probably broken World War 1 era rifle to history class for show and tell and the local drug dealer who's carrying an unregistered glock in his waistband is shameful deriliction, and I should hope that we would hold employees at our local shopping malls to higher standards, much less those who work at our public schools.

[extarbags]

The thing is: what's the worst thing that can possibly happen as a result of not allowing a kid to bring his great grandfather's old rifle to school?

[Brian Seiler]

The thing is: what's the worst thing that can possibly happen as a result of not allowing a kid to bring his great grandfather's old rifle to school?

Punishing an honor student to a mandatory month in reform school because he didn't read the letter of the rules. Crapping all over his college future because your school officials are either too stupid or too scared to exercise their brains and take responsibility for maintaining a safe environment and instead want to outsource the accountability to a bunch of rules.

[AlanT]

I think we're too caught up in "punishment" here. A no-knives policy isn't crazy in itself. But if it's violated in an inconsequential way due to lack of knowledge or carelessness, we shouldn't be punishing. Confiscation of the object for the rest of the day and explanation of the rules to the child and/or parents makes sense to me. Repeated or deliberate violations, and then you can start moving up the punishment scale.

The application of common sense comes in judging "repeated or deliberate", IMO.

[Cubit]

I think we're too caught up in "punishment" here. A no-knives policy isn't crazy in itself. But if it's violated in an inconsequential way due to lack of knowledge or carelessness, we shouldn't be punishing. Confiscation of the object and explanation of the rules to the child and/or parents makes sense to me. Repeated or deliberate violations, and then you can start moving up the punishment scale.

Precisely. I mean, my dad grew up in a rural school district and even they had rules against bringing knives into the school building. It's the ignoring of intent that zero-tolerance rules foster that makes me so against them. God forbid a school official has to do their job and make a judgment call...

[Brian Seiler]

Which is the trick - the entire theory behind zero tolerance policies is that you don't get to decide not to punish a student who just happens to be stupid, negligent, careless, or anything else, and you probably don't get to exercise much judgment in the severity of the punishment. I've got no problem with having a rule against guns on campus. That's a good rule. I also have no problem with having a rule against changing account names at the place where I work. In both cases, though, it makes sense to allow for human judgment to intervene and create an exception.

[extarbags]

Punishing an honor student to a mandatory month in reform school because he didn't read the letter of the rules. Crapping all over his college future because your school officials are either too stupid or too scared to exercise their brains and take responsibility for maintaining a safe environment and instead want to outsource the accountability to a bunch of rules.

I'm not for context-free punishment. I'm just saying, a blanket "no knives or guns in school" is a good idea, even though there are innocuous reasons for kids to bring either.

[Tyjenks]

I'm not for context-free punishment. I'm just saying, a blanket "no knives or guns in school" is a good idea, even though there are innocuous reasons for kids to bring either.
I think we all pretty much agree on this and I am kind of at a loss as to why I have continued to debate when there is little evidence in this thread disputing that we share this common ground. I am going to say I am just biased against Mordrak. ;)

[Mordrak]

Errr....

Ummm.....

Uhhh......

Wait, why? The difference between people and robots, aside from being a whole lot sexier, is that people have the ability to make informed judgments without somebody needing to program a rigorous rules set into their brains. Our society seems to think that it can distinguish people that should be able to have guns from those who shouldn't (i.e. not the criminally insane, felons, or anybody else we reasonably think might want to go out and shoot somebody for fun or profit) - how are knives in a smaller environment any different at all.


You're reading that wrong and drawing a bad parallel. For guns those flags go off at the time of purchase (or if you're caught violating that) and you're talking about adults who already have certain rights, shown their unsuitable judgement, and essentially been tagged by the system. The system is reacting to incidents, not proactively sifting to determine who can and can't handle the responsibility. The assumption is all adults can, until shown otherwise.

I'm not comfortable making those same assumptions about six year old kids. We don't give a baby objects it can swallow and choke on until the individual baby shows it can't handle the responsibility.

