Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She didn't make the list to actually kill anyone. She didn't make the list to scare anyone. She didn't intentionally put the list somewhere where everyone would see it (that we know of anyway). She didn't have any ill intentions towards an actual person.
Everything you are suggesting requires the knowledge of intent. You don't know the child's intent. Neither do I. Neither do her parents. Neither do the school administrators. The only one who really knows is the kid herself. That said, the OP seems decently level-headed and I tend to believe them when they describe the situation... but again, if the school makes an exception for any student, they will be obligated to make an exception for every student. They cannot simply say, "I just like Student X better than Student Y so I will let her go on the field trip and hold to the letter of the law for Student Y."
All they have to go on is that this child made a "Kill List." The problem here is that while one person means this innocently, another means it seriously. It has been well documented that most of the kids who committed mass murder or school shootings did things very much like this in advance. And of course, BOTH the truly innocent children and those with bad intentions are going to say they are innocent.
I sympathize with all the incidents where the kid just did a boneheaded thing because let's face it, 7th graders have many, MANY boneheaded moments. Brains are still growing and thinking long term comes and goes. But I think we as a society are too judgmental and like to cry foul no matter what the school does. We cry foul when we find out such and such mass killer made "Kill Lists" in English class and his teacher did nothing. We say, "How could you be that blind? Obviously this child was a psychopath!" We cry foul when another child makes a "Kill List" and gets punished. We say, "How could you be this blind? Obviously this child is innocent!" I greatly sympathize with the school's position when you have parents of the innocent and guilty alike all decreeing all the others should be punished but their child should be given leniency in the rules. It is a no-win scenario and schools are sometimes put in an impossible position.
Your punishing at her home, too? I don't agree with that. She didn't have any bad intentions. If your daughter is as good as you say she is (which I believe), then she has already learned her lesson.
Anyways, it's just the honor roll. It's not like they are saying she won't be able to walk at graduation. It's really not that big of a deal.
Wow. I am shocked at the number of people who think you should do nothing. This is why the school has to be so strict, because people think parents shouldn't support the school and vice versa.
OP, I think you idea of no friends, internet, etc for the two days of the suspension is completely appropriate. It supports the notion that what she did was wrong, and that intentions do not outweigh actions.
That being said, I also think, once the suspension has passed, with your concurrent restrictions, that you and your daughter have the right to appeal the decision regarding honor roll and the school trip. I think it would be good for your daughter to be the one to try to make the appeal, with your help rather than with you taking the reins. A month or so after the suspension, and while still making honor roll grades I would have her right a letter asking to be allowed to read an appeal letter at the next board of ed meeting. This letter should be reflective on how she understands what she did is wrong, and she is grateful that she was no expelled (as happens in many places) and she would like an opportunity to participate in the culminating event of the school year. They might say no, but it is useful lesson in itself to learn to ask in such a forum.
It's investigating it, finding out the list was harmless, and then harshly punishing the kid anyway.
She didn't make the list to actually kill anyone. She didn't make the list to scare anyone. She didn't intentionally put the list somewhere where everyone would see it (that we know of anyway). She didn't have any ill intentions towards an actual person.
All she did was make a list of who was who on a video game so she could keep track of which characters to get. She used the word "kill" because that's what she wanted to do in the game. It was for her own private use. Somehow someone saw it and freaked.
It was a simple misunderstanding. Maybe she should get a reprimand for unintentionally scaring the administration. But a 2 day suspension and a year long list of punishments? For someone who didn't actually hurt anyone (even accidentally) and didn't actually mean to do anything other than beat her friends at a video game?
It's stupid.
The nature of punishment, especially from a school but really any body in charge, is that intent is not more important than the action itself. As a society, we take "kill lists" at face value. As we should. The child, at best, made terroristic threats. I am sure she was just being a typical teen and didn't think her actions through. Considering that many kids are expelled, or face criminal charges, 2-days isn't too bad.
I also think she should appeal the longer punishments further down the road.
It would trouble me that the term "kill list" would be used in a so-called innocuous video game. Do you really want your daughter exposed to a culture that is so cavalier about killing people (even imaginary people?) I sure wouldn't. I don't think the school is overreacting at all.
