A Massachusetts middle school student was suspended after she brought a butter knife to school in her lunch, Fox 25 Boston reports.
According to the 13-year-old's mother, Morgan LaPlume was taken to the office and handed a one-day suspension after Wamsutta Middle School's assistant principal spotted the butter knife, Attleboro's Sun Chronicle reports.
LaPlume packed the butter knife with her lunch in order to cut a pear, explaining to Fox 25 that she can't bite into the fruit because of her braces.
State Rep. Paul Heroux (D-Attleboro) criticized the school's action, telling Attleboro Patch that this "could have been a teachable moment."
"When a school administrator doesn't feel that he or she can exercise discretion and common sense in their job when working with children who don't always appreciate the concern of a butter knife in schools, the consequence may be that children learn to be more afraid of the law than to respect the law," Heroux wrote to the local blog.
The one-day suspension may seem like the latest in a series of schools taking a zero-tolerance stance on threats to safety following the Dec. 14 mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.; however, Wamsutta Middle School's principal insisted that LaPlume's suspension is consistent with school district policy.
Though the Attleboro Public Schools' student handbook states that students found in possession of a dangerous weapon may be expelled, the rules do not specify whether a butter knife falls into that category.
Students who have brought butter knives to school in past years, prior to the Sandy Hook, received similar punishments. In one such case, a South Carolina high school went so far as to expel a freshman who brought the knife to school after she accidentally locked herself out of her house.
This is madness. These zero-tolerance policies always seem so weird to me when taking into account that more dangerous weapons like firearms are such a big and recognized part of American society.
In one such case, a South Carolina high school went so far as to expel a freshman who brought the knife to school after she accidentally locked herself out of her house.
In one such case, a South Carolina high school went so far as to expel a freshman who brought the knife to school after she accidentally locked herself out of her house.
How are the two facts connected?
Possibly she used it for her breakfast and accidentally pocketed it, only realising when she'd left and locked herself out.
I imagine it'd be something along the lines of "Oh poo, I took this butter knife out with me and I can't put it back". I know I've almost left my house with a mug of tea in hand a few times.
To cut a pear! ohhhhhhhh, little princess. She should be taking over ripe bananas or do what the other kids do, throw their fruit away and get something healthy like chocolate or a can Monster.
If the school says no knifes, then no knifes.
I normally think its overboard sometimes, but im willing to bet the kids knew butterknifes are not allowed.
To cut a pear! ohhhhhhhh, little princess. She should be taking over ripe bananas or do what the other kids do, throw their fruit away and get something healthy like chocolate or a can Monster.
I am shocked she was not using a fruit knife and fork. Perhaps that would have counted as two weapons, though.
To cut a pear! ohhhhhhhh, little princess. She should be taking over ripe bananas or do what the other kids do, throw their fruit away and get something healthy like chocolate or a can Monster.
I am shocked she was not using a fruit knife and fork. Perhaps that would have counted as two weapons, though.
At least she would've had the extra attack from them.
These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Relapse wrote: These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Isn't that a normal part of education?
I remember quite early on thinking what a shambles school was in so many ways, and looking forwards to entering the grown-up world where everything would be run on proper lines.
Relapse wrote: These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Isn't that a normal part of education?
I remember quite early on thinking what a shambles school was in so many ways, and looking forwards to entering the grown-up world where everything would be run on proper lines.
Relapse wrote: These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Quite a bit of that has to do with the narrow and distorted view of the world that children/students have. They aren't privy to the full discussions and actions of staff, nor do they know the full history of other pupils. And even if treated in exactly the same way, they'll always complain that they were treated less fairly, it's human nature.
Relapse wrote: These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Quite a bit of that has to do with the narrow and distorted view of the world that children/students have. They aren't privy to the full discussions and actions of staff, nor do they know the full history of other pupils. And even if treated in exactly the same way, they'll always complain that they were treated less fairly, it's human nature.
It could be a fair statement to also say it can result from a combination of that and other instances where a teacher, for whatever reason, favors one student over another.
It doesn't really matter. If pupils see each other being treated differently "before the law" at school, they quickly come to distrust arbitrary authority.
Relapse wrote: These kinds of rulings can be extremely arbitrary, also. I think we've all seen cases where one day one student gets busted and the next another slides for the same "offense". Then we end up with students rightly learning not to trust the judgements of the teachers or school administrators and losing respect for them.
My opinion, anyway.
Quite a bit of that has to do with the narrow and distorted view of the world that children/students have. They aren't privy to the full discussions and actions of staff, nor do they know the full history of other pupils. And even if treated in exactly the same way, they'll always complain that they were treated less fairly, it's human nature.
It could be a fair statement to also say it can result from a combination of that and other instances where a teacher, for whatever reason, favors one student over another.
Which again, kind of goes to the "narrow and distorted view of the world that children/students have".
I know that there were students in a course I had my senior year that thought myself and another senior were favored students because we were allowed to come in late and essentially use the class as an extended lunch period.
The reality was that it was a class that contained material from another course that we had already taken, and due to a push in the way that the school was classifying the courses for graduation the majority of seniors were essentially forced to retake a course they had already completed.
Kilkrazy wrote: It doesn't really matter. If pupils see each other being treated differently "before the law" at school, they quickly come to distrust arbitrary authority.
Which is a good thing, in my view.
For me the ultimate demonstration of that was when I was 10 and a teacher named Hanscomb had another student summon me to his classroom. When I walked into the otherwise empty room, he grabbed me, threw me against a wall, then against a desk that he proceeded to slam me down into.
The crime? I had forgotten to put my name on a science test that I had scored a 95 on.
I contrasted that to his behavior with other students that had done the same thing where he just told them to remember to sign their name.
I guess maybe I just forgot to sign my name on a bad day for him.
I was always favored among my my teachers and staff, I got away with skipping class(Only Gym really). I even remember i got lunch detention for going off campus(to get lunch at my house, which is a 2 minute walk) when the punishment is weekend school.
As to the topic, I just wish parents would force the school boards to quit this asinine crap. If your policy mandates that a12 year old girl needs to be suspended for bring in a knife to cut up a piece of fruit for lunch, the policy needs to be looked at. It is time people remember they have some say too. Next election cycle, destroy the existing school board. Vote down every measure that adds to your taxes to increase their funding. Cease any and all community support to them until they adopt standards and policies that make sense and can be applied in a common sense manner. Quit accepting this crap.
It could be a fair statement to also say it can result from a combination of that and other instances where a teacher, for whatever reason, favors one student over another.
It isn't just teachers. People naturally favor their preconceptions. The good kid couldn't have done a bad thing, because he's the good kid. The good team couldn't have done a bad thing, because its the good team. The good employee couldn't have done a bad thing, because he's the good employee...ad nauseum.
