Well at least the paring knife wasn't a cupcake... Lunchbox mix-up leads to charges for Sanford teen Sanford, N.C. — An athletic and academic standout in Lee County said a lunchbox mix-up has cut short her senior year of high school and might hurt her college opportunities. Ashley Smithwick, 17, of Sanford, was suspended from Southern Lee High School in October after school personnel found a small paring knife in her lunchbox. Smithwick said personnel found the knife while searching the belongings of several students, possibly looking for drugs. “She got pulled into it. She doesn’t have to be a bad person to be searched,” Smithwick’s father, Joe Smithwick, said. The lunchbox really belonged to Joe Smithwick, who packs a paring knife to slice his apple. He and his daughter have matching lunchboxes. “It’s just an honest mistake. That was supposed to be my lunch because it was a whole apple,” he said. Ashley Smithwick said she had never gotten in trouble before and was surprised when the principal opened her lunchbox and found the knife. The teen was initially given a 10-day suspension, then received notice that she was suspended the rest of the school year. "I don’t understand why they would even begin to point the finger at me and use me as an example," she said. This month, Ashley Smithwick, a soccer player who takes college-level courses, was charged with misdemeanor possession of a weapon on school grounds. She is no longer allowed to set foot on campus. “They made it sound like it was a big ol’ buck knife that you’re out here hunting with,” Joe Smithwick said. Darla Cole, the chief school resource officer in Lee County, told WRAL News she could not comment on the case. Lee County Superintendent Jeff Moss told the Sanford Herald that he can’t discuss the specifics of the case, but school policy allows principals to consider the context of each case and determine discipline. Moss said students who accidentally carry a weapon and report it to teachers will get a light punishment. If teachers find it, he said, the discipline is harsher. “When the principals conduct their investigations, what typically is fleshed out is the true intent,” he told the newspaper. “Bottom line is we want to ensure every child feels safe on our campus.” Ashley Smithwick is completing her coursework online through Central Carolina Community College. She said she worries the case will affect her college prospects. “When you have a criminal record no school’s going to look at you,” she said. “I have a pretty nice talent. I’m good at playing soccer and that talent is just wasted now.” http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8845676/
Greg Batten, Principal 919-776-7541 ext. 2401 gbatten.ls@lee.k12.nc.us Tell him how you feel about his decision.
sounds like more zero tolerance gone wild. Not to mention that if you want to send your kid to public schools which are paid for by your taxes you have to submit them to random searches and infringements of their rights
If we didn't have a government school monopoly, which now include zero tolerance on cupcakes and drugs, we would be more free. I'm glad big government lovers like you are finally getting it. If not, keep having a great time with your DEA, FCC, TSA and drone bombers.
I've discovered that it's impossible to argue with rabid free-marketeers because, no matter how much evidence you present, they will never alter their own viewpoints to reflect reality. It's clearly ridiculous what this school is doing, but to think it's solely emblematic of the "government school monopoly" is simplistic.
It's a government school and a government policy, pretty simple. I would have a hard time seeing a school that was competing for business having such policies and treating their clients in such a manner. But enough about that, now there is a governmental war on cupcakes to be fought. The federal government initiated zero tolerance in 1994 with the Gun-Free Schools Act, which required states to expel any student who brought firearms to school. http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/a...o-tolerance-almost-doubles-school-suspensions
I've never seen someone articulate the knives and obesity in the school systems is a good thing argument so well.
There are many private schools available in most communities. Wealthy families have the option of sending their children to these schools. Most of these schools appear to be doing quite well. If privatized schools are so great, why don't all parents send their children to them? If all schools were privatized, would they be affordable? What option would children from poor families have? Would rules and regulations be left by the wayside if the parents who could afford the schools demanded such? Here's the trick: Pitting purely hypothetical institutions against institutions that actually exist will always make the actual institutions look bad. Hypothetically, I think we should live in a world where no one ever dies unjustly - that looks much better than the world as it is, don't you think? Also: You make an error in most of your assertions that is very well known among people who pay attention to these things. It's called the "institutional fallacy." That sort of fallacious reasoning asserts the power of an institution to act as an individual - as if there were not individuals within that institution who made decisions, who disagreed with one another, and so forth. Instead, you propose a single monolithic institution called "the government" that acts from its own volition like Godzilla storming across the landscape. Do you think there are schools in this country where a student wouldn't get in trouble for carrying a paring knife? I tend to think so, but I have no proof because there are no statistics kept on the number of students who attend school with a paring knife who don't get in trouble for it. But, let's assume for a moment that there are many students who cut up their apples in school with their own knives and who don't get in any trouble for it - does that mean then that the local school board Sanford, North Carolina may have a couple of idiots in attendance who made a huge deal out of something dumb? Because it's obviously dumb - no one is going to disagree with that. Here's the second trick: Your viewpoint requires the institutional fallacy in order to make any sort of argument along these lines. That, simply put, means that the entire basis of your argument comes from a common error in reasoning. It's either that, or your mind is already made up and you simply search for simple renderings of events that never challenge your worldview and simply confirm what you've known all along. Anyway, I doubt this will amount to anything because you'll probably just respond to all of this with another assertion of your viewpoint that offers no rational explanation for believing in it.
rtsy, I received an email that may interest you: Scenario: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack. 1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack. 2010 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun gain. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers. Scenario: Johnny and Rsty get into a fistfight after school. 1957 - Crowd gathers. Rsty wins. Johnny and Rsty shake hands and end up buddies. 2010 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Rsty. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it. Scenario: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students. 1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again. 2010 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability. Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt. 1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman. 2010 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has affair with psychologist. Scenario: Rsty gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school. 1957 - Rsty shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock. 2010 - Police called, Rsty expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons. Scenario: Pedro fails high school English. 1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college. 2010 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English. Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed. 1957 - Ants die. 2010- BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again. Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him. 1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing. 2010 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy. Post your email and I will forward you this illuminating missive.
The establishment is against choice, that is certain. Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program while his own children attend very expensive private school. (You should maybe go take a chainsaw to his house for it if you don't have anything better to do). Unions even protest parents volunteering in schools. And many people on this message board get boners about government schools banning cookies in kid's lunches from home. The writing is on the wall. Here is a link to a nice book describing how the really poor educate themselves without zero tolerance, drug and cookie searches, and barbed wire: (I agree with the author that government schools, like all government entities, are riddled with corruption and incompetence.) http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Tre...33995920/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?tag=533633855-20 Tooley (Reclaiming Education) documents his surprising finding that private schools are providing quality education to millions of poor children in the developing world. Whereas development experts insist that the path out of poverty lies in investment in public schools, the author draws on his fieldwork in India, China and Africa to argue that small entrepreneurs are educating the poor. In one region of India, 80% of urban children and 30% of rural children attend private schools; in China's Gansu province 586 private schools are located in small villages, even though the state prides itself on its public system. Contrary to accepted wisdom, the modest fees of private schools are within reach of most, and parents find them superior to public schools that are often riddled with corruption and incompetence. Tooley argues that development funds be invested to support these institutions, through vouchers to parents and microfinance loans to the schools. The author's engaging style transforms what could have been a dry if startling research report into a moving account of how poor parents struggle against great odds to provide a rich educational experience to their children. (Apr.)
