6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Columbine happened. White upper middle class kids killed white upper middle class kids and all of a sudden, zero tolerance everywhere.

It was going on before Columbine...Columbine just magnified the problem.

but your point is understood all the same...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'd be willing to take my changes with six year olds who brought eating utensils to school, including six-year-old "gang bangers."

Zero tolerance regardless of circumstances is an irrational policy. His "weapon" was no more dangerous that scissors and likely little more dangerous than a pencil or pen. He didn't use it as a weapon, so referring to cutlery as weapons is a little goofy.

Having discretion doesn't have to equal racial discrimination. It's a possibility sure, but it's a possibility almost always.

I think we'd be better off allowing the people entrusted with the job of school level discipline handling these cases, especially at the elementary school level. If they racial discriminate, they face the consequences for that.

Did you actually SEE what he took to school? it was more than a piece of "cutlery." What's goofy is a bunch of folks acting like a knife is acceptable at school. So I guess had you been a parent whose child got cut accidentally with that knife, you would not have been ready to blame the school system and the teacher.

And you say we would be better off allowing the people entrusted with the job of school discipline...? what exactly are you talking about? And are you not aware that charges of racial discrimination in this context can be very hard to combat? This is so incredibly naive I can't even believe it.

I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that people really think this was okay, or how much was due to the way the media portrayed him. The media certainly didn't help things by putting up the little cutesy photographs of him with the puppy dog eyes. I'm inclined to believe that the public reaction is really based more or that than anything else. After everything that has occurred in schools in this country, it baffles me that more people would not want strict weapons policies. I worked at an elementary school where first graders were in gangs and would bring things to school. Their butts were sent to the alternative school and no one raised hell about it. people realized that you can't play around with that sort of thing.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

O God no...please don't tell me that the race card was played EVEN in this thread..

**Throwing his hands up....**

....done.

Oh STFU
Honestly. No "race card" was "played." The points made about the possibility of discrimination in the article were valid. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

It was going on before Columbine...Columbine just magnified the problem.

but your point is understood all the same...

Yeah, the point is that mainstream America didn't care until it was middle class white kids. The nonwhite and/or poor kids can kill themselves all they want to.

[DrPhil]

Shut up, deepimpact2.

[DaemonSeid]

OK...so it' shut the fuck up now huh?

Try taking your own advice and try debating a subject without

A) trying to find a way to work the racial angle into EACH topic you commenton....really, it's tired.

or

B) thinking that 'they' are talking about 'you' or 'you people'.


That's tired too and speaking of...DS is out.

Good night

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yeah, the point is that mainstream America didn't care until it was middle class white kids. The nonwhite and/or poor kids can kill themselves all they want to.

Pretty much...

[DrPhil]

Normally, I would agree that showing a "cute" white kid who was excited about just joining the Cub Scouts would get people's hearts flowing and activate the "poor little white kid" syndrome. That's both a race and age (and possibly social class, assuming he was middle to upper class) dynamic.

But, here is another instance where context matters. Context involves speaking with parents and checking the student's records to see what was going on here. Zero tolerance policies are there to protect the student body and to relieve the administrators from guilt or perceived responsibility. Treat them all like potential delinquents just in case. Better safe than sorry. I understand it but disagree with it as a fool proof way of dealing with everything.

If deepimpact2 taught at a school where 6 year olds were known to be in gangs then...NO SHIT...what they bring from their gang interactions won't be received as just a spoon-knife-fork camping device. Context.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Normally, I would agree that showing a "cute" white kid who was excited about just joining the Cub Scouts would get people's hearts flowing and activate the "poor little white kid" syndrome. That's both a race and age (and possibly social class, assuming he was middle to upper class) dynamic.

But, here is another instance where context matters. Context involves speaking with parents and checking the student's records to see what was going on here. Zero tolerance policies are there to protect the student body and to relieve the administrators from guilt or perceived responsibility. Treat them all like potential delinquents just in case. Better safe than sorry. I understand it but disagree with it as a fool proof way of dealing with everything.