It could be a fair statement to also say it can result from a combination of that and other instances where a teacher, for whatever reason, favors one student over another.
It isn't just teachers. People naturally favor their preconceptions. The good kid couldn't have done a bad thing, because he's the good kid. The good team couldn't have done a bad thing, because its the good team. The good employee couldn't have done a bad thing, because he's the good employee...ad nauseum.
Please tell me that the Principal of that school is now looking for employment elsewhere, in a much less challenging career.
Kilkrazy wrote: It doesn't really matter. If pupils see each other being treated differently "before the law" at school, they quickly come to distrust arbitrary authority.
Which is a good thing, in my view.
And seeing moronic application of rules helps them develop respect for the law? If she'd had the knife in public and wasn't using it in a threatening manner I doubt anything would have happened to her as she had the knife for a perfectly lawful reason.
Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
I remember when i wore a bandana around campus as a social experiment, never got stopped once, while i knew several that did.
But yeah, schools have to be careful when it comes to gangs in all seriousness.
Funny part is that teachers bring kitchen/butter knives to school all the time to have in the lunch room. I did it when teaching, saw other teachers do it...nobody cared. Ridiculous. Especially since most schools have plastic butter knives-those are more serated than their metal counterparts!
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
This is actually a very real deal. My wife works at a Elementary school, and there were 1st graders in fething gangs, targeting other kids in rival gangs. So while it may seem excessive at the surface, it is a real problem.
And IF you can find a gang that uses a pink bandana as their colors, is there a chapter where this took place?
Big difference between 'you are representing the crips' and 'you have a generic pink bandana and that just may be gang related'. Administrators have the responsibility to know the difference and act accordingly. If they don't they need to be held accounatble.
Pink is a fairly common color used by gangs. Maybe you should march down to your local PD and talk to their gang unit and see if they are aware of every gang activity and their colors and symbols. After you realize that even the people who have no other job than to watch gangs have a hard time monitoring the activities of every gang and monitor which new gangs are showing up, then maybe you will realize that it would be impossible for a school official to track which gang are active in their district and what their colors are.
But it is easier to complain about a student being suspended for bringing a weapon to school despite the fact that you can actually really stab someone with a butter knife and pretend that pink could never possibly be a gang color and that a principal should know more about the gangs than the local PD.
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
Its really not, back in the 90's a lot of schools in and near Chicago banned clothing bearing the Blackhawks indian head because it was being used as a gang sign, and territorial claim*, by the Vice Lords. The ban wasn't meant to stamp out gang activity, so much as it was meant to protect students from unknowingly putting themselves in the middle of a violent situation.
*Basically, anything marked by the indian head belonged to the vice lords, and given that the indian head is plastered all over the city and its suburbs...
Pink is a fairly common color used by gangs. Maybe you should march down to your local PD and talk to their gang unit and see if they are aware of every gang activity and their colors and symbols. After you realize that even the people who have no other job than to watch gangs have a hard time monitoring the activities of every gang and monitor which new gangs are showing up, then maybe you will realize that it would be impossible for a school official to track which gang are active in their district and what their colors are.
But it is easier to complain about a student being suspended for bringing a weapon to school despite the fact that you can actually really stab someone with a butter knife and pretend that pink could never possibly be a gang color and that a principal should know more about the gangs than the local PD.
Blah blah blah. Read what I wrote. It isn't impossible for the school to know what gangs are in their area. And yes, pink is used, but not very commonly, and not everywhere, hence my comment. If the Imperial Gangsters are not prevalent in that area, and the kid was wearing apink bandana for the fun of wearing a pink bandana, the administration was being stupid, and should be called on it. IF they actually have a problem with pink as a gang color in that district, a polite call to the parents explaining the real issue would have been a lot more appropriate than suspending the student. Again, I am arguing that Zero Tolerance Policies are generally very stupid and allow stupid and petty people to be stupid and petty. It takes away their responsibility to make decisions and have to think. It appalls me that this seems okay to people.
Kids can 'actually stab someone' with a pen, a pencil, a plastic spork from the chow hall, a protractor, a compass and several other implements found at schools. Suspending someone for possession of a butter knife being used to cut a piece of fruit in the chow hall is just stupid. Perhaps confiscating the knife could be justified, but suspending the kid? dumb. You may consider it good, I am toatally against it. So we are not going to agree.
Thanks for missing my point that suspending a kid for wearing a bandana with no other real justification is asinine.
Given the number of gangs in the US, should all schools adopt a drab tan uniform and suspend any kid wearing anything else? What color is not used by some gang somewhere?
If the school officials are having gang problems, identifying the gangs and their symbology would be important. But that is really not relevant to what happened. If they are not having problems, suspending a kid wearing a bandana of any color is stupid unless there is some valid reason. Even if they are having issues, as I stated, explaining the issue vice suspending the kid would be appropriate. Bandana = Gang Activity In All Cases is not a valid reason to suspend a kid in my mind. Allowing school administrations to suspend kids for using a butter knife to cut fruit at lunch or for wearing a bandana as a fashion accessory is dumb.
Again, you disagree and seem to think a school administration should be able to suspend kids for whatever reason they want as long as they have a CYA Zero Tolerance Policy to hide behind. I get that. I won't agree with it.
the point is, Bandanas are often part of gang attire. People wear them w/o knowing that so they assume it is alright. A ban on bandana's makes sense, i saw some people shot just for wearing a yellow bandana. This is about safety, way more then it is about anything else. Also, many schools have dresscodes sent home to kids, Mine explicitly says "No bandana's of anykind"
I am completely wrong. I have a wife working at an elementary school that has had a real gang problem and I clearly have no idea what I am talking about. I now agree that it is also dumb to suspend a student that brought a knife to a school when there is a rule not to bring knives. Clearly I am dumb...
Kilkrazy wrote: It doesn't really matter. If pupils see each other being treated differently "before the law" at school, they quickly come to distrust arbitrary authority.
Which is a good thing, in my view.
For me the ultimate demonstration of that was when I was 10 and a teacher named Hanscomb had another student summon me to his classroom. When I walked into the otherwise empty room, he grabbed me, threw me against a wall, then against a desk that he proceeded to slam me down into.
The crime? I had forgotten to put my name on a science test that I had scored a 95 on.
I contrasted that to his behavior with other students that had done the same thing where he just told them to remember to sign their name.
I guess maybe I just forgot to sign my name on a bad day for him.
Holy crap. How did this guy even get his job? He should've gotten into real trouble with the school for doing that. Attacking a 10 year old for any reason is just plain wrong on so many levels.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: What exactly was it that stopped the girl slicing them up at home before having to take a knife into school?
Lots of fruit, for example apples, goes off quite quickly after cutting it.
What exactly makes a butter knife a dangerous weapon? A steel ruler is more dangerous.
