6-year-old expelled over Cub Scout utensil

[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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

Well said, AGDee. I particularly agree with the bolded (my emphasis). My only concern with the appeal process is what happens to the student while the appeal is under consideration? In this student's case, his mom was able to home school him. Most/many students would not have that option available to them. It seems unfair (yes, I know, who said life was fair) for the student to be penalized while the appeal is underway. Kinda tosses out the innocent until proven guilty theory (then again, I recognize the importance of keeping all students safe while determining innocence/guilt).

I'm still on the fence, too. I truly can see both sides. Unfortunately, either side seems like an extreme (way too strict vs. extremely naive). I'm having a hard time finding a way to identify the median. So far, strict policy with an appeal process seems to be the best option.

[DrPhil]

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.

No one is advocating that the school does nothing about it. Kids shouldn't have potential weapons in school, even if it is unintentionally a potential weapon.

It's a difference in opinion over what the school should've done.

I say the school should've taken the knife (duh), called the parents, talked to the kid and the parents, and given the kid a warning with the next offense being suspension (or whatever).

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No one is advocating that the school does nothing about it. Kids shouldn't have potential weapons in school, even if it is unintentionally a potential weapon.

It's a difference in opinion over what the school should've done.

I say the school should've taken the knife (duh), called the parents, talked to the kid and the parents, and given the kid a warning with the next offense being suspension (or whatever).

And I think that's what I was trying to say earlier. We don't know if that didn't happen the first two or three times this kid took the knife to school. We have no way of knowing whether this is a pattern for this kid...

I think we ALL (I do it too) are quick to make judgments on how other people should react in situations when we have only heard one side of the media hyped story and the other side is bound to confidentiality so they can't tell their story. I'd agree that, if things happened exactly as presented by the mom and kid, then the punishment was extreme.

I was a little concerned about the kid's own statement "It's a dumb rule" because I'm wondering if he thinks it is dumb to ban knives from school or if he thinks it is dumb to be expelled/suspended for doing so.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AGDee

And I think that's what I was trying to say earlier. We don't know if that didn't happen the first two or three times this kid took the knife to school. We have no way of knowing whether this is a pattern for this kid...

Right, so until we have reason to believe this is a pattern for this kid, we will keep saying they should've given a warning first.

It's interesting when the traditionally understood concept of "well, we don't know the complete story" becomes overstated, even to the point where people (not you) feel all opinions are unjustified and the discussion should cease.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I was a little concerned about the kid's own statement "It's a dumb rule" because I'm wondering if he thinks it is dumb to ban knives from school or if he thinks it is dumb to be expelled/suspended for doing so.

He has been led to believe by his mother that he should speak out against the rule because it is wrong based on the punishment. That's probably why he said that.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No one is advocating that the school does nothing about it. Kids shouldn't have potential weapons in school, even if it is unintentionally a potential weapon.

It's a difference in opinion over what the school should've done.

I say the school should've taken the knife (duh), called the parents, talked to the kid and the parents, and given the kid a warning with the next offense being suspension (or whatever).

Exactly.

I also think it's funny that it was suggested that allowing discretion was naive, but apparently it's not naive to assume that zero tolerance is consistently enforced by the same people who can't be trusted with discretion.