45 days suspension, really? Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
i would have slapped a fine on the parents, too. i mean, he got the knife from thier home, right?
also, not mentioned but the rule also shields the schools since they can't be aquized (sp) in court of doing little in case something does happen violently...
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Hooray for my local school district! I'm so glad my parents insisted on private education for me and my sister... Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
If someone stabs someone at school... is the issue really whether or not he brought a knife to school? Or whether or not he stabbed someone with it?
Now... of course there should be rules that you can't bring weapons to school. And bringing something like a machete or a combat knife... sure, I can see how that would lead to a suspension. But what this kid brought isn't even legally considered a weapon. If a cop found it in your pocket, you wouldn't be charged with a crime. So how is it a weapon?
And zero-tolerance policies don't prevent school shootings or violence. The kids who come to school to kill people don't care about the zero-tolerance policy. Might the rules keep more fights limited to fists instead of knives? Yes. And the rules should be there. But like the man said, zero-tolerance is just an excuse for the school administrators to not have to care about what's actually right.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Well when you get down to it, just about anything can be weapon. In this case I think a school would be wise to cover it's own arse because after all, how would it look if a kid had been injured by that thing - accidentally or otherwise - because they had known about it and did nothing? However, the sensible way to deal with it would have been to confiscate the item and notify the parents.
At least that's what happened at my school when someone brought in a penknife or jackknife and got found out. On the other hand I remember bringing a brand new (read very sharp) knife on a school camping trip when I must have been about 9 or 10 and never got in any trouble. Just told to be responsible with it.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Well of course they should do something if they know about it. And of course there should be rules about bringing those kinds of things on school property.
I don't see the difference, though, between making a rule that says those things aren't allowed and making a rule that says those things aren't allowed under penalty of expulsion, no questions asked or answered. Making a rule implies that appropriate action will be taken if the rule is broken.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
That's exactly the problem, though. The actions the school took were inappropriate.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: also, not mentioned but the rule also shields the schools since they can't be aquized (sp) in court of doing little in case something does happen violently...
accused
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
My good lord man, is that what Pensive was saying?!
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
quote:Originally posted by HopefulNebula: That's exactly the problem, though. The actions the school took were inappropriate.
Right. I'm just saying, how could the school be held more responsible legally for not instituting a zero-tolerance policy? Just making the rule says, "This is not permissible to us. Don't do it. We'll punish you if you do it." Adding one, cover-all punishment no matter what the circumstances are doesn't protect them more, it just shields them from having to deal with each situation individually.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
...Oh, now I understand. I misread what you were originally saying.
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune:
quote:Originally posted by HopefulNebula: That's exactly the problem, though. The actions the school took were inappropriate.
Right. I'm just saying, how could the school be held more responsible legally for not instituting a zero-tolerance policy? Just making the rule says, "This is not permissible to us. Don't do it. We'll punish you if you do it." Adding one, cover-all punishment no matter what the circumstances are doesn't protect them more, it just shields them from having to deal with each situation individually.
This is my view as well. Saying they're not allowed is one thing, but one general punishment, regardless of circumstances is another, especially at the elementary level. My school has a no weapon policy, but as we're a very suburban school, where there's maybe...3 or 4 public fights per year, it isn't enforced too heavily. I know teachers who regularly carry a leatherman multi-tool in their pocket or briefcase, and those have decent sized blades. There was a kid last year in one of my classes who visibly had a knife on himself every day (you could see the clip on the outside of his pocket). No one did anything about it. No one seemed to care.
Generally, the school's policy states that if you do happen to bring a blade (for work in the case of those with work release,or perhaps if you've mistakenly kept it in your pants or backpack after a camping trip), keep it on you, don't take it out, and make sure no one gets a hold of it. If you want to be extra cautious, give it to the office, and they'll store it in the school safe until you leave. However, if you pull it in a fight, or someone gets a hold of it and uses it, your ass is screwed ,simple as that. Works fine, and no one seems to have problems with it. Wouldn't work in an inner city school, for sure, but it shows that zero-tolerance policies aren't entirely necessary.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)