In the right hands, anything can be dangerous. While I understand why these rules exist, I also feel that ultimately, no amount of banning found-objects can stop violence in schools. My friend teaches high school in a poverty line charter school in Baton Rouge. One of his female students beat a male peer nearly to death in less than a minute with her combination lock. It happened so fast, he could barely register it. He restrained her (probably saving the other kid's life) and sent her off with the police. And this, really, is just an everyday event for him. So, while adding a growing list of things to the banned list might stem the tide a bit, it's only treating the symptoms, not the disease.
However, with that being said, I have no realistic suggestions on how the U.S. might go about treating the actual problems.
I see these threads a lot...I don't always chime in, as I get sick of it, but before I even start talking...
Until Friday I was a Head of Year in a Hackney school. In my year groups, I've had a kid who, when 12 years old, was convicted for manslaughter (it was a plea bargain) another kid had a sawn-off and ammo found under his bed, same kid had to flee London for several months 'cos his stash got stolen and his life was in danger, another was stabbed in the neck and nearly died, then brough a 4" blade into school, where it fell on the floor during a public exam... So I have more authority that pretty much anyone on this board regarding this particular subject...
Regarding bandanas... Outright ban. All colours, any time. For several reasons. It is ludicrous to claim that as a school staff, I have any way of knowing which colours are current with which gangs at which time. I knew more than most of my colleagues because most kids trusted me, even if they didn't like me, but I couldn't even identify every gang, let alone tell you their colours of territory, or what alliances are currently running. It is also not the case that every child will know, so allowing any children to wear bandanas put those children in danger. It also allows those wearing those colours deliberately to intimidate other children. Now, I also know enough to know that she did more than question it just once. She may have not outright refused to remove it, but you also reach a stage where you should not have to explain every single instruction every single time. I have lost count of the number of times a kid gets in trouble then outright lies in front of their parents when you tell the parents what really happened, and plenty of parents sit there saying "not my daughter." My best guess is that she was asked to remove it, repeatedly, and failed to. At that point, the suspension is not even for the bandana, but for refusal to follow instructions, which is another simple thing parents don't get. The number of kids I've heard say "I got suspended for moving seats" for example, when actually they got suspended for screaming at swearing at the teacher, after getting a detention for moving seats being the 11th or 12th thing they did wrong within the first five minutes of the lesson, then refusing to go to the shadow timetable, etc... and because their parents see it that way too, they never learn.
As for the knife, again, there is not much flexibility. Child X brings in a knife to butter her bread. Child Y brings in a similar knife to help extort cash. Prove Y is different to X. You have some leeway, but I've sat in exclusion appeals where exactly that scenario is used to make life difficult. An exclusion sounds extreme in this case, but if the same school is trying to permanently exclude a known bully who also had a similar knife, they may have decided not to jeopardise the other case, for example. Also agreed that the items found in school can be far more dangerous anyway, but they can be monitored and controlled more easily - count compasses in and out, count the scissors in and out. My school bans compasses, for example, as the boys used to stab each other in the leg with them for a laugh. Probably won't be fatal, but it is a major disruption to learning, and the girls' parents go bat-gak crazy when it starts happening to their daughters... Oh, and cutlery at my school? Until a year ago it was all plastic. I'd like to think we've moved on, but heaven forbid a kid goes crazy and does something silly. I already excluded one kid for wielding a pair of sharp scissors he brought from home to grab girls hair and cut them with it...
Zero tolerance is not actually as clear cut ridiculous as it often seems.
In the right hands, anything can be dangerous. While I understand why these rules exist, I also feel that ultimately, no amount of banning found-objects can stop violence in schools.
The aim is to reduce the consequences of violence (and make it more difficult to commit horrific violence), not to eliminate it.
I wonder if they have plastic butter knives at the school. It's another stupid implementation of a stupid zero-tolerance policy.
If they're going to ban butter knives, they might as well just ban forks as well. Everybody gets a spoon.
If they don't want butter knives, then fine. They can just confiscate it, whatever. If the student was using the butter knife in a threatening manner, then a suspension could be warranted.
I don't think there's any way to really justify suspending a student for cutting fruit with a butter knife.
They're not suspending her for cutting fruit with a knife. She could have borrowed a knife in the canteen for that. They probably objected to her carrying a knife on her person all day. Most people would have an issue with a child carrying a knight in the bag all around school.
Also I'd now like to know what this butter knife looked like. Because a butter knife is rounded and blunt, you can't cut anything with them. If you can cut fruit you can cut a person.
Again, should the school stop pupils carrying knives in their bags? Because that's the issue. The school are not suspending people for 'cutting fruit with a knife'.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They're not suspending her for cutting fruit with a knife. She could have borrowed a knife in the canteen for that. They probably objected to her carrying a knife on her person all day. Most people would have an issue with a child carrying a knight in the bag all around school.
Also I'd now like to know what this butter knife looked like. Because a butter knife is rounded and blunt, you can't cut anything with them. If you can cut fruit you can cut a person.
Again, should the school stop pupils carrying knives in their bags? Because that's the issue. The school are not suspending people for 'cutting fruit with a knife'.
Does the school allow students to have scissors? A lot of schools allow students to have scissors. If they're allowed to have scissors there's no reason not to allow them to have a butter knife for their lunch. Even if they don't allow scissors, a student could stab someone with a pencil or a pen. There is no point in which "Students are allowed to have all these things that are capable of inflicting stab wounds, but they aren't allowed to use a butter knife" makes sense. Who cares if she's carrying a butter knife in her lunch box or bag?
And if they don't want to allow butter knives, then fine. I think it's stupid, but whatever. My problem is suspending the student for doing something completely non-threatening, when they could have just taken the knife away.
As stated already, there are a million more dangerous things in schools than a butter knife: exacto knives in the art room, scissors, compasses, pens, pencils, text books, science room chemicals, chairs, microphone/amp wires, VCRs, DVD players, flights of stairs...the list goes on. All of those things can and have caused serious injury to students by the actions of other students. Yet they're still okay in school, but a butter knife isn't. Ridiculous.
If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
d-usa wrote: If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
d-usa wrote: If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
Exactly, when the kids get given the scissors the teachers know they are there and are looking for it but if some kid decides to bring in knife the teachers won't know about it and would only be able to react to any given situation instead of being able to avoid it
d-usa wrote: If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
What about schools that offer cooking as an elective or when you're eating lasagne for lunch what alternatives can I use to cut my lasagne that I had for lunch?
Scissors are usually small, blunt and kept in classrooms. Kids don't have sharp scissors they carry around with them. Similarly there are knives in the art room or canteen, but they stay there.
In the right hands, anything can be dangerous. While I understand why these rules exist, I also feel that ultimately, no amount of banning found-objects can stop violence in schools.
