Common Sense

[AndrewWiggin]

Common sense would go a long way in coming up with adequate responses.

http://www.wbz.com/Child-s-Christmas-artwork-deemed--violent------SOU/5896962

A child was asked to draw something about Christmas and the child drew Jesus on the cross. This has been a symbol of Christianity for two thousand years, not a violent image warranting therapy.

This is just yet another example of total stupidity regarding "zero tolerance policies" at schools. Kids bringing Swiss army knives to school, having a picture of a gun (kids doodle) etc, are not signs of a homicidal rampage...

EDIT: It seems as though the father, in fact, is a tool, and has done this primarily for publicity. There seems to be some disagreement over whether the child was drawing himself on the cross rather than Christ, though I question what difference that would make... Anyway, the child wasn't suspended, and the father sounds like he needs a swift kick in the ***.

Link here.

 

[dpmtherrien]

Just another perfect example of how wrong things have become in this great country of ours.

 

[Bertilak]

The associated poll completely misses the point. Here it is:

Given the crucifix drawing controversy in Taunton, do you think zero-tolerance policies in schools go too far?

• No, schools need to stand firm with their policies.
• Yes, administrators need to use more common sense.

Well, the teacher and administration did not act reluctantly, forced into a response by a rigid zero-tolerance policy. They acted honestly and freely, based on their own personal "common sense". Whether you agree with them or not is a completely different issue.

I didn't read the whole article but apparently that WASN'T a picture of Jesus on the cross but a SELF portrait by the boy. Now I would not have *punished* the boy for this but would have notified the parents that the boy might have some issues and probably would have consulted with the school psychologist to get a recommendation to pass on to the parents.

 

[Mr_Amazing]

Common sense says it could have been handled by simply asking the child why they drew what they drew. The response to such a question 99/100 times would dictate whether it was an issue or not. I find that anybody with half a brain should be able to think "hey, before I start a gigantic problem and possibly screw this child's life up, how about I just ask him/her about it?" It shows that the rigidness of the school system, much like everything these days in the United States, is the real fault.

What I find striking about it is that the system allows for Christmas instead of the PC term "holiday season." It just shows how ridiculous these rules have gotten and that they are so confusing nobody even knows what the logical thing to do is.

 

[JCee]

I can fully appreciate the parents frustration as I have been there.

A few years back, I received a call from my wife while I was at work. The school principal called and said our son (3rd or 4th grade at the time) had been expelled for drawing a violent image, and would have to see a therapist before he could return. She somehow was able to get an appointment with the therapist that evening.

My son produced the image and my wife, the therapist and I all looked at it and failed to understand what we were looking at. The school claimed it was of a knife and was violent in nature. So we asked him what we were looking at and this was pretty much the exchange.

"What is that?"
"A knife"
"Who is holding the knife?"
"A fish"
""And why does the fish have a knife?"
"Duh! He's eating dinner!"

Needless to say, I had a long talk with the principal who fully appreciated my anger. His suspension was immediately lifted and I never received a call from school again.

 

[airplanedoc]

Why on earth would anyone want to live in a world where people used "Common Sense"

 

[mmack66]

"Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross. Johnson, who is black, told WBZ he suspects racism is involved."

 

[Prince]

I can fully appreciate the parents frustration as I have been there.

A few years back, I received a call from my wife while I was at work. The school principal called and said our son (3rd or 4th grade at the time) had been expelled for drawing a violent image, and would have to see a therapist before he could return. She somehow was able to get an appointment with the therapist that evening.

My son produced the image and my wife, the therapist and I all looked at it and failed to understand what we were looking at. The school claimed it was of a knife and was violent in nature. So we asked him what we were looking at and this was pretty much the exchange.

"What is that?"
"A knife"
"Who is holding the knife?"
"A fish"
""And why does the fish have a knife?"
"Duh! He's eating dinner!"

Needless to say, I had a long talk with the principal who fully appreciated my anger. His suspension was immediately lifted and I never received a call from school again.

I hate to laugh at this one, but a fish does have to eat.

I for one, cannot stand "zero tolerance" policies. I had a friend who helped move his sister one weekend. The campus policeman was walking through the parking lot and saw a knife in the bed of my friend's truck. He was hauled out of the school in handcuffs and taken to the police station. Turns out, the knife was an old steak knife that fell out of one of the boxes that was being moved. The knife could barely cut butter. He was suspended and forced to go to the alternative school for the rest of the year. To make matters worse, it was his senior year. Lots of meetings and screaming an yelling from all corners, but the school kept quoting the "zero tolerance" policy.

