Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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"

She was lying.

How was she lying?

 Hordini wrote:

 Fifty wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I could have sworn my high school cafeteria had metal butter knives, forks, and spoons.

We had plastic sporks.

But we also had a wood shop with a belt sander, table saw, and bandsaw.

And teacher supervision.

Students are supervised during lunch.

But in my experience the ratio of students per adult is higher than if they were in the classroom

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Fifty wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I could have sworn my high school cafeteria had metal butter knives, forks, and spoons.

We had plastic sporks.

But we also had a wood shop with a belt sander, table saw, and bandsaw.

And teacher supervision.

Students are supervised during lunch.

But in my experience the ratio of students per adult is higher than if they were in the classroom

It wasn't high enough for the adults to not notice she was cutting her fruit with a butter knife.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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"

She was lying.

How was she lying?

She didn't have to give you those penalties, but she had time to kill.

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 d-usa wrote:

 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"?

Nothing is stupid. If it says "No Knife" then no knife, know the rules before you go to school.

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

I soooooo hope you are trolling.

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 whole situation is stupid, but she sounds stupid too.

 Hordini wrote:

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?

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

What is a weapon? Nearly anything can be used as a weapon.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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?

 Hordini wrote:

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.

Butter knife as a weapon? The bitch should get real, real gangstas arm themselves with forks.

A butterknife can puncture skin actually, just not that easily and it has to be in a certain area.

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 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?

Which are conductive to learning, pens, paper, scissors in some cases.
A butterknife has no purpose in school learning.

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.