The aim is to reduce the consequences of violence (and make it more difficult to commit horrific violence), not to eliminate it.
Yes. I just wish we could find a way to make our schools safer without also making them more prison-like than they already are.
d-usa wrote: If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
What about schools that offer cooking as an elective or when you're eating lasagne for lunch what alternatives can I use to cut my lasagne that I had for lunch?
Classroom instruments would stay in that classroom and only come into use under direct supervision. And I imagine school issue plasticware will work just fine for lasagna.
Kilkrazy wrote: I would hate to live in a society that assumes its schoolchildren are constantly on the edge of breaking out in hand to hand combat.
Then don't move to Hackney. Sad truth is that in a school of 900 children, you will have a minimum of 2 serious fights per week, several less serious every day, pupil on teacher violence several times per term and outright GBH cases a couple of times per year. Watch season 4 of The Wire. It is scary how right that show is about the lives of inner city kids.
I'll add that amongst your pupils in that school, you will also find some of the finest Human beings on the planet.
edit: sorry, mostly on my phone this weekend, so can't type worth a damn!
While it was another win for zero-tolerance policies, it was a rather stupid reason to bring a knife to school. Guess no one taught the kid or her parents about ziplok baggies and cutting fruit before setting off? Hell, even I knew that one!
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: While it was another win for zero-tolerance policies, it was a rather stupid reason to bring a knife to school. Guess no one taught the kid or her parents about ziplok baggies and cutting fruit before setting off? Hell, even I knew that one!
I believe KillKrazy pointed out that several fruits tend to discolor and start to "go bad" moments after being exposed to air. While you're entirely right, cutting them up at home would have saved her this issue, it just seems stupid to not just use the plasticware at the school...
Kilkrazy wrote: I just think children should be taught how to cut up and eat fruits properly. It is a valuable life skill.
maybe thats why she had the knife.
Agreed, however that she should be using plastic wear at school.
Now here's something I don't get. Its lunch right? They don't have butter knives or such at school?
I don't remember what age range Middle School is (they don't exist in my neck of the woods) but surely any student who eats on the premises has access to eating knives? Kids often used to nick them at my primary school.
I could have sworn my high school cafeteria had metal butter knives, forks, and spoons. That was in the early 90s, though. (Yeah, I'm older than most of you. Shut up and get off my lawn!)
I could be mistaken.
I'm dating a teacher, and I find a lot of school policies dumb as hell. However, a lot of the "crazy" ones are really meant to protect the schools from lawsuits, the teachers from lawsuits, and (sometimes) the safety of the kids.
I disagree with the suspension of a middle school kid for having a butter knife instead of the Principal taking it and calling in their parent to get it, but I understand how they're hands are often tied in these situations. It's sad, though.
My 9-year old nephew stapled his finger accidentally and my brother had to be called in from work to remove it. The school nurse couldn't be bothered with the liability. God Bless the American education system.
d-usa wrote: If you ever wonder why zero-tolerance-policies were enacted, just read most of the responses in this thread.
The reason knives are not allowed but scissors are is not because knives are more dangerous than scissors. They both are equally dangerous. The reason the knife is not allowed is because it has ZERO purpose and use in a school setting.
I know it is not that difficult, and I honestly don't think that the majority of posters here are too stupid to realize this. Pencils and scissors can hurt people, but they also have a valid school function. A knife can hurt someone, and has no function in a school setting at all. Please tell me you guys are not too dumb to figure that out.
Eating healthy at lunch is not a school function? And you can hurt someone more with a BUTTER KNIFE than with a SHARP PENCIL?
I question your priorities.
EDIT: Heck, you can strangle someone with a belt... or shoelaces. Looks like we've gotta ban belts and shoelaces.
(Yeah, I know they won't. At least not until someone DOES get strangled, anyway...)
I am old enough and live in a certain part of the country where i remember going into high school and seeing shotguns in gun racks in the back of pick up trucks. Also remember in shop class getting my ass chewed for not having a buck knife to open up boxes cut rope etc etc. What we are seeing here is alot of rotten apples ruining it for everyone else
Noble 32 wrote: I am old enough and live in a certain part of the country where i remember going into high school and seeing shotguns in gun racks in the back of pick up trucks. Also remember in shop class getting my ass chewed for not having a buck knife to open up boxes cut rope etc etc. What we are seeing here is alot of rotten apples ruining it for everyone else
If we want to make schools safer, we need to sendin the National Guard to police the school's like they did after 9/11.
The girl got 1-day of suspension. That is not a reason for people to flip out. Kids can miss a day of school every once in a while and still survive in the real-world later on.
Easy E wrote: The girl got 1-day of suspension. That is not a reason for people to flip out. Kids can miss a day of school every once in a while and still survive in the real-world later on.
But if it ends up on her permanent record it might make finding employment tricky.
Easy E wrote: The girl got 1-day of suspension. That is not a reason for people to flip out. Kids can miss a day of school every once in a while and still survive in the real-world later on.
But if it ends up on her permanent record it might make finding employment tricky.
Easy E wrote: The girl got 1-day of suspension. That is not a reason for people to flip out. Kids can miss a day of school every once in a while and still survive in the real-world later on.
But if it ends up on her permanent record it might make finding employment tricky.
Not really.
Other than colleges, no one looks at your high school records for anything past "Diploma Achieved"!
As a former hiring manager, I only cared about diploma/degrees (as needed for job), did anything come up on the back ground check, were they donkey-caves at the interview, do I think they will they do the work/hours/whatever?
I couldn't care less about what happened in high school.
CptJake wrote: And a pink bandana is what gang's colors?
And IF you can find a gang that uses a pink bandana as their colors, is there a chapter where this took place?
Big difference between 'you are representing the crips' and 'you have a generic pink bandana and that just may be gang related'. Administrators have the responsibility to know the difference and act accordingly. If they don't they need to be held accounatble.
I agree. I should also mention, that this girl goes to an upper class school, and they live in an area with a crime rate so low Ive honestly heard parents say and I quote " Gangs are only made up for TV" So yea, context and all.....I mean really? Id understand if she lived in a high crime low income area, but thats very much not the case. Not to mention, schools should at the very least, have some idea of the level of threat their students can hold. My cousins daughter is captain of the Cheer leading squad, makes honor roll every time, and volunteers at the school.
This situation is just a complete cluster feth of current events
CptJake wrote: And a pink bandana is what gang's colors?
And IF you can find a gang that uses a pink bandana as their colors, is there a chapter where this took place?
Big difference between 'you are representing the crips' and 'you have a generic pink bandana and that just may be gang related'. Administrators have the responsibility to know the difference and act accordingly. If they don't they need to be held accounatble.
