It's a Fork, It's a Spoon, It's a....Weapon?

Zero Tolerance

Quote :

Finding character witnesses when you are 6 years old is not easy. But
there was Zachary Christie last week at a school disciplinary committee
hearing with his karate instructor and his mother’s fiancé by his side
to vouch for him.

Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a
knife, fork and spoon to school. He was so excited about recently
joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use it at lunch. School
officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on
weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the
district’s reform school.
“It just seems unfair,” Zachary said, pausing as he practiced writing lower-case letters with his mother, who is home-schooling him while the family tries to overturn his punishment.

T'would appear the kid may be smarter than the adults around him.

Quote :

Spurred in part by the Columbine and Virginia Tech
shootings, many school districts around the country adopted
zero-tolerance policies on the possession of weapons on school grounds.
More recently, there has been growing debate over whether the policies
have gone too far.But, based on the code of conduct
for the Christina School District, where Zachary is a first grader,
school officials had no choice. They had to suspend him because,
“regardless of possessor’s intent,” knives are banned.

But the question on the minds of residents here is: Why do school officials not have more discretion in such cases?

Because obviously, if you let a six-year-old bring a spork to school, it won't be long before he shows up with an AK-47.

Honestly, I kind've understand the reasoning behind it, but this is an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

Also, what's with sending them to 'Reform School?' They're kids, not hardened ex-cons.

But the spork is a lethal weapon. It's our entire raison d'etre...

Okay, if the kid can kill someone with a fork, he can probably do it with his bare hands.

It's not so much that this thing is illegal, it did seem like it had a knife blade on it. It's the retarded overreaction it's caused. Good lord, just take it away, give it back to him after school, and tell him not to bring it back. Do not shit a chicken.

Though I'm happy to hear this in a way. Obviously I'm not the only one who has thought of using forks as a weapon. Whether it's stabbing that one guy who just keeps pushing his luck in the thigh to get him to STFU, or whether it's contemplating how many ninja one could take out with nothing but an array of fork weaponry, it's good to know there are other people who are as utterly bored aware of the potential for violence in kitchen utensils as I am.

The punishment's a little over the top, but I see where they're coming from. The school's just following what I'm assuming is district procedure and getting shit for it, even though it would take only one kid to go home and tell his parents that someone brought a sporknife to school before they flip their shit and accuse the school of being careless with weapons. The kid just had a cool sporknife to show off.

Given my background though, I'm gonna have to side with the school.

You know, it just occurred to me that if this school would ban things like a spork and pocket knives, their cafeteria wouldn't dare have any silverware. Everything they served to the kids would have to be finger food, because
God forbid someone needed to cut up their meatloaf.

Also, I'm a bit annoyed at the teacher who didn't report the girl who brought the cake had a knife with her till AFTER she'd used it to cut up the cake. Seriously, have you ever tried doing any damage with a table knife? I suppose you could stab someone with it, but you'd have to be fairly powerful to get it to do more than bruise the skin.

Never mind all the fun scalpels in biology labs, needles and knives in home ec. classrooms, etc etc.

THE TINY BOY SCOUT'S SPORKNIFE IS FAR MORE LETHAL.

I was going to post this article here, but then I saw that it had already been done, so I'll just chime in.

WTF? There is a difference between bringing a utensil to school to eat with and bringing a weapon to school. Yes, you can hurt someone with a spork. You can hurt someone with a pencil, too (in high school, my sister stabbed a boy in the hand with a pencil when he didn't take the hint that she didn't want to be groped).

This reminds me of zero-tolerance policies where kids get expelled for having Chapstick or for bringing a nail file to school. I'm glad I grew up in a more sane era, where no one cared that I brought an emery board to school to keep my sharp, brittle nails under control (the nails, by the way, were and are far more dangerous than any nail file could be).

Zero tolerance works with things that are only used as a weapon, like guns and bombs. Everything else--think about the situation and use a little common sense. Reform school? For a six-year-old? Over a spork? Give me a break. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Edit: When I was in high school, we still had home ec. That meant that we had access to needles and pins, seam rippers, scissors (both sewing scissors, in sewing class, and safety scissors in child development), and knives (in cooking class). Oddly enough, no one killed anyone else, though I once threw a frosted sugar cookie at a boy in cooking class who was trying to steal it. I guess we should ban cookies because they can be used as projectiles.

Uh, just looked at the article. This thing isn't even a spork. It's like a Swiss army knife with a separate fork, spoon and knife. The issue isn't that it's a spork. Not really sure where people picked that up unless they neglected to read the article (like I did) and just piggybacked off what people said.

A knife's a knife and it shouldn't be in school.

Quote :

“Zachary wears a suit and tie some days to school by his own choice because he takes school so seriously,” said Debbie Christie, Zachary’s mother, who started a Web site, helpzachary.com

Ugh.

This is a seriously dickish policy, yes and it's being applied ineffectively (especially when the article implies that racism is a huge factor in the suspendings), but I think they were in the right in this case. At least they're not just blowing shit off.

Honestly, though; taking the knife away and giving the kid in-school suspension is more than enough in this case. He wasn't bringing it to school to shank his classmates, he wanted to eat with it because he was excited to have it. Sending him to juvie for 45 days is blowing it out of proportion.

While I understand why it's important not to have weapons in school, it's equally important to exercise a little discretion every once and a while.

When I was in school at that age, I remember our biggest concern being was if anyone had whizzed in the sandpit.

I have to admit, I think all the shit being kicked up on both sides is pretty funny, but that might just be me. I agree that he shouldn't have brought a knife to school in the first place, though.

Does the reform school even have a kindergarten division?

