In the news: Lack of parenting

There you go Walter---HURRAY --- some common sense.

Of course. Dead zone was just a figure of speech, so to speak.

Actually, I think perhaps that a good deal of the defense is against what appears to be a reflex response that seems to happen that anything difficult that happens has to be someone's fault.

There's a real culture of blame and accusation that I find quite disgusting.

It sounds as if the balloon father is genuinely an idiot.

The swiss army knife?

For christ sake....do you examine your children's pockets daily before they go to school?

Lord knows how many millions of kids have pocket knives.

I had pocket knives.....it never occurred to me to take them to school, or my parents to search me daily to ensure I had nothing dangerous. I bet it DID occur to lots of my friends, and that they DID take their knives to school, with no evil intent, and they were duly told off and their parents supported the school's reasonable discipline.

A little kid made a little kid mistake, and you have a system too rigid to allow for a rational response to such, and you're accusing anyone who doesn't have an apoplectic fit and start denouncing the parents as deficient in some way?

Get a grip.


Common sense decrees that normal kids make normal mistakes and only an insane system sends little kids to some sort of reform school because of it!!

I suspect the answer here lies in the comment someone or other made about the ridiculous litigiousness of US society.

It seems anything that happens has someone calling for a lawyer.

I remember one ex-member here whose dog escaped from his home, and was presumably hit by a car or somesuch. It was picked up by the dog pound people, who thought it was fine, and the owner was called.

Presumably the poor thing had some sort of internal injury, and it died before the owner got there.

Hysterical denunciations of the pound!! The dog's death was their fault...lawyers on this site were recommending suing.

A dog escapes your yard, and it's someone else's fault when there is a tragic accident? Someone else should pay?

Jesus wept.

It is likely that schools in the US have developed a ridiculously rigid system in response to just this legal hysteria.

A little kid appears (for the first time) in school with a pocket knife.

Of course there has to be a response.

But to assume with NO evidence that the parents are bad is just meanness, as far as I can see.

That such an incident is even mentioned in the same breath as teens setting another child alight is beyond ridiculous.


Unfortunately, a lot of the social fabric of my country is country is fading as this plague of litigiousness hits here, and we enter a culture of legal defensiveness.


Lord forbid we should accept that life has risks, and that not every bit of **** that lands on you means you can whine and sue, instead of accepting reality.


Reasonable care...reasonable responses...

My goodness! I had no idea our ideas ran in such similar channels.

By the way, I would consider a jack knife to be a great deal more weaponlike than a scout knife or Swiss Army knife.

I have no idea why you're directing this post to me. I have said very clearly that if my child were guilty of an infraction-I'd want him or her to accept and face the consequences. I have never sued anyone for anything.
No, I've never had to search my children's pockets for weapons - but then I've never given them a weapon for a birthday present and if someone had- I'd have put it up until they were old enough to accept the repercussions of what might happen to them or another child if they played with a dangerous weapon.

You can look all you want at America and our schools and culture with all the disdain you can muster - but the fact remains that until you have experienced something like Columbine in one of your schools - you can have no realistic knowledge of what parents are faced with and what teachers and administrations are faced with in terms of expectations of keeping those children safe.

And because I would never want to be the one who made the mistake of thinking that because a child came from a 'good' home - probably like Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris' would have been judged to be - I understand why the precautions have got to be universal.

Am I happy that Columbine and other school shootings have left such an idelible legacy on our culture and schools - NO! Do I understand it - YES!

You know - you seem to be the one who's always passing judgment and assigning blame and feelings of disgust to what you perceive to be the reality in the US.
I myself, liked living there and teaching there - even with all its faults that you're always so eager to point out. The schools I worked in did a wonderful job with the resources they were given and I can't think of one kid I didn't like. I even liked most of the parents. Probably because I worked with kids and parents who weren't constantly looking for the negative in people and systems.
My own point of view is that most people, kids, parents, and teachers in schools are probably doing the best they can.
The reality is - you can't please everyone - especially uninvolved onlookers.

I do have a grip. I lived it and watched it. Maybe you should try getting a grip on the reality instead of what you watch on tv and read in the paper.