I agree. I should also mention, that this girl goes to an upper class school, and they live in an area with a crime rate so low Ive honestly heard parents say and I quote " Gangs are only made up for TV" So yea, context and all.....I mean really? Id understand if she lived in a high crime low income area, but thats very much not the case. Not to mention, schools should at the very least, have some idea of the level of threat their students can hold. My cousins daughter is captain of the Cheer leading squad, makes honor roll every time, and volunteers at the school.
This situation is just a complete cluster feth of current events
I know im playing devils Advocate, but sometimes Bandana arent a school thing, but a District, My school covered several HS, some good some bad, none you can wear bandanas.
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
I remember when i wore a bandana around campus as a social experiment, never got stopped once, while i knew several that did. But yeah, schools have to be careful when it comes to gangs in all seriousness.
d-usa wrote:
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
This is actually a very real deal. My wife works at a Elementary school, and there were 1st graders in fething gangs, targeting other kids in rival gangs. So while it may seem excessive at the surface, it is a real problem.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I know im playing devils Advocate, but sometimes Bandana arent a school thing, but a District, My school covered several HS, some good some bad, none you can wear bandanas.
Load of gak. Complete load of gak. The girl is VERY CLEARLY a good kid, and the school knows it. Rather then calmly explain why she shouldnt be wearing the bandanna, they just give her the boot for asking why? You cant possibly come up with a good enough reason
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
I remember when i wore a bandana around campus as a social experiment, never got stopped once, while i knew several that did. But yeah, schools have to be careful when it comes to gangs in all seriousness.
d-usa wrote:
KingCracker wrote: Something equally stupid happened to my cousins daughter just recently. Her daughter is into... erm Im not sure what the style is called, but where she likes to dress up like a biker chick from the 50s? Anywho. She wore a pink bandanna to school to hold her hair up, and was told she HAD to take it off right now. She couldnt understand why and simply asked "OK, well what rule am I breaking for wearing this?" And so she was suspended and my cousin was told by the principal "Its because your daughter is showing gang colors"
fething.....ridiculous
This is actually a very real deal. My wife works at a Elementary school, and there were 1st graders in fething gangs, targeting other kids in rival gangs. So while it may seem excessive at the surface, it is a real problem.
]
And this was supposed to be quoted with Alf in the quote......very odd lol
CptJake wrote: And a pink bandana is what gang's colors?
And IF you can find a gang that uses a pink bandana as their colors, is there a chapter where this took place?
Big difference between 'you are representing the crips' and 'you have a generic pink bandana and that just may be gang related'. Administrators have the responsibility to know the difference and act accordingly. If they don't they need to be held accounatble.
I agree. I should also mention, that this girl goes to an upper class school, and they live in an area with a crime rate so low Ive honestly heard parents say and I quote " Gangs are only made up for TV" So yea, context and all.....I mean really? Id understand if she lived in a high crime low income area, but thats very much not the case. Not to mention, schools should at the very least, have some idea of the level of threat their students can hold. My cousins daughter is captain of the Cheer leading squad, makes honor roll every time, and volunteers at the school.
This situation is just a complete cluster feth of current events
Good kid doesnt mean ANYTHING to schools, they doal out punishment how they see fit. Like i said, Even though i was a good kid, I still got detention for small things(Like going off campus to get the paper i forgot)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Good kid doesnt mean ANYTHING to schools, they doal out punishment how they see fit. Like i said, Even though i was a good kid, I still got detention for small things(Like going off campus to get the paper i forgot)
hotsauceman1 wrote: Exactly, The teacher loved me but when i asked why she said "Well, I have to, i dont want to, those are the rules"
But during the school day, the school is responsible for a measure of your safety. You left the school grounds during school hours. Regardless of whether or not it was during a free period, lunch, independent study, what have you, the school needs to have a general idea of your whereabouts during the school day. Did you tell anyone you were leaving? Did you follow proper procedure for having to leave in the middle of the school day?
If not, you were a truant, whether you wanted to be one or not.
Most kids think they are in the right all the time. I am willing to bet there is more to the story of the bandana than your niece let on. The kids I like are the "good kids" who don't bring it up when I enforce the rules on them- I have a lot of respect for those kids and will try to do what I can for them when speaking on their behalf. In the classroom or corridor though, I do my best to be seen as impartial and evenhanded, which to kids generally means just enforcing simple rules, since the vast majority don't think about much past that, and all of them are obsessed with fairness.
At the end of the day school is one of the softest, most "fair" places you're ever likely to be. When students go into the workplace they quickly learn that life outside of school isn't any more logical or fair.
Unfortunately, parents usually take the kids side at face value. I promise you I have never taken a personal vendetta against a kid but I always tried my best to enforce the rules, because once we stop doing that, anarchy reigns. It might seem stupid to a non teacher, but when you've got 30 kids in front of you, they HAVE to do what you say, promptly and without question. This is the only way to get through what needs to be covered on the curriculum- discipline first, all else second.
And frankly, at a school in an upper class area, I am likely to be even stricter on behaviour, because small infractions if left unchallenged can lead to more and more pushing of boundaries until you have serious problems. This isn't because the kids are bad, it's because they are kids, and testing to see where the boundaries are is a perfectly normal activity for them.
CptJake wrote: And a pink bandana is what gang's colors?
And IF you can find a gang that uses a pink bandana as their colors, is there a chapter where this took place?
Big difference between 'you are representing the crips' and 'you have a generic pink bandana and that just may be gang related'. Administrators have the responsibility to know the difference and act accordingly. If they don't they need to be held accounatble.
I agree. I should also mention, that this girl goes to an upper class school, and they live in an area with a crime rate so low Ive honestly heard parents say and I quote " Gangs are only made up for TV" So yea, context and all.....I mean really? Id understand if she lived in a high crime low income area, but thats very much not the case. Not to mention, schools should at the very least, have some idea of the level of threat their students can hold. My cousins daughter is captain of the Cheer leading squad, makes honor roll every time, and volunteers at the school.
This situation is just a complete cluster feth of current events
The fact that there are stupid parents at this school does not change the context as much as you think it does.
Also: What in the world do you mean by "upper class school"? I've never once heard that descriptor for a school. I've heard of private schools, magnet schools, and public schools. But never "upper class school".
They live in an upper class area, and goes to the school in that area. Hence its an upper class school. Ive heard schools called that many times. Kind of like in neighboring Flint, those schools are lower class schools.
KingCracker wrote: They live in an upper class area, and goes to the school in that area. Hence its an upper class school. Ive heard schools called that many times. Kind of like in neighboring Flint, those schools are lower class schools.
Around here we have upper and lower class schools as well, although they are more based on color than income.
KingCracker wrote: They live in an upper class area, and goes to the school in that area. Hence its an upper class school. Ive heard schools called that many times. Kind of like in neighboring Flint, those schools are lower class schools.