Or you know, what extarbags said.

[MikeSofaer]

Also you can't have a knife in your car.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,565520,00.html

[Tyjenks]

Also you can't have a knife in your car.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,565520,00.html
Excellent


They brought a cop in, who told them 'he's not breaking any laws, so I can't charge him with anything.'"

Whalen (the kid) said he asked Macri (ass. principal) why a 2-inch pocketknife would be considered more dangerous than other everyday items around the school.

"I said to him, 'What about a person who has a bat, on a baseball team? That could be a weapon.' And he said, 'Well, it's not the same thing.'"


He said the suspension has put his college dreams in jeopardy by keeping him out of class, while making him still responsible for assignments.
"My dream college would be West Point, and having a pock mark like this on my record could be detrimental. They're looking for the best of the best, and if someone didn't take the time to look through it and examine the case, they would just say, 'hey, this guy had a weapon on school property, and we don't want him at our college.'"
SO much wrong in that article if it is accurate.

[Joe M.]

Well it's no unaccounted screwdriver, but he could put someone's eye out with that thing... if he, you know, took it out of his car and made a jabbing motion at someone's face, and that person just stood there. Clearly he's a danger to fellow students who have eyes that could be put out.

[quatoria]

I wonder which of his douchebag friends squealed on him for having a knife in his frigging car. That's a great friend, right there.

[Tyjenks]

Well it's no unaccounted screwdriver, but he could put someone's eye out with that thing... if he, you know, took it out of his car and made a jabbing motion at someone's face, and that person just stood there. Clearly he's a danger to fellow students who have eyes that could be put out.
What if, for safe keeping, students liked to leave their eyes in his car during the school day...there is an obvious threat there.

[HighPlainsDrifter]

During my last couple years of high school, they set up no tolerance rules for knives. Before then I never brought anything; afterwards I'd sometimes bring a small pocket knife.

It was my way of sticking it to the man.

[Nathan Phoenix]

They can drive cars to school, cars that they could drive up on the sidewalk and run over dozens of kids, but they can't have a pocketknife.

[Anti-Bunny]

http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/904540.html?page=2#comment

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Koeh-095.jpg
An 'unregulated over-the-counter drug'.

*facepalm*

[RyanMichael]

Dear sweet jebus, these people should be flogged.

[Bahimiron]

Some of the comments are either hilarious or scary. Sadly, I honestly can't figure out if they're satire or not.

I'm guessng (hoping) that this one is.

Well, this mother is rather naive, as it seems she has no clue how kids get their jollies from peppermint oil.

It will become the next popular hallucinogenic with all this publicity.

As with glue, LSD, pot, alcohol, mushrooms, heroin, etc, peppermint oil should be kept out of the reach of children. Last time I checked, 10 yr olds are children.

I hope the parent grounded this kid for a month.

And I'm sadly fairly certain this one isn't.

What kids will do is fill a peppermint oil bottle with toothpicks to soak overnight, and then sell them to other kids. Peppermint can be a low-level stimulant. The school was correct in suspending her. She has to be taught that its wrong to sell things like that in school, and send that message to other kids. If she comes back and does it again, then there's a real problem with her.

And from the mysteriously named footballexpert

Public schools are really just prisons for youths who are being indoctrinated to hate God and to hate America. "Brave New World", "Death of Salesman" "The Crucible" "To Kill A Mockingbird" are just a few examples of schools teaching kids that this great country is evil.

[VegasRobb]

Hm ... so the cinnamon toothpicks from my youth are now banned?

[Marcus]

Peppermint can be a low-level stimulant.

BAN SUGAR!

[Anti-Bunny]

BAN SUGAR!

Actually, they've been pushing for a ban on sugary drinks in schools for a really long time and some schools ban stuff like cupcakes, etc for their sugar content.

I wouldn't be surprised if schools start ripping water fountains out.. you know, water poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication) and all.