If deepimpact2 taught at a school where 6 year olds were known to be in gangs then...NO SHIT...what they bring from their gang interactions won't be received as just a spoon-knife-fork camping device. Context.

Actually, your thought process might be "brilliant" except for one tiny issue: IT IS STILL A KNIFE!!!!!!! Context doesn't have a thing to do with it. Try that context argument with a parent whose child just got sliced by a knife. See exactly how far you get with it.

Some of you need to stop trying to be so contrary and look at it from the angle of parents whose children are injured because of other kids bringing weapons to school. It is quite easy to get on a high horse until it happens to your own child. Then? Not so much.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

OK...so it' shut the fuck up now huh?

Try taking your own advice and try debating a subject without

A) trying to find a way to work the racial angle into EACH topic you commenton....really, it's tired.

or

B) thinking that 'they' are talking about 'you' or 'you people'.


That's tired too and speaking of...DS is out.

Good night




Pretty much...

First of all, every subject that has been debated has not involved race. Don't take a few instances and try to apply it across the board.

Second, as I said, the ARTICLE STATED THE VERY SAME THING THAT I SAID ABOUT AVOIDING DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. And since this article is referring to the incident we are discussing, naturally this aspect would be discussed as well.

At this point, for you or anyone else to blatantly ignore that issue is just an attempt to be contrary for the heck of it. Try operating in the real world and real life for once instead of operating in fairy tale land. Amusing to me how a majority of people who want to tell the school system how to handle discipline tend to have no real experience with such matters and speak out of some ridiculous notions of context. Work as a teacher in a "bad" area for a WEEK. See how bad you think the zero tolerance policy is at that point.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

First of all, every subject that has been debated has not involved race. Don't take a few instances and try to apply it across the board.

Second, as I said, the ARTICLE STATED THE VERY SAME THING THAT I SAID ABOUT AVOIDING DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES. And since this article is referring to the incident we are discussing, naturally this aspect would be discussed as well.

At this point, for you or anyone else to blatantly ignore that issue is just an attempt to be contrary for the heck of it. Try operating in the real world and real life for once instead of operating in fairy tale land. Amusing to me how a majority of people who want to tell the school system how to handle discipline tend to have no real experience with such matters and speak out of some ridiculous notions of context. Work as a teacher in a "bad" area for a WEEK. See how bad you think the zero tolerance policy is at that point.

I hate to tell you this but at one (13 years ago really but that's here nor there) time I taught what some people considered to be the worst bunch of
5th graders a first year teacher could have and it was far from.

Give them some structure, make a good rapport with the parents and the classes I had were some of the best behaved students...oh yeah and SMART TOO.

Taught at that school for a few years.

Most of these kids lived in MY OWN area of East Baltimore.

So I think I know what the hell I am talking about.

so...why don't you STFU, watch your step coming off of your soapbox and don't trip ofver that bag of 'wrong' you're smoking.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I hate to tell you this but at one (13 years ago really but that's here nor there) time I taught what some people considered to be the worst bunch of
5th graders a first year teacher could have and it was far from.

Give them some structure, make a good rapport with the parents and the classes I had were some of the best behaved students...oh yeah and SMART TOO.

Taught at that school for a few years.

Most of these kids lived in MY OWN area of East Baltimore.

So I think I know what the hell I am talking about.

so...why don't you STFU, watch your step coming off of your soapbox and don't trip ofver that bag of 'wrong' you're smoking.

lmao 13 years ago? Really? vast difference between kids then and kids now.