I assigned this comment to you because of your carping at parents you know nothing about.


And I have no idea why you thought I was criticizing teachers, pupils etc.

I was criticizing a system that sends a little kid to reform school for a little kid mistake, and those like you who accuse the parents with no knowledge.


I imagine the school felt bound by an insanely rigid set of rules.

Perhaps you see criticism where there was none because of your critical mindset here.

I am an American, and I am profoundly disturbed by some of the trends that seem to be happening, and the number of people who agree with me sure seems to be growing.

dlowan essentially has it right, the schools claim that they must take a zero tolerance approach, must be the hammer, in large part due to the legal liability that they expose themselves to if they do not. I think that administrators and boards should take the risk and do the right thing, but then I don't pay their liability insurance bills either.

But I do - I know that these specific parents allowed their six year old to be in possession of a knife.
I know that they are parents who at least initially appeared to have left a balloon available to their child to access without regard to his safety.

And I didn't carp - I stated my opinon which is what the opening poster asked me (as a participant on this forum) to do about these specific parents.

You're the one who extended it to a whole nation and their culture and schools - not me.

I have no problem with zero tolerance of weapons in schools. In fact, I strongly support it.

I am criticizing the fact that there appears to be no ability to apply sanity in terms of consequences.

I profoundly disagree with systems where the rules are such that there is no ability to temper response to the circumstances of the offence.

Eg: Had the kid in question had a history of violence and bringing weapons to school, sure, big hammer.

Confiscate his knife for a time...whatever....but REFORM SCHOOL for 45 days????

My little brother was suspended from Kindergarten because he brought a nudie pen to class. You know, the kind you tip upside down and the lady is stripped of her modesty. He found on his walk to school. I know, because all four of us were walking to elementary school (Catholic) that day and we all cursed his luck.. The ironic thing was, he had also found a wee knife that was also on full display. (My parents were known as the strictest parents of all in school. I kid you not. My friends were terrified of my mother.)

A few years later... my kindergarten aged son also found a pocket knife in the school playground, in the sandbox. His friends had vouched for my son's lucky find. They were all upset he found it and they hadn't. My son couldn't even open the 2 inch blade. It had rusted shut in the damp ground.
I was called to the school and read the riot act. I was told I was irresponsible, a bad mom.. the whole rigmarole. The wanted to call welfare on me, although, I had a full time job and wasn't in/or had never been in the system. My son was a bad seed from that day on. Eventually, he had to change schools.
I think that self righteous people never see the grey. It's either black or white.
To paint all situations with the same brush is beyond ludicrous. To assume that all children have nefarious intent is unbelievable. My father's generation all brought pocket knives to school. It was normal. Now, our kids are raised on violent TV, movies, games... but we choose to beat up parents because the kids have formed their own opinions???
Don't get me wrong, I don't think kids should bring weapons to school, but a six year old showing off part of his BOY SCOUT kit being punished in such a manner is beyond ridiculous. Rules is rules, as they say.. but sometimes, the interpretation is just plain stupid. Parents who sue because little Susie got a boo-boo playing sports, as if a cut or bruise will scar a person for life, makes me sick. Teachers are meant to teach, to instill knowledge not just act as mindless guardians. If a teacher confiscates a telephone, a hand held game, the note passed around the class or a utensil from the Boy scouts, should they not teach the child why this is inappropriate instead of passing the buck? If they are unable to explain to a six year old why it might not be good idea to carry a knife to school, then they aren't much of a teacher are they? They are just another well paid government shill hiding behind bureaucracy.
As for any one thinking that a parent should have known what the kid brought to school. How many parents frisk their kids before they head out the door? Anyone who thinks they should, needs to give their head shake. Although I told my kids I had eyes in the back of my skull... I didn't. Shocking, I know.

I'd be willing to bet that every kid who brought a weapon to school with intent brought it to school the first time they used it to hurt someone. I'll research it though.



