The following is a link to a recent New York Times article about the zero tolerance policy for weapons in schools. Please read the article carefully and respond with a letter to the Editor stating your opinion. Do you agree or disagree with the school policy? Was it fair what happened to Zachary Christie? Why or why not? Please feel free to ask for clarification and please tell your friends that the blog entry for this week cannot be put off to Friday at 4:45!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well Hello There!,
ReplyDeleteI believe that all that occurred was fair. At times, in the interest of the greater good, we must sacrifice our own comfort, and be more aware of our actions. A school rule is a school rule. The subject becomes a grey area when people say things such as, "He was innocent!" As unfortunate as it may be, the bottom line is that he took a weapon to school. I do feel some sorrow for him, and I do think it is very sad that this happened (he had an innocent mindset). He, as an individual intended no harm, but for the protection of others, he must accept a consequence for an action deemed dangerous.
P.S. I loooooved the fact that one lady's last name was "Schooley" :)
I disagree with the zero tolerance policy, for the mere fact that Zachary Christie is a young child, and was not proven as inflicting any harm on any of the other children. It is clear that Zachary did not harm another child, and did not come to school with the intent of harming another child. He is a growing and developing child that is still trying to decipher what is right from wrong, and suspending him from school is truly cruel.
ReplyDeleteIt was unfair what happened to Zachary, because as stated before, the primary reason for developing this zero tolerance policy was a result of the Colombine and Virginia Tech shootings. It is extreme to compare a six year old child to a murder that took place in college. These childrens' mindset are totally different. This person that committed these viscious acts, had a period of time to grow and distinguish right from wrong. They did this as results of things happening to them throughout their lifetime.
As stated earlier, Zachary Christie's main motive for bringing this "extremely dangerous" weapon to school was because he was excited about his camping program Cub Scouts, it was suppose to be a camping utensil. These zero tolerance policies have led to increases in expulsion and suspensions, often causing kids behavior to worsen. These policies are not helping but in fact hurting these children by the schools attempt to teach them a lesson.
Therefore, I disagree with the school policies and believe what happened to Zachary Chrisitie was unfair.
-Lorina Kegler
I definitely support the policy that there should be zero tolerance for weapons however in this case a non-violent, 10 year old boy bring eating utensils to school doesn't pose a threat to anyone. The punishment given to Zachery was unjust, he is obviously harmless and had no intensions of hurting anyone at the school. Although I do agree that schools should have a policy against weapons, it won't necessarily stop someone if they intended on harming a student with a weapon just because the policy says they aren’t allowed. It is not only common sense but it is knowing wrong from right, a 10 year old boy knows that he shouldn’t bring a weapon to school regardless if it's a policy or not and whether they choose to abide by it is up to them because they policy wouldn't stop them if that was their intensions. I disagree with the punishment given to Zachery because the school board as well as his parent knew that Zachery pose no threat and should've gave him a warning. I would understand if he brought a pocketknife or some object of that nature but no the boy has eating utensils, a spoon and a fork. Wow isn't that so life endangering? The policy should be reviewed as well as Zachary's case to eliminate minor cases similar to Zachery's.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the zero tolerance policy is helpful in some cases, but only when it is being used with common sense and fairness. In this case we have a six year old kid who poses no real threat to the school or his peers. He had no intention to harm anyone around him; he was just excited about his new toy. The school and the district should have used their common sense in this case. They knew that he was not really out to harm anyone and therefore should not have received such a severe punishment, maybe only a warning. I also believe that this policy should not really apply to small school children. The majority of them are still innocent and do not have any malicious intent behind their naive actions. The policy should be thoroughly reviewed and Zachary should be let back into school without consequences. He has not lived long enough to truly develop a sense of wrong and right in the outside world, and should not be punished for his innocence.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the schools zero-tolerance policy on weapons in this situation. The suspension for 45 days due to bringing a Cub Scouts utensil to school was unfair. This was not fair to 6 year old Zachary because he only wanted to use it at lunch. He was so excited about getting it that he wanted to use it at school to eat, not to harm anyone with it. He doesn’t even have that kind of mind set to try and harm anyone with it; he’s still pure and innocent. He probably doesn’t even know it can be used as a weapon; all he’s worried about is eating his lunch.
