Going too Far...

[Scarecrow]

Just wanting opinions:

Posted on Wed, Oct. 27, 2010
Toy gun on school grounds nets suspension for fifth-grader
By MATT CAMPBELL and JIM SULLINGER
The Kansas City Star

A Sunday game with a spring-powered toy gun has earned a Shawnee Mission fifth-grader more than three months at home.

Alyssa Cornish has been suspended until January after she admitted that she and several other children were playing with the gun on the playground of Santa Fe Trail Elementary School, which she has attended since pre-K.

Now the straight-A student who was elected to the student council is barred from her classes, her Halloween party and even from Girl Scouts because they meet on school grounds. Her picture won’t be in the school yearbook because she missed photo day.

“It kind of makes me angry because we really didn’t see it as that big a deal,” 11-year-old Alyssa of Overland Park said Wednesday.

Shawnee Mission School District officials will not comment on her specific case but say the rules against weapons of any kind on school property are ironclad.

“This is a policy parents know about, students know about,” said Leigh Anne Neal, associate superintendent of communication. “It’s reviewed annually and there is an annual sign-off by parents and students.”

Tracey Cornish said her daughter was playing with several other children on a warm evening Sept. 19. One of the children brought an Airsoft spring pistol, which shoots plastic BBs, and many of the children apparently were firing it on the playground of the school, 7100 Lamar Ave.

One boy who was hit with a BB told his parents, who filed a report with Overland Park police. The case was closed when the family declined to press the matter.

But school officials learned of the incident and began an investigation. Tracey Cornish said her daughter initially was given a 10-day suspension. After she wrote a detailed account for school officials of her activities that day in which she acknowledged shooting the toy gun on school grounds, she was given a further suspension for the rest of the semester.

Her mother hired an attorney and this week exhausted her appeals when the Shawnee Mission School Board declined to modify the punishment.

Tracey Cornish said the student who brought the Airsoft pistol to the school was suspended for just three days and that two other students received the same punishment as her daughter. The district would not confirm that.

“I believe my daughter is being punished for her honesty,” Cornish said, “which makes me wonder what they are teaching her. Never to tell the truth again?”

Cornish and her daughter say they understand the importance of a policy against real firearms at school, but they believe the district is arbitrarily applying that to a toy gun.

The district’s policy, which is modeled on state law, includes a prohibition against any weapon that can expel a projectile. That policy applies to the entire week, not just weekdays while school is in session. Neal said it also applies to pellet and BB guns or a toy that looks like a real weapon.

Many Airsoft guns resemble real weapons and come with warnings that they can be mistaken for the real thing. It is illegal to discharge them in Overland Park unless in a rural area with the written consent of the landowner. Legal restrictions apply in other states.

The Airsoft model the children were playing with, according to the police report, was a Stinger P36, which has a clear plastic body. Alyssa said she was struck by a pellet and was not hurt.

“If I was one foot away then it would really hurt,” she said. “We were at least six feet away.”

The penalty for violating the school district weapons policy calls for the student to be expelled for one year. However, the superintendent is allowed to modify that expulsion.

The Shawnee Mission School Board heard two disciplinary appeals Monday but would not confirm they were related to the Sept. 19 incident, citing student privacy.

“School safety is a top priority and weapons would certainly be a significant safety issue,” Neal said.

She said a student bringing a weapon onto school property wasn’t a situation that occurred often in the district.

Cornish said she was considering whether to place her daughter in another school during her suspension but that finances were an issue.

“She’s very bright,” Cornish said, “but is she going to be able to walk back in after four months and be where the rest of those children are academically?”

[Scarecrow]

DOLA

Here's a picture of the gun:

[jeff061]

I've seen much more idiotic enforcement of the "no tolerance" BS. Duration's a bit much. But really, little common sense?

[jeff061]

Also, mom doesn't sound terribly bright, just another "don't punish my snowflake" hard line.

[cougarfreak]

I'm not sure the school has much of a leg to stand on if it was not at a school sponsored event, on a Sunday?

