|
I can't help but sit here and think, IF this kid had cut another kid with this knife, then the news media and bulletin boards all over the country would be lamenting over the fact that someone knew this kid had a knife at school and nobody did anything about it. This is one of those issues where I can kind of see both sides and I'm totally on the fence about just what schools should do. Sure, the National Honor Society kid who took a knife to school to cut a cake and got suspended seems silly. Yes, it seems silly to take an eating utensil away from a 6 year old Cub Scout. But, NHS kids and Cub Scouts are not exempt from being emotionally disturbed or from an impulsive violent act. They are also not exempt from having that knife taken from them by another kid who might be more prone to using it in a violent manner. I worked in child and adolescent psych for years and I definitely saw 6 year olds who were highly aggressive and at risk for harming someone else. I also saw teenagers in the NHS who were the same. Sometimes you don't know what a kid is thinking until they act.
Schools have to manage their risk somehow. They have chosen to use zero tolerance to avoid it altogether. I'm not sure I blame them, even though it seems ridiculous in certain situations. Similarly to how GLOs have banned things completely rather than trying to manage them (like scavenger hunts).
So, does one instance seem silly? Sure, absolutely. Does the rule seem inflexible? Absolutely. But, it's the easy way out for the schools. As long as there is some sort of appeal process (our district does have one), I really can't argue too strongly against their choice. Case by case seems more logical, yes. But schools certainly aren't the only entity to avoid risk by banning something rather than using careful evaluation of each case.
|
Threaded Mode