ReplyDeleteThe school officials over exaggerated on this situation, did anyone see him using it as a weapon or did they see him using it for what it’s suppose to be used for? I’m sure he only knows one way to use it and that’s for eating. The consequence he had to face was also over exaggerated, he’s 6 years old, what harm can his little innocent pure mind possibly conceive.
- Tara Harris.
Although the Christina School District's no weapons policy is in place to ensure the saftey of the their students, the consequence bestowed upon 6 year old Zachary Christie were too extreme. Zachary is 6 years old, the most possible logic Zachary had when he brought his spork to school was, "I can not wait to show everyone what I got from the Cub Scouts." Yes, the spork contains a knife but he did not intend on using this item as a weapon or to harm any of his peers, but to innocently show the people around him a piece of his accomplishmen. As Charles P. Ewing stated, "There are still serious threats every day in school." Percieved to be harmless school utensils, pen, pencils, and scissors can be used as weapons if one has the intention of harming someone else. But do school districts ban children from bringng these items to school. No, because these items are necesary for education. A child with a pen who wants to stab someone with it is more dangerous than this 6 year old kid who brought the spork to school who had no intetion of using it to harm others. If the district wants to punish the child, the responsibilty and blaim should be placed on the Cub Scouts who gave the child this "weapon" and the parents who did not explain to poor Zachary that his spork was dangerous. It is wrong to expect this 6 year old to know that a gift given to him could be possibly dangerous. What adult would give a child something that can possibly cause danger. If you give a child a gift, do you honestly believe that the child is going to think twice whether or not this item is a potential hazard? I highly doubt it. The school district should have took into consideration the intentions and knowledge of this child before sentencing shut a harsh punishment.
ReplyDelete-Ayrica Sawyer
The school districts non zero policy is a great way to make sure schools are safe. I understand why the 6yr old boy Zachry was suspended. Just becuase he wasn't posing a threat on the school campus doesn't mean that bringing that type of object on school grounds should be tolerated. Okay, the punishment may be a too harsh becuase he wasnt intending on doing anything with the knife but I am 100% sure that he and his parents knkew that the knife was on the "spork" So why would they even give someone of that age a utensil with a KNIFE on it. This should be a prime example to the leaders of the boy scouts to not give a 6yr child a utensils with a knife on it and if it's so important for them to have one just give them a spoon and a fork. Becuase kids like to play around and you never know one day one of these kids might end up harming themselves with this utensils.
ReplyDeleteThe school officials did do a bit too much but this should be a lessoned learned and for all the other kids out there with the "sporks" if they have them to just keep them at home so nothing like this wont happen to them.
-Michael J. Palmer
I agree that the zero tolerance policy should be implemented in schools although I do not agree that elementary schools should be obligated to also withold that policy. Children that are between the grades levels of preschool through 5th grade cannot fully differentiate between what is right or what is wrong. They are still learning and comprehending the do's and dont's of their learning experience. I feel as though the consequences that were put upon Zachary Christie was highly unfair. To be under the impression that a 6 year old boy knows the dangers of a camping utensil is very unlikey. Even though the utensil might have been harmful to the other students Zachary didn't see it that way. He was only trying to show his excitement and appreciation for the gift that was given to him. Under no circumstances was he trying to do anything other than use the utensil and show it off to his fellow peers. It is obvious that the school is worrying about the well being of the other students but they should realize that the little boy had no intention on doing any other thing with his utensil but using it to eat with. It is understandable the rules that the school has to follow but it is not right placing such harsh consequences on a little boy that barely knows what he can and cannot bring to school. I feel as though the Christina School District should re-determine the punishment that was placed upon Zachary because the punishment that he recieved isn't fair.