But you don't call them that when trying to describe them to someone who has just asked about magnet, public, or private schools.
Because upper class schools isn't a bloody description of anything besides the economic aspect of the area surrounding the school.
So which is it? Is it a magnet school, a public school, or a private school?
Because that actually does affect how they treat situations like this.
It all boils down to organizations using "policy" like civil "law".
Funny thing is Canadian law requires "intent" as well as the act. The child was not being willful or evil and could have been corrected and never have a problem again. Instead, the bunch of us turkeys are discussing it.
Hate narrow minded "policy" enforcers who believe it precludes them from using common sense.
My son made a "shiv" in school from a pen (handle), blade (from pop can tin) and tinfoil(packing into handle) to "make lots of holes in paper" (6yrs old). Teacher was cool: "Very creative, but how about I show you folding paper and scissors instead." He let us know later, we freaked.
Most kids are innocent of these things, why penalize them for it?
Talizvar wrote: It all boils down to organizations using "policy" like civil "law".
Funny thing is Canadian law requires "intent" as well as the act. The child was not being willful or evil and could have been corrected and never have a problem again. Instead, the bunch of us turkeys are discussing it.
Hate narrow minded "policy" enforcers who believe it precludes them from using common sense.
My son made a "shiv" in school from a pen (handle), blade (from pop can tin) and tinfoil(packing into handle) to "make lots of holes in paper" (6yrs old). Teacher was cool: "Very creative, but how about I show you folding paper and scissors instead." He let us know later, we freaked.
Most kids are innocent of these things, why penalize them for it?
Simple. You MUST learn to fear the state, or authority. You must obey without conscious thought. Zero tolerance for failure to comply.
Personally, I blame the Prussians.
Because if you give people discretion it becomes a case of "you punished my child for x but not this child for y? They are pretty much the same thing, so I am suing!"
Zero tolerance policies cover your butt against parents who don't believe that their kids could ever do anything wrong.
Talizvar wrote: It all boils down to organizations using "policy" like civil "law".
Funny thing is Canadian law requires "intent" as well as the act. The child was not being willful or evil and could have been corrected and never have a problem again. Instead, the bunch of us turkeys are discussing it.
Hate narrow minded "policy" enforcers who believe it precludes them from using common sense.
My son made a "shiv" in school from a pen (handle), blade (from pop can tin) and tinfoil(packing into handle) to "make lots of holes in paper" (6yrs old). Teacher was cool: "Very creative, but how about I show you folding paper and scissors instead." He let us know later, we freaked.
Most kids are innocent of these things, why penalize them for it?
Because its easier to hide behind a policy, no matter how moronic it may seem, because that way you aren't liable for blame because you didn't exercise your discretion.
Talizvar wrote: It all boils down to organizations using "policy" like civil "law".
Funny thing is Canadian law requires "intent" as well as the act. The child was not being willful or evil and could have been corrected and never have a problem again. Instead, the bunch of us turkeys are discussing it.
Hate narrow minded "policy" enforcers who believe it precludes them from using common sense.
My son made a "shiv" in school from a pen (handle), blade (from pop can tin) and tinfoil(packing into handle) to "make lots of holes in paper" (6yrs old). Teacher was cool: "Very creative, but how about I show you folding paper and scissors instead." He let us know later, we freaked.
Most kids are innocent of these things, why penalize them for it?
Because its easier to hide behind a policy, no matter how moronic it may seem, because that way you aren't liable for blame because you didn't exercise your discretion.
They exist because if you exercise discretion you are also a moron and get accused of racism/favorism/any other stupid -ism because "you punished my child but not theirs!"
kronk wrote: I could have sworn my high school cafeteria had metal butter knives, forks, and spoons. That was in the early 90s, though. (Yeah, I'm older than most of you. Shut up and get off my lawn!)
I could be mistaken.
I'm dating a teacher, and I find a lot of school policies dumb as hell. However, a lot of the "crazy" ones are really meant to protect the schools from lawsuits, the teachers from lawsuits, and (sometimes) the safety of the kids.
I disagree with the suspension of a middle school kid for having a butter knife instead of the Principal taking it and calling in their parent to get it, but I understand how they're hands are often tied in these situations. It's sad, though.
My high school also had metal forks, knives, and spoons, and I graduated in 2003. You aren't mistaken.
Since the school had a problem with it, they should have taken it away, called the parents, and explained the situation to them. Punishing the girl for bringing a knife to cut fruit when the knife likely couldn't even break skin is ridiculous. There are ways this could have been dealt with, where nobody loses. The way this was done is not one of them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Because its easier to hide behind a policy, no matter how moronic it may seem, because that way you aren't liable for blame because you didn't exercise your discretion.
They exist because if you exercise discretion you are also a moron and get accused of racism/favorism/any other stupid -ism because "you punished my child but not theirs!"
I'd meant to post that but the dinner has just gotten to the stage that I couldn't ignore it anymore unless I wanted to eat charcoal
Pretty much, hiding behind "Its policy", no matter the job, is a pretty effective shield for the individual.
It's a lot more difficult to sue a school than a lot of you guys seem to think. It's also possible to have policies that allow staff to exercise discretion without opening the school up to ridiculous lawsuits.
Hordini wrote: It's a lot more difficult to sue a school than a lot of you guys seem to think.
And it is also pretty dang easy to have a news truck parked in the street because of "racist teachers", have angry mobs at school board meetings, and get fired by them to keep the locals quiet.
It's also possible to have policies that allow staff to exercise discretion without opening the school up to ridiculous lawsuits.
1) Every time you have a policy that allows for discretion and judgement there will be people that say that the wrong judgement was used and that discretion was applied for the wrong reasons. That's the problem with using judgement, everybody has a different one.
2) What is so fething stupid about a policy that says "bring a knife to school, get suspended"?
Hordini wrote: It's a lot more difficult to sue a school than a lot of you guys seem to think.
And it is also pretty dang easy to have a news truck parked in the street because of "racist teachers", have angry mobs at school board meetings, and get fired by them to keep the locals quiet.
It's also possible to have policies that allow staff to exercise discretion without opening the school up to ridiculous lawsuits.
1) Every time you have a policy that allows for discretion and judgement there will be people that say that the wrong judgement was used and that discretion was applied for the wrong reasons. That's the problem with using judgement, everybody has a different one.
2) What is so fething stupid about a policy that says "bring a knife to school, get suspended"?
Every school I've attended and worked at has had policies that allowed the staff and faculty to exercise their discretion and make decisions based on the situation at hand.
The problem with the policy is that it sounds completely reasonable right up until the point where a student with braces gets suspended for cutting fruit at lunch time with a butter knife.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If the school says no knifes, then no knifes.