I'd be pulling the plug on Minecraft or any other stupid video game.
It would trouble me that the term "kill list" would be used in a so-called innocuous video game. Do you really want your daughter exposed to a culture that is so cavalier about killing people (even imaginary people?) I sure wouldn't. I don't think the school is overreacting at all.
I'd be pulling the plug on Minecraft or any other stupid video game.
20yrsinBranson
Minecraft is an interesting game and can be played in several modes.
Minecraft is a game about breaking and placing blocks. At first, people built structures to protect against nocturnal monsters, but as the game grew players worked together to create wonderful, imaginative things.
It can also be about adventuring with friends or watching the sun rise over a blocky ocean. It’s pretty. Brave players battle terrible things in The Nether, which is more scary than pretty. You can also visit a land of mushrooms if it sounds more like your cup of tea.
Now in survival mode, you do have a combat component which is where the *kill list* comes in, but it is nowhere near as violent as many video games.
She may actually learn to keep games out of school and school out of her personal gaming life with this experience.
I think she should serve the suspension without question. She is old enough to understand the severity of her writing even if her intention relates to gaming only.
I'd have her write a letter respectfully asking to attend the field trip if there are no more problems. First, make sure it is part of the punishment. Maybe something like a position paper?
OP, I don't see the point of a punishment like this. Does the school think someone who is planning to murder her follow peers is going to make a public hit list? Despite all these regulations, we are no safer then we were before Sandy Hook. It's like the Red Scare all over again but with Sandy Hook.
It would trouble me that the term "kill list" would be used in a so-called innocuous video game. Do you really want your daughter exposed to a culture that is so cavalier about killing people (even imaginary people?) I sure wouldn't. I don't think the school is overreacting at all.
I'd be pulling the plug on Minecraft or any other stupid video game.
Actually, my daughter is newly 11 years old, so is not a teen yet. She had never heard of Columbine, because it happened in 1999, before she was born (she has now). She HAS hard about Newton Elementary, since that just happened last year, so that was the closest reference in her mind, and that wasn't a student. Not excusing her actions, just pointing out that she really had no clue about the other shootings.
That's an interesting point. Note that my response is from the perspective of someone who watched Columbine unfold on tv and afraid to go to school afterward and was in college during Virginia Tech, where I lost a high school friend to the violence. I also recently dealt with a college student I managed who, in similar circumstances, we believed might have a gun at a large event. It was a prop that she stole, but she had no idea why, even as we fired her, why it was inappropriate to tweet a picture of herself cocking a gun and mentioning the event - she was no more than a kindergartener when Columbine happened.
From another perspective - when I was a senior in high school in 2005/6, a few recent-grads (2 or 3 years out of high school) came back to a house behind the school where some runaways lived and massacred those who were there, killing 3 or 4 people including a mom there to get her son back home, a pregnant teen, and one of my classmates. Several more were wounded. The alums? A volunteer firefighter, someone I don't know anything about, and the 3rd, most painful culpret was someone I was friends with. I was a straight A, AP student who earned an academic scholarship to one of the top private schools in the country - which was why I was called in to be a character witness at the trial in hopes of getting him off of a death sentance (I ended up not having to testify). We all wished we had seen any glimmer of a sign. To my knowledge, there wasn't any. But even if my former friend had written a "kill list" and got hauled into the principal's office, he was a good kid who had friends and didn't display any of the signs. What if there had been one thing that got brushed off as a joke because these were "good kids"?
I don't know what the answer is. I don't think it's suspending a 6 year old for biting a poptart in the shape of a gun, but I don't know about this case. I think the 2 days of suspension ARE warrented - even at 11, she should know better and cost several people lots of time and worry to handle the situation. Recently, I WAS that staff member to handle a case of epically bad judgment along these lines and believe me, those moments where you are sure it's just a precaution but you don't know if this person could be out there acting on percieved violence take years off your life in minutes. Banning her from the school trip that is more than 6 months away, however, is not justified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite all these regulations, we are no safer then we were before Sandy Hook. It's like the Red Scare all over again but with Sandy Hook.