But here are some things you should recognize if you have experience in a school system. . .and a few other things you should realize:
1. the school system has to make sure that they are covered with respect to liability. So whether someone thinks the policy is too rigid or not, they have to do what is going to protect them from a lawsuit.
2. i think everyone recognizes that those kinds of kids need structure, and no one is questioning their intellectual prowess. However, that is irrelevant on the subject of whether there should be a zero tolerance weapons policy.
3. situations like this are why the school systems are steadily declining. From here on out parents really don't need to complain about school violence because when the school authorities try to really crack down and create policies to help combat such issues, the parents want to raise hell. Schools are just too political now. Often public outcry manages to force school officials to override doing the RIGHT thing. In this instance, the RIGHT thing was to punish him in accordance with the policy. And the fact that his mother is justifying his behavior is absolutely absurd. More evidence of what is going wrong with children and schools today.
4. while they are promoting the fact that he is a cub scout so heavily, perhaps they should question why someone in his cub scout group didn't advise him NOT to take the utensil to school. furthermore, why didn't his MOTHER advise him not to take the utensil to school and check to make sure he didn't?
5. i would also like to know why the media is publishing his name and his picture. don't they usually avoid doing that for minors? i suspect the goal was to get more people to rally against the school system by tugging at heartstrings. Realistically speaking, had the article simply stated that a 6yr old had taken a knife, spoon, fork utensil to school and left out the picture and cub scout references, there would not have been as much outcry.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

lmao 13 years ago? Really? vast difference between kids then and kids now.

But here are some things you should recognize if you have experience in a school system. . .and a few other things you should realize:
1. the school system has to make sure that they are covered with respect to liability. So whether someone thinks the policy is too rigid or not, they have to do what is going to protect them from a lawsuit.
2. i think everyone recognizes that those kinds of kids need structure, and no one is questioning their intellectual prowess. However, that is irrelevant on the subject of whether there should be a zero tolerance weapons policy.
3. situations like this are why the school systems are steadily declining. From here on out parents really don't need to complain about school violence because when the school authorities try to really crack down and create policies to help combat such issues, the parents want to raise hell. Schools are just too political now. Often public outcry manages to force school officials to override doing the RIGHT thing. In this instance, the RIGHT thing was to punish him in accordance with the policy. And the fact that his mother is justifying his behavior is absolutely absurd. More evidence of what is going wrong with children and schools today.
4. while they are promoting the fact that he is a cub scout so heavily, perhaps they should question why someone in his cub scout group didn't advise him NOT to take the utensil to school. furthermore, why didn't his MOTHER advise him not to take the utensil to school and check to make sure he didn't?
5. i would also like to know why the media is publishing his name and his picture. don't they usually avoid doing that for minors? i suspect the goal was to get more people to rally against the school system by tugging at heartstrings. Realistically speaking, had the article simply stated that a 6yr old had taken a knife, spoon, fork utensil to school and left out the picture and cub scout references, there would not have been as much outcry.

There really isn't that much of a difference. What matters really is the school system.

I love how you JUST KEEP telling me that these are thing "I should realize" when what I realize is that these are some things that YOU should realize is simply "out of your control".

This is the media we are talking about. An entity that THRIVES off of bad news if they made things 'simple', they wouldn't stay in business.

And to answer your number 5, I think the picture in the article and this passage:

“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.

”Uhhhh...COMMON SENSE to me sounds like the parents (which is what's needed for the news to print that info in the first place) gave PERMISSION for the media TO USE his likeness...but, hey...what do I know?


and to your number 3, I think we have expressed that one already since the beginning of the thread and THAT was simple in case you missed it: LACK OF COMMON SENSE.



That sums this WHOLE ENTIRE thread up nicely.

Oh and I am sorry...but what do you mean by "Those Kinds of Kids"? exactly to whom are you referring to? What is the difference between those kids and "other" kids? How do you quantify such an empirical and wide sweeping statement? How many different school systems in how many years have you taught to know the difference?

I am really hoping you aren't referring to the type of kids I taught.


...hypocrite.

[AGDee]

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

That is very well put AGDee... I still can't help to think that there were many other ways that this could have been dealt with without the shcool system going so far.

[Senusret I]

Something to think about.... the waning popularity of the scouting movement among parents, school systems, and communities?