I normally think its overboard sometimes, but im willing to bet the kids knew butterknifes are not allowed.
To be clear, there's nothing wrong with a "no knives" policy.
The problem in this case is the implementation. A student was punished harshly for something completely non-threatening that could easily be an honest mistake.
The problem with the policy is that it sounds completely reasonable right up until the point where a student with braces gets suspended for cutting fruit at lunch time with a butter knife.
So the policy of "bring knife, get suspended" sounds completely reasonable right until the point where a student gets suspended for bringing a knife?
The problem with the policy is that it sounds completely reasonable right up until the point where a student with braces gets suspended for cutting fruit at lunch time with a butter knife.
So the policy of "bring knife, get suspended" sounds completely reasonable right until the point where a student gets suspended for bringing a knife?
No, it sounds reasonable until a student gets suspended for bringing a butter knife in her lunch. A better policy would be "Don't bring weapons," so that way you wouldn't feel obligated to suspend a student for bringing silverware to eat with.
The problem with the policy is that it sounds completely reasonable right up until the point where a student with braces gets suspended for cutting fruit at lunch time with a butter knife.
So the policy of "bring knife, get suspended" sounds completely reasonable right until the point where a student gets suspended for bringing a knife?
No, it sounds reasonable until a student gets suspended for bringing a butter knife in her lunch. A better policy would be "Don't bring weapons," so that way you wouldn't feel obligated to suspend a student for bringing silverware to eat with.
if the policy is "no knife" then the type of knife or what it is used for is completely irrelevant. As is the fact that the girl was wearing braces. Don't break a pretty dang simple rule and you won't get suspended for breaking the rules. I mean right now people are raging because somebody gets suspended for "bringing a knife to a no knife school". if people like you are pissed because somebody gets suspended for such a clear cut rule violation you really think that people like you won't argue any suspension for violating "don't bring a weapon" until people are sick and tired of listening to people like you arguing about what the definition of weapon is.
You want to know the reason for zero-tolerance policies? Here it is:
hotsauceman1 wrote:What is a weapon? Nearly anything can be used as a weapon.
You're right, and I'm sure there are plenty of schools that say "no weapons allowed." So they must suspend students for bringing nearly anything to school, since nearly anything can be used as a weapon.
The problem with the policy is that it sounds completely reasonable right up until the point where a student with braces gets suspended for cutting fruit at lunch time with a butter knife.
So the policy of "bring knife, get suspended" sounds completely reasonable right until the point where a student gets suspended for bringing a knife?
No, it sounds reasonable until a student gets suspended for bringing a butter knife in her lunch. A better policy would be "Don't bring weapons," so that way you wouldn't feel obligated to suspend a student for bringing silverware to eat with.
if the policy is "no knife" then the type of knife or what it is used for is completely irrelevant. As is the fact that the girl was wearing braces.
Don't break a pretty dang simple rule and you won't get suspended for breaking the rules. I mean right now people are raging because somebody gets suspended for "bringing a knife to a no knife school". if people like you are pissed because somebody gets suspended for such a clear cut rule violation you really think that people like you won't argue any suspension for violating "don't bring a weapon" until people are sick and tired of listening to people like you arguing about what the definition of weapon is.
You want to know the reason for zero-tolerance policies? Here it is:
I'm the reason for zero-tolerance policies? Give me a break dude. I'm in favor of reasonable policies, and zero-tolerance policies aren't that. All they are is an excuse for administrators to abstain from making a decision.
Let's forget about the no knife rule for just a second. Tell me, do you really think a student bringing a butter knife in their lunch to cut fruit with is a serious problem that warrants a suspension?
I'm the reason for zero-tolerance policies? Give me a break dude. I'm in favor of reasonable policies, and zero-tolerance policies aren't that. All they are is an excuse for administrators to abstain from making a decision.
"Bring a knife, get suspended", you don't get any more black/white than that. There is absolutely zero grey areas in this rule. If A, then B. Yet here you are arguing about it and coming up with plenty of grey areas that don't exist to try to argue that "I know that A = B, but I think A =/= B because braces".
You don't think that enforcing a rule that is crystal clear is a good judgement, and you think that the solution is to introduce 50 shades of grey into the rule because then nobody would ever argue and disagree with a decision. How is making things less clear going to clear things up?
Let's forget about the no knife rule for just a second. Tell me, do you really think a student bringing a butter knife in their lunch to cut fruit with is a serious problem that warrants a suspension?
We can't forget about the knife rule, since without the rule there would not be a situation. Or are you asking "let's pretend there isn't a rule, do you think we should suspend a student for not breaking any rules"?
It doesn't matter if it is knifes, phones, walkman (lets go old school), peanuts, pornography. If the rule is "Bring X and get suspended" then don't bring X, no matter what your excuse.
I'm the reason for zero-tolerance policies? Give me a break dude. I'm in favor of reasonable policies, and zero-tolerance policies aren't that. All they are is an excuse for administrators to abstain from making a decision.
"Bring a knife, get suspended", you don't get any more black/white than that. There is absolutely zero grey areas in this rule. If A, then B. Yet here you are arguing about it and coming up with plenty of grey areas that don't exist to try to argue that "I know that A = B, but I think A =/= B because braces".
You don't think that enforcing a rule that is crystal clear is a good judgement, and you think that the solution is to introduce 50 shades of grey into the rule because then nobody would ever argue and disagree with a decision. How is making things less clear going to clear things up?
Let's forget about the no knife rule for just a second. Tell me, do you really think a student bringing a butter knife in their lunch to cut fruit with is a serious problem that warrants a suspension?
We can't forget about the knife rule, since without the rule there would not be a situation. Or are you asking "let's pretend there isn't a rule, do you think we should suspend a student for not breaking any rules"?
It doesn't matter if it is knifes, phones, walkman (lets go old school), peanuts, pornography. If the rule is "Bring X and get suspended" then don't bring X, no matter what your excuse.
I agree with you that the rule is black and white with no gray. Zero-tolerance policy rules almost always are. That's part of the problem with them though. Things that actually happen in real life don't always fit neatly into black and while categories, and removing all room for critical thinking and discretion isn't really a good thing. Just because a rule is clear doesn't make it a good rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: A butterknife can puncture skin actually, just not that easily and it has to be in a certain area.
As plenty of people have mentioned before, so can dozens of other things that are often found in schools and are often used by students.
hotsauceman1 wrote: A butterknife can puncture skin actually, just not that easily and it has to be in a certain area.
As plenty of people have mentioned before, so can dozens of other things that are often found in schools and are often used by students.
Which all also have a school function. Unlike a knife. Since there is no school-related reason for having a knife, there is no reason to allow one. A lead pencil is pretty much like an IV needle, both are short thin and pointy and can be inserted into the blood stream.. Should the presence of one allow the presence of another?