Does anyone even have any idea what this means? I worked in US schools for twenty years and I don't even know what it means. It could mean that he's in a separate building with a one-on-one doing his lessons.
I used to have to do home visits and lessons with kids who were excluded for violence.
I'm almost certain he's not in a non-age appropriate setting with hardened and violent criminals if that's what you're picturing though.

I have a friend who teaches behaviorally maladaptive kids in Delaware - which is where this happened. I'll try to find out what reform school for a six year old means. It'd be good to have an accurate picture of what the 'punishment' entailed.

Everybody wants everything - every child has to be kept safe - but no one is allowed to inconvenience anyone to keep every child safe.

If you all find a better plan or system - go for it. Because, as you've pointed out - the people who are trying their best to keep the children safe, while teaching and feeding and nurturing them, are not doing the job to your specifications.

You'd rather look at them with blame than at the parent who left the six year old child in possession of a knife...okay....and then talk about blaming other people.
Yeah.

I don't agree with this, but the school admins would say I am sure that if they don't do everything that they can do to make the schools safe and someone gets hurt, then the schools incur liability. A policy of taking the knife away is not the best that they can do because they had the option of suspension. Not having any policy at all and letting the schools decide on a case by case basis would also be made into a case that not everything was done that could have been done.

The failure of the American legal system is felt in 10,000 different ways.

What on earth do you mean ""with intent"?

Are you saying there is some evidence this child brought the pocket knife to school with intent to hurt someone?



Yes, it would.

But you evaded again the whole intent of my comments to you.

Why do you automatically assume these are bad parents?

What on earth do you mean by no inconvenience?


Nobody here, as far as I have seen, has said that there ought not to be a consequence.


I don't think it would be hard at all to think of a reasonable consequence for the kid...lots of folk here have suggested them.


You seem always to assume I am blaming people...is it because you do?

My assumption is that the schools are locked into particular consequences by state/national bureaucracies.

I assume in turn that part of the rigidity of these bureaucracies is to do with fear of blame/litigation if anything at all, no matter how minor, goes wrong. And I don't blame them for having such fears....the reactions of people on these boards has been enough in and of itself , never mind seeing seeing hysterical witch hunts of schools and teachers, to convince me that there is real danger of irrational responses when all reasonable precautions have been taken.

Rather than blame anyone trying to deal with this stuff, (I will leave that to you), I am trying to say that it is only sane and reasonable to accept that there is NO way to prevent some stuff from going wrong in schools (and other places) and that panicked resorts to utterly rigid protocols is not a good answer.

I don't think there IS a perfect answer, and I think that we just have to live with that, and support schools when they react with sense and reason to particular circumstances.


Tell me, if this was, indeed, a little kid who took his knife to school simply to show his mates, and that he had never done such a thing before, and was not known to be violent at all, do you actually think the mandated consequence was reasonable, or do you think that common sense might dictate a lesser response?

I think there is a middle ground between allowing every school to make its own rules, and having an utterly rigid and determined response, no matter the circumstances.

I agree with you (and this is scary, frankly) that legal defensiveness makes for many bad decisions.

Again, there is a difficult middle ground.

I have talked elsewhere on A2k about what it means for my profession...but here, for now, one has a reasonable hope that being able to demonstrate that care and thought has been put into critical decisions, being able to present the rationale for one's decisions, and having consulted (if possible) about the decisions, gives one reasonable legal safety.

Yes, I know exactly what it means. It means a jail for juveniles. One or two bunks per cell, usually. Line up for head count, march to breakfast, march to classrooms, march to controlled exercise, and at the end of the day, another head count before marching back to the cell. Cells have bars or metal mesh on the doors and windows. The exercise yard has chain link fencing with razor wire on top. Your kid gets to meet interesting people.

It differs from the county jail in that the juvenile record cannot be accessed after the prisoner becomes an adult.


[/quote] I worked in US schools for twenty years and I don't even know what it means. [/quote]

That's just incredible.

The difference being? Or, which one doesn't have a blade?

That is the point. They must do their best.

If you expect or accept mediocrity....you get mediocrity. Parents must be forever vigilant.

That's a bit much, don't you think? Not everybody has an inner perimeter fence.