 

[chainfire]

Maybe they were more upset that the kid was rushing things...after all Christmas is supposedly celebrating the birth of Christ, not his death. The kid had his facts wrong and the teacher called him out on it.

 

[Mr_Amazing]

Another sad effect of these policies is that eventually someone is going to become so angered that they lash out in a violent matter, which is the exact thing the policies are trying to prevent.

I would be curious to know if a child who draws a soldier carrying a gun would be suspended/expelled due to the rules.

 

[mr_economy]

"Zero tolerance" is really code for CYA. These policies are in place because if a kid actually does something violent, the investigation will look back for "warning signs" that the kid was going to do something. Any such signs that are found practically beg for a big fat lawsuit to bankrupt a school district.

I don't like these policies much either, but they're very necessary in our litigious society.

 

[Alacrity59]

Zero tolerance = zero thought. I can not think of any area area of law where zero tolerance helps for better decision making. I don't think that one can think of or write into a law all of the possible exceptional circumstances that would make the application of a zero tolerance law . . . stupid. So any zero tolerance law or rule is doomed to failure in some cases.

I'd rather pay a school principle think and apply judgement.

I don't know what folk were thinking with some of the rules in schools. Kid gets kicked out of school on one of these zero tolerance things and presumably ends up where? Goes from a well supervised school to wondering around somewhere somewhat unsupervised . . . does that make sense?


arrrrggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!

 

[toucanlamp]

I dunno, in a country with 300 million people rediculous overreactions like this are bound to happen. I really don't buy into the popular notion that little incidents like this are symbols of how society has gone straight into the garbage and things were so awesome, fair, and amazing back in the day, blah blah.

I guarantee you that if you went back and looked through all the newspapers you could find just as stupid things happening in schools in the 80's, 70's, and further back.

 

[AndrewWiggin]

"Zero tolerance" is really code for CYA. These policies are in place because if a kid actually does something violent, the investigation will look back for "warning signs" that the kid was going to do something. Any such signs that are found practically beg for a big fat lawsuit to bankrupt a school district.

I don't like these policies much either, but they're very necessary in our litigious society.

+1--Once again, we're bit in the *** by the general abandonment of any personal responsibility.

 

[mmack66]

Some of the comments accompanying the article are pure gold.

 

[**Bingo_Bob**]

When I was in grade school I brought a hand grenade to school (catholic school btw) for show and tell... you know those really cool ones you can get from the army surplus store - not a live grande of course. I wasn't hassled at all. A few years later I brought a switchblade to school... that got taken away from me but it was given back to me after school; no hassle. Poor kids.... they have to go to 3rd world schools and will have to support a failing social security systems when they grow up.

 

[knlgskr]

Since when is "sense" common? "You would be surprised my son with how little intelligence the world is run."

I am a substitute teacher (my hobby) and this incident is in line with what I observe on a regular basis; administrators are great Americans. Responsibility? Decision making? Why would you ask?

 

[Abdiel]

Sadly, common sense isn't very common.

The principle and I would be having a nice long conversation were this my child. Stupid things like this are why I want to either home school my child or put him through a private school, of which there are several in my neck of the woods. Unless you have a lot of kids I figure it's a small investment in my child's future in the grand scheme of things.

 

[xriley]

And they say teachers are underpaid?

 

[saltypete]

"Zero tolerance" is really code for CYA. These policies are in place because if a kid actually does something violent, the investigation will look back for "warning signs" that the kid was going to do something. Any such signs that are found practically beg for a big fat lawsuit to bankrupt a school district.

I don't like these policies much either, but they're very necessary in our litigious society.

Litigation aside, this seems like flawed logic. I have no doubt that every child/young adult who commits an act of violence in a school has, in the past, given warning signs of some sort. However the inverse of this is not neccesarily true, in that every child who gives 'warning signs' may not act out violently. It raises an ethical debate over whether society is prepared to put sanctions on someone who MAY, in the future, commit an antisocial act, based on 'warning signs' that may or may not indicate psychological distress or trauma. This is just the kind of thing that as Psych students we are warned about and it is passionately debated amongst students.

Pete