[JS19]

Yea, gotta agree. Three months might be a bit much, but seems entirely acceptable in my opinion.

[molson]

A bb gun on school property would have been an suspension at my elementary school 20 years ago. It's a bright-line rule that the majority of students seem to manage to follow.

[BishopMVP]

The odd thing seems to be suspending the kid who brought the pistol for only 3 days, and lengthening the girl's suspension from 10 days to 3 months after she wrote her account. But as always, the story seems to be portrayed from one point of view and there might be more there.

[lighthousekeeper]

wow this is absolutely shocking to me...they have student councils for 5th graders now?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

wow this is absolutely shocking to me...they have student councils for 5th graders now?

We had an all-grades student council in my elementary school back in the '80s. I was Reporter in third grade.

[Swaggs]

I think the fact that it actually shoots makes it a little more warranted, but three months is way too punitive to the girl's long-term education, in my opinion. At that age, you want to make sure that the child learns that it is inappropriate, stupid, a bad idea, dangerous, etc., but you do not want to severely damage their education.

I would think something like a week's suspension and then a severe detention (several weeks?) and maybe prohibiting her from activities for three months (like the girl scouts, student council, sports, etc.).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I've seen much more idiotic enforcement of the "no tolerance" BS. Duration's a bit much. But really, little common sense?

+1

I can't imagine how this comes as a surprise to any parent of any student just about anywhere.

[dawgfan]

I get the prohibition against toy guns, and I don't dispute the girl should receive a suspension of some kind. The things I don't understand are:

- Why the apparent disparity in suspension lengths for the various students involved, including the one that actually brought the gun?

- Why change this particular student's suspension from 10 days to 3 months after she wrote a detailed account of what happened? What's that teaching her?

That said, as someone else pointed, there's very likely more to this story than was in this particular account. Maybe the initial 10-day suspension was an initial one just to cover the amount of time the school needed to figure out what happened and never intended as the final decision. Maybe the kid that brought the gun knew to not use it on the school grounds and was trying to get the kids to go somewhere else.

I'd be willing to bet that the school has done a poor job of explaining to the students why the prohibition is in place and why the default penalty (1 year suspension) is so high. And I'd bet that this girl and her parents will likely not take full responsibility for what she did and understanding why the prohibition is in place as they pursue their victim hood.

[Lathum]

As others have said the punishment seems lengthy but the parents need to use a little common sense. I hope when my kid is 11 I know where he is and what he is doing.

[Danny]

This also isn't exactly a toy gun. I've messed around with friends and been shot with an airsoft bb gun and it stings and bruises. This is probably a weaker model but still, a 5th grader could easily shoot another student in the eye and blind them.

[RedKingGold]

I'm fine with zero tolerance so long as the policy and its consequences are adequately communicated to parents.

So, based on:

“This is a policy parents know about, students know about,” said Leigh Anne Neal, associate superintendent of communication. “It’s reviewed annually and there is an annual sign-off by parents and students.”

I'd need to see how the "sign-off" document was made. Did the "sign-off" document specifically extend to toy guns? Were the penalties comunicated outfront? Was it bundled with a bunch of other similar flyers?

If the "sign-off" is buried in a 300+ page student handbook, then that might change my viewpoint considerably.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Danny

This also isn't exactly a toy gun. I've messed around with friends and been shot with an airsoft bb gun and it stings and bruises. This is probably a weaker model but still, a 5th grader could easily shoot another student in the eye and blind them.

[Danny]

Let me add to my post regarding the age thing that these probably aren't kids that grew up around shooting and have some experience and understanding of the responsibility.

[stevew]

Quik captures my thoughts.

[Glengoyne]

Zero tolerance policies attempt to release schools from liability by releasing their administrators from th responsibility of exercising sound professional judgement.