[jason]

And all those books, with all their pages, the threat of paper cuts is just too big. We need to ban all textbooks. Loose leaf paper is right out. And, good Lord, the libraries! They are like giant paper cut factories just waiting for victims...

[Rward]

What kids will do is fill a peppermint oil bottle with toothpicks to soak overnight, and then sell them to other kids. Peppermint can be a low-level stimulant. The school was correct in suspending her. She has to be taught that its wrong to sell things like that in school, and send that message to other kids. If she comes back and does it again, then there's a real problem with her.


Wha-WHAT!!!????

We get peppermint flavoured toothpicks from restaurants!
Those Bastards, they're trying to give us the munchies so we buy more food!!
CALL THE COPS!!


indeed, a world of pussies is on the horizon...

[WarrenM]

Sad. Just really fucking sad.

[arctangent]

Welcome to America. Check your rational mind at the door and mind the idiots.

[Anaxagoras]

Actually, they've been pushing for a ban on sugary drinks in schools for a really long time and some schools ban stuff like cupcakes, etc for their sugar content.


"They" have been pushing for a ban on the sale of sugary drinks by vending machines & the school authorities. I haven't heard of anybody pushing for a "ban" as in "you can't have them or bring them from home".

They're absolutely correct in pushing for the ban of sugary foods & drinks, provided they provide healthier alternatives.

[arctangent]

Anything that interferes with profit will be vigorously opposed, whereas anything that is done for protection from lawsuits will be vigorously encouraged.

If some vending machine company were selling peppermint toothpicks they'd be in every school in the nation inside of a year, probably made with artificial peppermint flavoring and soft non-wooden "toothpicks" (for the children's sake, they might God forbid hurt themselves with a real toothpick).

[Anti-Bunny]

Anything that interferes with profit will be vigorously opposed, whereas anything that is done for protection from lawsuits will be vigorously encouraged.

Actually, it's simpler then that. Studies show the effect of banning soda sales in schools has been pretty limited. Fruit juices have just as many calories as regular soda, same with low-fat (as opposed to fat-free) milk and many sports drinks. Substituting OJ for Soda is not going to accomplish anything, unless maybe they're trying to fight Vitamin C deficiency in students.

The only real effect here is removing Caffeine from the students' diet.. Which makes sense, if you're trying to curb stimulants and make the students more docile.

[Blackadar]

Timely story:

My son had a cold a couple of weeks ago. After a couple of days of him feeling under the weather, we took him to the doc. Unlike many parents, we don't take him unless something starts to linger. The doc said he had some sort of bug and gave him some antibiotics. The doc also said that he could return to school. The antibiotics worked well and my son quickly got past the worst of it, but his sore throat lingered. So we sent him to school with a few Halls sugar-free cough drops so his throat wouldn't hurt as much. He was told that he couldn't use them and the teacher sent home a note saying that it violated their drug policy. He couldn't even swallow anything when he got home. We weren't happy.

My wife sent a note back the next day that was along the lines of "we don't care about your policy" (she's more diplomatic than I am) and we sent my son back to school with more of the cough drops. I told him that if they prevented him from taking them, to call me and I'd personally come down to the school to handle it. They didn't bother him again about them.

Fucking idiots.

[Tyjenks]

Nice. Cough drops....is mentho-lyptus (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39194) dangerous and I was not told. I just thought they were good for advanced vapor action, which acted instantly relieving sore throat irritation for up to 12 hours.

[WarrenM]

My son had a cold a couple of weeks ago. After a couple of days of him feeling under the weather, we took him to the doc. Unlike many parents, we don't take him unless something starts to linger. The doc said he had some sort of bug and gave him some antibiotics. The doc also said that he could return to school. The antibiotics worked well and my son quickly got past the worst of it, but his sore throat lingered. So we sent him to school with a few Halls sugar-free cough drops so his throat wouldn't hurt as much. He was told that he couldn't use them and the teacher sent home a note saying that it violated their drug policy. He couldn't even swallow anything when he got home. We weren't happy.
It's frustrating trying to live in a world filled with so many god damned idiots.