ReplyDelete-Re'Nada Smith
The Christina School District's no weapon policy is implemented to ensure the safety of all students, but the punishment that 6 year old Zachary received was too harsh. It is one thing to suspend him for a week or two for bringing such a thing to school, but too suspend him for 45 days is way too extreme. He is a 6 year old boy who obviously had no intent on harming anyone because it was stated that he was excited to have joined the Cub Scouts and receiving his camping utensil. It is also mentioned that Zachary takes his education seriously, so why would he think to harm anyone and ruin his chances at receiving a great education? Zachary may not have known that his camping utensil wasn't allowed in school let alone that it was considered a weapon. I think that Zachary was treated very unfairly for an innocent mistake and that the Christina School District should take the time to think of a less harsh punishment for him.
ReplyDelete-Adia Brady
At a school like Zachary Christie's weapons are banned; that includes camping utensils for eating AKA sporks! Poor 6 year old Zachary was charged with a 45 day suspension because he brought his new camping utensil (serves as a fork, spoon, and knife) to school for lunch time. Although the code of conduct has no choice but to ban knives, school officials definitely had a choice about Zachary's punishment. His mother explains how the boy occasionally goes to school in suits because he takes education so seriously. His intentions were not to use the spork as a weapon. With that said, the school officials should have considered the situation less extreme. Missing 45 days of school due to a invalid suspension is ridiculous. The only logical punishment in a situation like this would be to take away his spork because its a risk to his fellow peers. Suspending him making him unable to learn for a total of 45 days is inefficient and will only anger his parents who clearly sent him to school with the camping utensil. The weapon school policy is only intact to protect and keep children safe. It shouldn't lead officials to accusations of innocent 6 year olds who use sporks to eat. That is why it's unfair to both Zachary and his parents.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the school's "zero tolerance" for weapons policy when it is used fairly. I also understand that even through seemingly harmless actions, deadly accidents can occur as a result. Nevertheless, I believe that the school shouldv'e handled Zachary Christie's situation more wisely than choosing to suspend him for 45 days.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER...The persons of authority in this situation had to do all they could in enforcing the zero tolerance for weapons policy, even if it meant suspending a 6 year old for using a camping utensil at lunch. No matter how many people disagree with the decision to suspend Zachary for 45 days, if there were no repercussions and another student was injured from Zachary's utensil, the first group of people to be blamed would be the authorities of the school,because it was their responsibility to ensure the safety of their students, expecially those as young as Zachary.
The last thing school officials want are angry parents accusing the school board of not doing their jobs through a lack of authority in saftey enforcement. Some may say " Well, he's just 6 years old, they couldv'e given him a warning". The question from this would then become how would we be able to discern the intentions of those with potentially harmless utensils than those with outwardly dangerous object?, regardless of age, race sex, or gender. So, coming from a school president's perspective, I understand that it is better to have a strong authoritative presence, than a weak, lenient one, however, only in appropriate situations.
I believe that the decision of his punishment was not appropriate and shouldv'e been more thought-out.
-Saba Davis
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the Christina School Districts zero-tolerance ploicy about weapons. In theory it scares kids from taking weapons to school and it gets rid of any student that is caught with a weapon. In school, a fair disiplinary action is convicting all and only the guilty, but a fair disiplinary action doesnt mean the outcome is fair. An example of this is Zachary Christie. He brought a camping utensil he was proud of recently recieving to school to eat lunch with. Unfortunatly this camping utensil had a knife on it and viloated his schools zero-tolerance weapons policy. Now this zero-tolerance policy was created to protect its' students from violent killers and children planning to do harm to others. To compare 6 year old Zachary who was trying to eat his lunch to these kids who plan on taking the lives of others is obscured. In addition, to give him the same punishment as weapon toting maniacs is ridiculous. These zero-tolerance school policies need to be reformed because simple common sense could have been used to solve the issue with Zachary's camping utensil.