A friend of mine was summoned to her son's school last week because he had engaged in sexual harassment. He politely, principal's words, informed her that her underwear was showing. He was to be suspended, but after much discussion had the penalty reduced to detention. Later he stated that he had learned his lesson. Actually he said ' I get it you don't ever mention a girl's under wear. I don't understand all of it, but I'm ten, I've got stuff to learn'

[sterlingice]

Unfortunately, since the courts seem to think schools are a wonderful piggy bank that should be sued early and often, what else can you do? No one's going to execute what 12 random people explicitly selected from society are going to deem "sound professional judgment" in the heat of every moment, every day of every year. This is particularly the case in no-win situations where even after days of court deliberation, one can only come up with a marginally better solution. Yet they decide the school is liable and Little Jamie Snowflake (aka "The Delinquent"), her parents, and especially the lawyers cash in at everyone else's property taxes' expense.

SI

[CU Tiger]

Kids were playing with an airsoft pistol on school grounds during a time when school wasn't in.
And this equals an expulsion?

I would like to see the layout, does one child's house border the school...is it easy to wander on school grounds or did they purposly go there.

Either way seems picky, but I understand the rule. It can be hard for min wage, minimally trained police appointees to differentiate hand guns from BB guns from paintball guns from water pistols and we wouldn't want little Alyssa to get made swiss cheese over a toy. Sure we could train the officer, but instead lets suspend the kid.

[MJ4H]

Im baffled at calling a bb gun a toy gun.

[k0ruptr]

I'm baffled the girl has to lose 3 months of an education.

[k0ruptr]

although if these are the schools policies to suspend the kid who brought the gun 3 days and her 3 months then she may not be losing much of an education, heh.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Im baffled at calling a bb gun a toy gun.

Its not a BB gun...its an air soft gun.
They are designed to shoot people with, they will not penetrate skin (unlike a bb) they are not powered by compressed air (unlike a BB) they are projected by spring tension(unlike a BB) and the projectiles are rubber.

FWIW I bought my son one identical to it for his 6th birthday, it was for 8-10 year olds according to the manufacturers recommendation. Then again we bought him a shotgun for his 9th birthday, so he is no stranger to firearms.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its not a BB gun...its an air soft gun.
They are designed to shoot people with, they will not penetrate skin (unlike a bb) they are not powered by compressed air (unlike a BB) they are projected by spring tension(unlike a BB) and the projectiles are rubber.

Bingo! This is one of my issues with this decision - it is not considered a weapon. Here is the official wording of the school's policy:

WEAPONS IN SCHOOL

Possession of a weapon at school, on school property or at a school sponsored activity 7 days a week, 24 hours a day as defined under the Kansas Gun-free Schools Act, K.S.A. 72-89a01(h) or amendmentsthereto shall result in expulsion from school for a period of not less than one year, except that the superintendent may modify this expulsion requirement in a manner which is consistent with federal law. Possession of a weapon means knowingly having direct physical control over a weapon or knowingly having the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a weapon.

Under that act, weapon is defined as: "Weapon" means (1) any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (2) the frame or receiver of any weapon described in the preceding example; (3) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; (4) any explosive, incendiary or poison gas (a) bomb, (b) grenade, (c) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (d) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge or more than 1/4 ounce (e) mine or (f) similar device; (5) any weapon which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than 1/2 inch in diameter; (6) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in the two immediately preceding examples, and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled; (7) any bludgeon, sand club, metal knuckles, or throwing star; (8) any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in the handle of the knife, or any knife having a blade that opens or falls or is ejected into position by the force of gravity or byan outward, downward or centrifugal thrust or movement; (9) any electronic device designed to discharge immobilizing levels of electricity, commonly known as a stun gun. The term 'weapon' does not include within its meaning (1) an antique firearm; (2) any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; (3) any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; (4) surplus ordinances sold, loaned or given by the secretary of the army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10 of the United States Code; (5) class C common fireworks."

Students shall not knowingly possess, transport, display, or offer for sale, barter, use, threaten to use or exchange any object that can be reasonably considered a weapon, at school, on school property or at a school sponsored activity 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Violation of this provision shall result in expulsion from school for up to 186 days. This provision covers all weapons or facsimiles of weapons which are not covered by paragraph A and K.S.A. 72-89a01(h).

