The Saga of the Suspended 6-Year-Old

Reader Comments
Back to blog

This particular case clearly demonstrates the lack of good judgement on the principal's part. "Zero Tolerance" is the standard to be applied when schools experience rampant disregard for rules and regulations that have been established to provide a reasonably safe school environment. Looking at events on a "case by case" basis establishes the application of just and fair decisions.

Frank Perez of HI 3:24PM October 15, 2009

It is easier to say "I'm sorry, that's our policy, and I can't change it" than it is to form a judgment on each case. Don't hide behind a mindless policy! Form a reasoned judgment.

Eric Scott of NY 3:06PM October 15, 2009

The level of idiocy shown in this case is truly staggering. These idiotic "zero tolerance" laws have turned us into a bunch of brainless nitwits. Anyone who agrees with a 45 day sunpension at a reform school for a good kid with a Boy Scout tool should be tested for retardation, and perhaps sent to an institution themselves. After all, you couldn't agree with this b.s. if your I.Q. hovered even near room temperature. Stupid. Ridiculous. Absurd. Moronic.

william of GA 2:01PM October 15, 2009

Indeed I question where has commen sense gone in this country. Intent does have a meaning but it is not always apply to every situation. Vehicular Manslaughter does not require intent. Reckless Homicide does not require intent. Intending to do something is one thing. But if something happened as the result of a persons' (or kid's) bad judgement then they (or the parents) are still held accountable, regardless of their intent.
But as for the commen sense again in this country... You need only look for any product label near you. As a comedian once stated, for every stupid rule there was a stupid person. Why do you think things like Preparation H has a warning label of "do no ingest orally" on it? Because some idiot did something stupid then tried to blame someone else.

Mark in TX of TX 1:57PM October 15, 2009

you substitute policy for judgment. Why is it the target of "zero-tolerance" policies always turns out to be common sense? Because when "little Johnnie's" parents sue, it's easier to defend consistency than rationality.

Will of MO 1:49PM October 15, 2009

Where has common sense gone in this country? Doesn't intent have any meaning anymore? If a 6 year old brings an object to school with the intent to injure the 45 days should be spent in therapy along with the parents as they are possibly part of the problem. On the other hand, this child had no intent to harm and should have been treated as such. Zero tolerance has to go in it's current form.

Bruce S of FL 1:28PM October 15, 2009

We are indeed talking about Elementary school kids. 1st Graders that are usually making noodle art or turkey drawings from their hands. Yet the topic was a 1st grader that brought a swiss army knife to a public school with a lot of other kids his age.
But we go off topic again.
Let me start by saying growing up in a Rural area of Texas the only religion in the town was Christianity. But even with that being the only major religion being present, did that make things simple for the community? I remember a ton of disputes over many city issues on events by Adults that could not reach common ground. You state that kids in school are being taught that there is no God. In contrast the Public schools do NOT teach any religious belief for one simple fact that communities even among the Christian community vary to such a great degree. Which version of Christianity would you have taught at your school? Baptist, Church of Christ, Methodist, Catholic, Non demoninational? Public schools stay out of religion because it should be the parents (or guardians) responsbility. I know of churches that have split just because they could not decide on which version of the Bible to use. American Standard or King James' versions. So when Adults cannot even be reasonable you want this type of conflict brought to schools? And note this was not even bringing in any other form of religion just Christianity. Again, its the Parents or Guardians of those kids to instill their beliefs to their kids. Public setting is to be neutral.
You state that it does not take a village to raise a child, but it takes two parents. Both a mom and dad.
I remember quite well growing up if a neighbor saw me doing something wrong, they would stop me, scold me then send me home. Knowing that by the time I got home they had already phoned ahead and I would receive another scolding when I got there. There is nothing wrong with a sense of community. And as for the statement that it takes two parents a mother and father. My best friend only had his mother to raise him. Not because of any issue other than his father was killed in a farming accident. That in no way kept him from becoming a very upstanding and important part of society. Or there was the kid who went to our school that was raised by a guardian because his mother and father chose to lead a life of crime over the well being of their kids. Raisin a child is not just about gender and numbers. It is about taking the responsbility to raise a child in a manner that will best prepare them for a successful life in society. So while your comments continue to jump to way off topic with deep seeded politicals of unrelated issues.
So to point back to the issue of the original article:
6yr old brings a swiss army knife to a school. zero tolerance policy stated he broke a rule. A punishment was given that was extreme. Is the zero tolerance policy the issue or was the punishment of breaking the policy the problem

Mark in TX of TX 1:19PM October 15, 2009

mark in TX I concur, but we are talking about Elementary schools very young kids. They are teaching at a very young age to fight against the establishment. IN school they are being taught there is no God, no morals, get all you can get out of live, when its over its over ! So go for it ! It does not take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents, MOM AND DAD !
We have to let parents back into the loop of what is going on in school. Just like our politicians when they become so independent they are no longer doing the will of the people, they need to be FIRED!

jerr of LA 12:34PM October 15, 2009

jerr of LA- You stated.
The liberals ifing their live away !
-----------------------
ok, so I will go ahead and go there.
Just like the boy in question, I also was a member of the Cub Scouts, and hopefully he will continue into the Boy Scouts as I did to further his education and personal respnsiblity.
The very motto of "Be Prepared" means that you look not only at the current situation, but at all possibilies of that situation. Meaning... What IF.
I just have never truly thought of the Cub and Boy Scouts as being Liberal training organizations.

Mark in TX of TX 12:24PM October 15, 2009

jerr of LA, I am not sure how your family history affects this discussion, but the point remains the same and back to the actual discussion of this thread.
A zero tolerance policy does not have to be a negative thing. It creates an even playing field just as all own laws of the land. Breaking a rule is just that. You broke a rule. I never said nor agreed that the punishment was justified. I simply was stating that having a zero tolerance policy is fine, its the punishmet for breaking the policy that must be put under a close examination. My biggest problem with the coverage is that a majority seems to be saying that zero tolerance policys are wrong. When it is the punishment of the zero tolerence policy that needs to be addressed as to severe. If another child had been injured everyone else that will admit it, knows this story would have taken a more sinister tone in the media.
There could have very well been a set of punishments set in place that first offense was pulling the child from class and suspended for rest of the day, contacting the parents and addressing the issue with them. Second offense could have led to harsher penalties. Zero Tolerance means that it does not matter the intent of the offense, there must be a punishment. It doesnt matter if the kid did it on its own or if it was with parental consent.
It truly baffles me that so many in these comments are not getting the whole point of the issue. At no time has anyone stated that the kid who brought the knife to school was THE danger. But unless you can state that every kid at the school is just as responsible as this one kid then its pointless.
Let me try a different example:
The number of police officers that are shot with their own guns is a high percentile. Does that mean even though they are highly trained in defensive tactics and the use of a gun that they should not be allowed to carry them? The fact is that even with someone who has been trained to use a gun. But if that gun is taken from them by another then it becomes a danger to not only the officer, but to everyone around.
The zero tolerance is a line in the sand. Simply stating, this is a rule that cannot be crossed. If you cross it, there is a punishment. There is no excuse to
I did NOT agree with the severe punishment that was initially set for the boy and I am glad that he did not have to go through with it. But that does not mean that zero tolerance policies should be done away with. It just means that the punishment for these policies should be addressed better.

Mark in TX of TX 12:04PM October 15, 2009