Look, I can understand the need to enforce the rules. You let one kid have his sporknife in school, next day someone else is bringing in a machete and claiming that "you let Johnny have his knife." But make the punishment fit the crime. He didn't attack anyone with it. He didn't use it on anything more vicious than cafeteria food. (Although that mystery meat can be pretty tough when cornered.)
The point is, there's a difference between a peashooter and a cannon. Learn it.

This sort of thing is the reason why most kids have become jaded, bored underachievers by junior high.

EileenK98 wrote:

Does the reform school even have a kindergarten division?

Look, I can understand the need to enforce the rules. You let one kid have his sporknife in school, next day someone else is bringing in a machete and claiming that "you let Johnny have his knife." But make the punishment fit the crime. He didn't attack anyone with it. He didn't use it on anything more vicious than cafeteria food. (Although that mystery meat can be pretty tough when cornered.)
The point is, there's a difference between a peashooter and a cannon. Learn it.

Not likely that they will, alas. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Penguin wrote:

This sort of thing is the reason why most kids have become jaded, bored underachievers by junior high.

Yup; you're raising the next generation of bitter, paranoid, spiteful, and angry Americans. Bringing kids up in an environment where even the most innocuous thing is treated as a major crime will inspire more kids to become actual criminals in the future (in my opinion; you are free to disagree).

Maybe he oughtn't to have brought the... whatever the hell it is to school, but the shit-fit they're throwing is ridiculous. If you 're worried about him using it as a weapon, confisticate it for the day and tell his parents not to let it happen again.

Reform school? For a six-year-old? Over a Boy Scout tool? Rules may be rules but this is ridiculous. Sending the Boy Scout to school with real serious trouble-makers? Is that supposed to be SENSIBLE?

Being punished this way for the tiniest, most ridiculous things is not going to endear the next generation to authority.

I hate zero-tolerance policies, both "drugs" and weapons. I graduated 12 years ago and the zero-tolerance shit had just started a couple years before. Girls weren't even allowed to carry MIDOL for God's sakes. One girl had to be carried to the nurse's office because her cramps were so bad and she couldn't take anything.

Then there's the policies towards fighting, where students pretty much aren't allowed to even defend themselves if attacked.

I knew a girl who got suspended for having Ibuprofen in her purse. :/

I agree he shouldn't have brought the tool, and I agree he should be punished for it in some way. But different circumstances are -- get this -- DIFFERENT, and treating the person who carries a rifle into school and the kid who brings a cake knife to cut the cake they brought the same is fucking stupid. Zero tolerance policies are reactionary bullshit that throw common sense out the window because people were scared and lost their heads.

When I was at school (which is far from aeons ago), in year 9 a kid brought in a BB gun. And shot people with it. He got suspended for I think a week, possibly two.

I'm guessing that things are different in the US? Or was it just my school?

KGarrett wrote:

Then there's the policies towards fighting, where students pretty much aren't allowed to even defend themselves if attacked.

My best friend in high school was bullied a lot, and nobody did anything about it. One time a girl threw her textbook at him in the middle of fucking class, and he got called down for not giving it back to her.
One day, some guy pushed him down in the hallway and was pretty viciously kicking him while he was just curled up in a ball on the floor. The result of this incident? They both got a week's suspension. I don't know what's worse - that the victim who did nothing but defend himself gets suspended, or that the huge guy fiercely kicking this kid in the back and head over and over again because "he pissed me off" only got a week of suspension.

Weighing in on the zero-tolerance policy here. My last high school had one, for a very good reason. Two local gangs had started having a pissing contest over who the school belonged to. A principal who was often called a fucking bitch took over the school and instituited the zero tolerance policy so she could kick both gangs out on their asses. Any incident of fighting got you a ten-day suspension, which would fail the semester for you. Two fighting suspensions, and you were out. Two years later, she'd managed to get every gang member kicked out.

On top of the suspensions, there were random searches, dogs regularly brought in, a cop assigned to the school, regular patrols by the local police of the grounds, and strict dress code enforcement.

The zero tolerance policy was kept up for over ten years, to keep the school safe.

I understood the reasons for why our policy was enacted and upheld. But this incident makes little sense to me. Even at our school, there were exceptions made. If you were defending yourself or pulling an attacker off a victim, you were not suspended. (Something I had the unfortunate luck of having to do. My friend was being repeatedly groped at by a classmate, and she finally lost it on him, punching him and kicking him. I pulled her off of him. Her suspension was amended to 5 days for mitigating circumstances)

He's a silly kid. And why in the world does an elementary school have a policy to send first-graders to reform school? How did that get enacted without the parents noticing that the policy was a little too strict?

Quote :

He's a silly kid. And why in the world does an
elementary school have a policy to send first-graders to reform school?
How did that get enacted without the parents noticing that the policy
was a little too strict?

I have this idea it probably got pushed through shortly after Columbine or the shooting at Virginia Tech. Parents were still terrified that something similar might happen, and the school presented it as a way of keeping their children safe. In the ensuing shock, it likely never occurred to anyone to check and see just exactly what these new 'safety policies' were going to involve.

And I'm still puzzling over the reform school thing as well. He's a six-year-old, not a teenage gang member. When a kit that young recognizes the unfairness of what's being done to him, you might want to rethink your policies.

Rabby's likely right, this dumbassery is a MASSIVE overreaction to stuff like Columbine or VT. However, I'm FAIRLY certain it was already against the rules to bring firearms to school and shoot people when they did it. I fail to see how outlawing two inch knife blades is supposed to stop from some kid running up with a 9mm or .22.

ALSO, maybe if they let kids bring these, erm, "weapons" to school, they could take down any shooters as soon as they pulled their gun! I mean, if MacGuyver could do it, I'm sure an eight year old could pull it off.