Any student who brings a firearm or weapon to a school, district facility, or district grounds at any time 7 days a week, 24 hours a day must be referred to law enforcement as required by Kansas law.
In accordance with K.S.A. 72-89c02, whenever a pupil who has attained the age of 13 years and has been found in possession of a weapon, controlled substance or illegal drug at school, upon school property, or at a school-supervised activity 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, or has engaged in behavior at school, upon school property, or at a school-supervised activity 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, which resulted in, or was substantially likely to have resulted in, serious bodily injury to others, the chief administrative officer of the school shall make an immediate report of the pupil’s act to the appropriate law enforcement agency.

The other issue I have is whether or not a public school district can enforce a policy like this 24/7. Knowing the area of KC that this is in (mostly retail/commercial main roads with homes on secondary roads that have small lots between the main roads), the school's parking lot is probably the largest area for the kids to play in.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Its not a BB gun...its an air soft gun.
They are designed to shoot people with, they will not penetrate skin (unlike a bb) they are not powered by compressed air (unlike a BB) they are projected by spring tension(unlike a BB) and the projectiles are rubber.

FWIW I bought my son one identical to it for his 6th birthday, it was for 8-10 year olds according to the manufacturers recommendation. Then again we bought him a shotgun for his 9th birthday, so he is no stranger to firearms.

Always the issue with these stories. Misuses of terms, exaggerations, one side of the story, etc. All I had to go by was one side calling it a toy gun and the other side calling it a toy gun. Neither one is apparently accurate. This is why I usually don't bother with these kinds of stories. As soon as I think I have my mind made up I find out something like this that changes everything. I'll let the people that have all the facts decide, I guess.

[jeff061]

Yeah, I'm sorry. If you are over the age of 6 you should know better than even bringing a pink plastic gun onto school property. In an age where kids get suspended for using rubber bands as weapons or expelled for having a nail clipper.

I'm not necessarily going to say I agree with it completely, but it's beyond avoidable. So I just have no sympathy. I doubt in the long run this will have much, if any, of a negative impact on her.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Bingo! This is one of my issues with this decision - it is not considered a weapon. Here is the official wording of the school's policy:



The other issue I have is whether or not a public school district can enforce a policy like this 24/7. Knowing the area of KC that this is in (mostly retail/commercial main roads with homes on secondary roads that have small lots between the main roads), the school's parking lot is probably the largest area for the kids to play in.

Bingo, that's my point too. No way this could stand up. Just because a policy states we can enforce somethign 24/7 seven days a week doesn't make it legal. I'm on the site base council at my school, and no way would that work. It's different if it's a school sponsored activity, but no way it works on a Sunday, on a playground.

[SportsDino]

Unequal enforcement of school policy is the norm in my experience, the more honest you are the more the admins screw you. It wouldn't surprise me that they all did about the same crime but the girl happened to be the one that shot someone and is getting the big punishment.

But parents should tell their kids not to do something so obviously stupid as what they did. On the other hand, no kid is going to improve from a long suspension when they obviously are no threat to others and can be taught the lesson in another way (such as being kicked from clubs/sports and put on some sort of in school detention). Some of these schools ideas of punishment should be considered child abuse in my opinion (social alienation and denying a student a supposedly vital service totally out of scope with the activity they are being punished for).

[JediKooter]

My only gripe is, will this punishment really teach the kid anything other than, "If I tell the truth, I get punished harder"? Kids aren't stupid (well not all of them) and they catch on quick. I'm not saying that this is going to lead to a life of misery for the kid, but, I fail to see how suspending her for 3 months is really going to do any good.

[molson]

The reason to tell the truth isn't to maybe get a lighter punishment.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by molson

The reason to tell the truth isn't to maybe get a lighter punishment.

The lesson to teach someone telling the truth isn't that you get a worse punishment

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Yeah, I'm sorry. If you are over the age of 6 you should know better than even bringing a pink plastic gun onto school property. In an age where kids get suspended for using rubber bands as weapons or expelled for having a nail clipper.