If the school allows students to eat lunch on school grounds and bring their own lunch, than anything lunch-related would also be school related. If a spoon and a fork is allowed, then there is no reason not to allow a butter knife.
Hordini wrote: If the school allows students to eat lunch on school grounds and bring their own lunch, than anything lunch-related would also be school related. If a spoon and a fork is allowed, then there is no reason not to allow a butter knife.
If you know that knifes are not allowed, and you pack something or bring something that requires a knife, then you are dumb. What if I bring a steak and need a steak knife? Or some home made BBQ which requires an electric knife? When does the safety of the school outweigh my need for meat!!!!!!!
Or....don't bring something that is not allowed.
Bring an apple slicer. Buy pre-sliced apples. Slice them at home and put some lemon juice on them and seal them to prevent browning. Have the kitchen lady cut it up for you. Or don't bring an apple.
Hordini wrote: If the school allows students to eat lunch on school grounds and bring their own lunch, than anything lunch-related would also be school related. If a spoon and a fork is allowed, then there is no reason not to allow a butter knife.
If you know that knifes are not allowed, and you pack something or bring something that requires a knife, then you are dumb. What if I bring a steak and need a steak knife? Or some home made BBQ which requires an electric knife? When does the safety of the school outweigh my need for meat!!!!!!!
Or....don't bring something that is not allowed.
Bring an apple slicer. Buy pre-sliced apples. Slice them at home and put some lemon juice on them and seal them to prevent browning. Have the kitchen lady cut it up for you. Or don't bring an apple.
Alright Oida, fine, you win! I'm not going to bring any apples or electric knives to school! Just don't come crying to me when you don't have anything to slice your homemade BBQ with.
Hordini wrote: If the school allows students to eat lunch on school grounds and bring their own lunch, than anything lunch-related would also be school related. If a spoon and a fork is allowed, then there is no reason not to allow a butter knife.
If you know that knifes are not allowed, and you pack something or bring something that requires a knife, then you are dumb. What if I bring a steak and need a steak knife? Or some home made BBQ which requires an electric knife? When does the safety of the school outweigh my need for meat!!!!!!!
Or....don't bring something that is not allowed.
Bring an apple slicer. Buy pre-sliced apples. Slice them at home and put some lemon juice on them and seal them to prevent browning. Have the kitchen lady cut it up for you. Or don't bring an apple.
Alright Oida, fine, you win! I'm not going to bring any apples or electric knives to school! Just don't come crying to me when you don't have anything to slice your homemade BBQ with.
To be fair: If you get real great BBQ, you will never need a knife.
Hordini wrote: If the school allows students to eat lunch on school grounds and bring their own lunch, than anything lunch-related would also be school related. If a spoon and a fork is allowed, then there is no reason not to allow a butter knife.
If you know that knifes are not allowed, and you pack something or bring something that requires a knife, then you are dumb. What if I bring a steak and need a steak knife? Or some home made BBQ which requires an electric knife? When does the safety of the school outweigh my need for meat!!!!!!!
Or....don't bring something that is not allowed.
Bring an apple slicer. Buy pre-sliced apples. Slice them at home and put some lemon juice on them and seal them to prevent browning. Have the kitchen lady cut it up for you. Or don't bring an apple.
Alright Oida, fine, you win! I'm not going to bring any apples or electric knives to school! Just don't come crying to me when you don't have anything to slice your homemade BBQ with.
To be fair: If you get real great BBQ, you will never need a knife.
At least we agree on the important things in life.
d-usa wrote: Because if you give people discretion it becomes a case of "you punished my child for x but not this child for y? They are pretty much the same thing, so I am suing!"
Zero tolerance policies cover your butt against parents who don't believe that their kids could ever do anything wrong.
You're right about that... it's just that its a really LAZY way to address this as Zero Tolerance doesn't really do anything. Most of the time, it erroneously punishes the kid.
I've told you my "Zero Tolerance" story, haven't I?
Anyways, point being that these schools are way too "zero tolerance", too "politically correct", or just incompetently ran schools... that I feel that their primary mission is compromised. Which is TEACHING the students.
whembly wrote: Anyways, point being that these schools are way too "zero tolerance", too "politically correct", or just incompetently ran schools... that I feel that their primary mission is compromised. Which is TEACHING the students.
What do you consider too "politically correct" like do you think it's OK to be calling people [see forum posting rules], retards, [see forum posting rules], etc in a school environment?
whembly wrote: Anyways, point being that these schools are way too "zero tolerance", too "politically correct", or just incompetently ran schools... that I feel that their primary mission is compromised. Which is TEACHING the students.
What do you consider too "politically correct" like do you think it's OK to be calling people [see forum posting rules], retards, [see forum posting rules], etc in a school environment?
No...not that political correctness... I mean, yeah maybe a little bit... maybe a better choice of word would be "Public Relations"?
These Teachers/School Administrators are scared shitless of the Parents... so, they're compelled to conform to lowest denominator (ie, zero tolerance, trophy for all kids, etc...).
hotsauceman1 wrote: A butterknife can puncture skin actually, just not that easily and it has to be in a certain area.
As plenty of people have mentioned before, so can dozens of other things that are often found in schools and are often used by students.
Which all also have a school function. Unlike a knife. Since there is no school-related reason for having a knife, there is no reason to allow one. A lead pencil is pretty much like an IV needle, both are short thin and pointy and can be inserted into the blood stream.. Should the presence of one allow the presence of another?
Sure it can.
1) School includes lunch.
2) A knife is used to eat food.
3) So, logically a knife would have a function in the school.
Also, cooking classes.
Now, some specifics would have to be hashed out. You coudn't take a steak knife because its sharp. A butter knife on the other hand is not. You would have to be quite vicious to seriously hurt someone with a butter knife, and at that point there are many other objects around a school that would be a better weapon so the knife itself would not actually have raised the danger level. That big metal lunchbox is far more dangerous than the butter knife.
Sharpness could be the determining factor for what you could and could not bring. Its something you can measure so its a standard that can be enforced.
whembly wrote: Anyways, point being that these schools are way too "zero tolerance", too "politically correct", or just incompetently ran schools... that I feel that their primary mission is compromised. Which is TEACHING the students.
What do you consider too "politically correct" like do you think it's OK to be calling people [see forum posting rules], retards, [see forum posting rules], etc in a school environment?
No...not that political correctness... I mean, yeah maybe a little bit... maybe a better choice of word would be "Public Relations"?
These Teachers/School Administrators are scared shitless of the Parents... so, they're compelled to conform to lowest denominator (ie, zero tolerance, trophy for all kids, etc...).
I don't know, Finland seems to have a real efficient schooling system and they underemphasis grading and competitiveness and focus more on the desire to learn and it seems to be getting great results.