-Sean Thomas
I agree wth the Zero Tolerance Policy to a certain extent. I believe that ther shoud be no weapons allowed at school no matter how old the child and their intent. But I also believe that suspending a child and putting them in a reform school for 45 days is too much for what young Zachary Christie did. I know the school thought it to be a weapon because it had a knife on it, but it was more of an eating utensil than a weapon. And i doubt that the knife was sharp enough to severly injure a person. The Zero Policy says that no matter what the intent,the result will be an expulsion of the child. But should Zachary be expelled because he brought a utensil to school? There was also another case similar to his when a young girl brought a knife to cut her birthday cake and aftre sing the knife, her teacher reported her. considering these cases, there should be some type of leeway in carrying out these judgements. These students shouldnt be expeeled for what they did, but they could have been suspended for a few days to show tha there are consequences to bringing these items to school. I also am not understanding who can judge the intent of the child when the untensils were brought to school?
ReplyDeleteEven though the Christina School District's no weapons policy is active to ensure the safety of staff and students alike, In some cases personal discretion and leniency is necessary when enforcing the rules. Zachary is 6 years old, and had obvious reason to brink his "weapon" to school. He was excited about the fact that he had just joined boy scouts, not potentially threatening the life of a student. The spork contains a knife but he had not intention on using the item as a weapon or to harm any of his fellow students. In cases such as this, they should take into consideration the situation involving the student and his past record. The child had no previous record; he was an innocent 6 year old who was genuinely excited about his recent accomplishment. His punishment was way to harsh and the "no policy code" should be looked into with much more discretion.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the rules are in place for the safety of others, but when it is obvious that the one they are convicting are of no threat, they should not punish as harshly as they tend to do.
-Joseph Fiddmont
Dear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the zero tolerance policy to a certain extent and in this case I feel that the end result was too extreme. I understand that this policy is for the safety of the children and staff in the school but on the other hand you have to have some sympathy for this child. This young boy was punished for an accomplishment he had reached in his life. I doubt it very seriously that he would try to use his reward as harm to others, he simply was excited to show that he was officially a boy scout.
Zachary was only 6 years old and the punishment given was clearly unreasonable and quite rediculous. I could see if this was a child in high school who has been in school for quite sometime and understands the zero tolerance policy to all measures, but considering his age, he probably didnt know much about it. Therefore, I dont think he should have been penalized to those extremes.
The bases that this policy is trying to cover is overall good but in this case there should have been some leniency.
Though I sympathize with young Zacharary's plight, I do understand the necessity of the school district's zero tolerance policy. If exceptions were to be made it would jeopardize the students' safety as it would be even more difficult to regulate what items could and could not be brought on campus. Also, though opponents of the policy beleive the school officials should have used discretion in handling the issue, being responsible to determine each transgressor's intent when possessing a banned item would be a very difficult task indeed. So though I find Zachary's case to be particularly unfortunate, I still think that it is fair and that the penalties imposed upon him should stand. Because in order for the policy to and work effectively, it must be applied indiscriminately.
ReplyDelete-Taylor Johnson
I disagree with Christina Districts decision on their zero-tolerance policy. I believe that if the district is going to enforce zero-tolerance, they shouldn't enforce the policy for every little thing especially in the case of Zachary Christie who was suspended due to bringing his camping utensil to school by accident. If the Christina District is going to enforce zero-tolerance policy on their students, they should loosen up a bit and don't suspend students fir the littlest things luke bringing a camping utensil to school or a picket knife was on the students lap by accident especially if they're children and innocent for that matter. If they don't loosen up on their policy, then they will have many more caseslike this to come.
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that the zero tolerance policy is very good and should definitely be implemented in all schools. Although, Zachary is only in elementary school, he still shouldn't be allowed to bring any form of a weapon. If he was allowed to bring his camping utensil (which consisted of a knife,fork, and a spoon) to school, then every single one of his peers should be able to bring knives, guns or even bombs. The school must maintain a strict and orderly policy so there wouldn't be chaos. When children bring weapons to school other children could possibly get hurt or seriously injured. I feel that although he intended no harm, he must face the consequence for his action.
- Jay Carter