This is a poor argument. I don't think you can assume that just because a person is over age 6 that they know that bringing a pink plastic gun onto school grounds is a bad idea.

My daughter is 7 and can barely read, let alone be able to read the school's Policy and Prodedure Handbook cover-to-cover. You also can't assume that a 7 year old kid has been reading CNN, Drudgereport or FOFC long enough to know that some US schools tend to have very strict zero tolerance policies on such matters.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The lesson to teach someone telling the truth isn't that you get a worse punishment

A worse punishment than what - then if you lied about it?

Lying will very often result in a lesser punishment (or no punishment) than telling the truth. Telling the truth will very often result in a worse short-term situation. That's not a tragedy or a bad lesson.

And again here, we still have no idea why she received the punishment she did. I somehow doubt the mother's story though, that she was "punished for telling the truth". It's much more likely she was punished for doing whatever she admitted to doing. That's not the same thing. I'd have to check their handbook to see if "telling the truth" is itself something worthy of punishment, but I tend to doubt it.

[Celeval]

In favor of suspension; not in favor of three months worth.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by molson

Lying will very often result in a lesser punishment (or no punishment) than telling the truth. Telling the truth will very often result in a worse short-term situation. That's not a tragedy or a bad lesson.

It's true that it's often the case that lying will benefit someone more than telling the truth. That's because we often don't know who is telling the truth and who is lying. However, you seem to be arguing that even if we know who is telling the truth we should still punish that person more than someone we know is lying because sometimes people who lie are rewarded. That seems kind of fucked up, even by public school standards.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flounder

It's true that it's often the case that lying will benefit someone more than telling the truth. That's because we often don't know who is telling the truth and who is lying. However, you seem to be arguing that even if we know who is telling the truth we should still punish that person more than someone we know is lying because sometimes people who lie are rewarded. That seems kind of fucked up, even by public school standards.

No, I'm just doubting the mother's story that she was "punished for telling the truth". She was punished for doing whatever she admitted to. That's it. The fact that someone else might have gotten out of punishment for similar conduct by laying low doesn't mean she was "punished for telling the truth". Telling the truth is hard sometimes.

I think maybe people are making assumptions that two students were penalized for the exact same conduct, and one student who told the truth about it got one punishment, and another student who lied about but was caught got a much lower punishment. I highly doubt that's what happened. I'm guessing it's more like the girl here got the harshest punishment because she was "found responsible" of the most serious offense. Maybe lots of students did the same thing, and the school couldn't prove it against any of them because they lied about it, but that doesn't mean she "she was punished for telling the truth". She was punished for whatever she did, and we know what she did because she told us. She doesn't then become a victim just because other kids are liars.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

The reason to tell the truth isn't to maybe get a lighter punishment.

From an adults perspective yes. From a kids, I don't think it's that cut and dry. The kid was looking at a 10 day suspension prior to the 'confession'. After the confession, it was increased to 3 months. From the article, sounds like she had been telling the truth the whole time, it was just the more detailed written account of hers that brought on the harsher punishment. Really not sure what lesson there is to learn from that, other than adults don't keep their word and it's best to keep your mouth shut.

Now, if there was something more in the written statement of hers, like acts of vandalism or trying to intentionally shoot someones eye out or some other malicious acts, then yes, I would say the 3 months would be a 'punishment that fits the crime' and I hope it was explained to her why it was increased from 10 days to 3 months.

Granted, this story only shows part of the picture, but, assuming that the events are accurate, there's nothing to gain or learn from a 3 month suspension in this case, when the original 10 day suspension would more than likely have sufficed.

[Toddzilla]

So let me get this straight.

There is a school policy about toy guns on school property,
Everyone knows about the policy on toy guns on school property,
Some kid brought a toy gun on school property,
Same gid got caught and punished as per the school policy about toy guns on school property.

Where is the problem?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

From an adults perspective yes. From a kids, I don't think it's that cut and dry. The kid was looking at a 10 day suspension prior to the 'confession'. After the confession, it was increased to 3 months. From the article, sounds like she had been telling the truth the whole time, it was just the more detailed written account of hers that brought on the harsher punishment. Really not sure what lesson there is to learn from that, other than adults don't keep their word and it's best to keep your mouth shut.

Now, if there was something more in the written statement of hers, like acts of vandalism or trying to intentionally shoot someones eye out or some other malicious acts, then yes, I would say the 3 months would be a 'punishment that fits the crime' and I hope it was explained to her why it was increased from 10 days to 3 months.

Granted, this story only shows part of the picture, but, assuming that the events are accurate, there's nothing to gain or learn from a 3 month suspension in this case, when the original 10 day suspension would more than likely have sufficed.

The punishments are all laid out beforehand though, I would assume. That's a different question, whether those are too long.

Here, did she receive a harsher punishment than she would have if say, she lied, but a teacher saw everything? I doubt it. She wasn't punished because she told the truth. She gave them more evidence of her guilt, sure. So goes the perils of honesty. What her mother and others really want is for her to get a break because she was honest. Which is a terrible lesson, IMO. Honesty isn't about getting breaks. There isn't always some fringe benefit to honesty.

[RendeR]

No Tod, there is a policy about bring WEAPONS on school property, a weapon is clearly defined in the document. The toy gun they had was NOT a weapon.

The event occurred during off hours. When no School event was taking place.

It might not have been a bright idea for the kid to bring it, but they didn't really break a rule based on the schools paperwork.

Frankly this is the uppity bullshit I get sick and tired of. Zero Tolerance policies are lazy stupid worthless rules that do nothing but cause the school more trouble than they save and cost the taxpayers more because it leads to endless debates as the schools try to defend their utter inability to manage things with Ultimatums in place so that their staff doesn't actually have to think.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

So let me get this straight.
...
Everyone knows about the policy on toy guns on school property,
...

People keep making that assumption; which I think must be incorrect. No way do all kids memorize all school policies and procedures. I doubt if even a school board member could list every rule.

...and before someone jumps in to say that this is an obvious rule that everyone should inherently know, we're not talking about the girl taking an AK-47 into her classroom. We're talking about the subtle semantics surrounding the definition of "weapon", interpretations regarding 24/7 jurisdiction, etc.

[Drake]

Tackle football on recess was against school policy when I young (liability reasons), but if you'd suspended kids for playing tackle football on the playground lot on the weekend or even after school, the parents in my community would have shoved their fists up the school administrator's nose and pulled their spine out.

[molson]

I can't think of a better situation, as a 5th grader, than getting 3 months off from school, while my parents looked at me as some kind of victim.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

A worse punishment than what - then if you lied about it?

Lying will very often result in a lesser punishment (or no punishment) than telling the truth. Telling the truth will very often result in a worse short-term situation. That's not a tragedy or a bad lesson.

And again here, we still have no idea why she received the punishment she did. I somehow doubt the mother's story though, that she was "punished for telling the truth". It's much more likely she was punished for doing whatever she admitted to doing. That's not the same thing. I'd have to check their handbook to see if "telling the truth" is itself something worthy of punishment, but I tend to doubt it.

Reading about this on another forum (that has since deleted the thread because of a stunning 2nd amendment debate turn) they mentioned the difference was all the kids admitted to playing with the toy gun. Even going so far as to say the basically were playing a tag like game where instead of tagging you shot the person with the rubber ball. The kids were scolded and told how much trouble they would be in for shooting another kid. Later that day written statements were taken, all admitted to playing the game but suddenly said they never managed to shoot the gun. One little girl was honest, she was expelled.

If this version of events is accurate that is a damn shame.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

(that has since deleted the thread because of a stunning 2nd amendment debate turn)

That's awesome.

[SportsDino]

Yep, they all did the same thing, just one person fessed up to it. School admins are lazy, stupid, and unfair (apologies to any principals out there that actually do a decent job, I've known a few amongst many bad eggs or incompetents).