Modesto school suspends 5-year-old boy for 'terroristic' threat

[gaymer77]

Link to source

MODESTO, Calif. (AP) -- The parents of a 5-year-old boy in central California say their son's school suspended him for a day for allegedly making a "terroristic" threat when he told his teacher there was a bomb in his backpack.

Sacramento television station KTLX reports Jackson Riley attends the Great Valley Academy public charter school in Modesto and was suspended for a day last month for "making terroristic threats against school officials."

The boy's mother, Michelle Riley, says her son refused to remove his backpack, telling a teacher there was a bomb in it that would explode if he took it off.


Jackson's dad, Ian Riley, says his son was playing around and is being accused of something he doesn't even understand.

The boy's parents say they want the disciplinary action removed from their child's record.

Sad to say this happened just 2 hours north of where I live. I am ashamed of them for doing this. The kid was freakin 5 years old. He was no terrorist and it wasn't a damn terrorist threat. I'm sure he doesn't even understand what it is to be a terrorist. He was just playing around that there was a damn bomb in his backpack and it would go off if he took off his backpack.

[Sunseeker]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

[Ahovv]

Sad to say this happened just 2 hours north of where I live. I am ashamed of them for doing this. The kid was freakin 5 years old. He was no terrorist and it wasn't a damn terrorist threat. I'm sure he doesn't even understand what it is to be a terrorist. He was just playing around that there was a damn bomb in his backpack and it would go off if he took off his backpack.

Are you the new Tennisace?

You're actually crying because a school suspended him for one day over a bomb threat?

Oh, one day of suspension. The horror.

Get over it.

[zlygork]

I agree the school overreacted, but at the same time it wasn't an end of the world punishment and the kid may learn a valuable lesson for the future.

[Mic_128]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

If he was 10 or something, yeah. 5 years old? Nah. The correct response would to have been detention, talking to him about why things like that aren't to joke about and then call the parents in to explain what happened.

*Is a Primary School Teacher*

[gaymer77]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

The kid was in kindergarten and was 5 years old. I'm sure he didn't know what it meant to say that he had a bomb in his backpack.

Are you the new Tennisace?

You're actually crying because a school suspended him for one day over a bomb threat?

Oh, one day of suspension. The horror.

Get over it.

One day suspension and a mark on his record that he's made terrorist threats. Yeah its actually bigger than just "one day suspension".

[IIamaKing]

In a world where a pop tart shaped like a gun can get you suspended, this is not at all surprising. Zero tolerance is a policy used by schools as a CYA for schools not to protect kids. If they just hand down a firm punishment every time, they never have to worry about maybe not handling something right and it coming back to bite them. It removes any common sense or judgement from the situation as well.

I remember the Columbine shooting well, I was a senior myself. One day things that were OK at our school would get you expelled. I live in a very rural area, it was not uncommon for kids to have a hunting gun in their car during the appropriate season. Very soon after the new ZT shit went into place the star football player who was also honor roll was expelled. In a world of judgement and common sense the kid would have been sent home to return his gun and be informed never to do it again, but nope he went from honor role to super senior(5 year senior) over some bullshit.

[Wramp]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

wow, really?

most children don't even develop cognitive reasoning until the age of 5, so it is reasonable to believe that he did not understand the weight of his wording about his backpack.

One day of suspension isn't terrible. hell, i got suspended from school for 3 days for bringing cinnamon toothpicks and making a kid break out from allergic reactions. The school HAD to do something to let him know that what he did was wrong, but i think they took it to another level that wasnt necessary

[TirielWoW]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

You haven't spent much time with many 5 year olds, have you?

[Pantalaimon]

Kids aren't morons. They're assholes.

I'm sure this kid 100% knew what he was saying.

And the school did the right thing in response.

Cute, someone who DOESN'T have a degree in child development, early childhood, early childhood education, or psychology acting like they understand how children's cognitive and sociocultural development progresses.

At least you can say that you got first comment with your naive witty remark. /pat

[Post]

Cute, someone who DOESN'T have a degree in child development, early childhood, early childhood education, or psychology acting like they understand how children's cognitive and sociocultural development progresses.

At least you can say that you got first comment with your naive witty remark. /pat

Well he agreed with the school's decision, and surely someone there is qualified right?

[Pantalaimon]

Well he agreed with the school's decision, and surely someone there is qualified right?

I'm not that concerned with the day suspension, but saying that a child in the pre-operational stage of development, who may have already been influenced by language used in the home environment (either by family or adult role models), and who may simply be engaged in deferred imitation, as perfectly knowing what they were doing and the abstract implications for that is highly inaccurate. Young children's thought is still very much a work in progress that is affected by varying degrees of illogical thought at that point in development.

[Post]

I'm not that concerned with the day suspension, but saying that a child in the pre-operational stage of development, who may have already been influenced by language used in the home environment (either by family or adult role models), and who may simply be engaged in deferred imitation, as perfectly knowing what they were doing and the abstract implications for that is highly inaccurate. Young children's thought is still very much a work in progress that is affected by varying degrees of illogical thought at that point in development.

So should I trust you or the school of qualified people?

[Pantalaimon]

So should I trust you or the school of qualified people?

*Facepalm*, well guess you totally missed the point.

I'm not saying a day's suspension was off the wall for what happened. I'm saying that acting like he understood exactly what he was doing is very far from accurate.

So yes, you can either trust people who do understand how children develop or you know you can listen to random forum posters who say that children are assholes.

[Post]

So yes, you can either trust people who do understand how children develop or you know you can listen to random forum posters who say that children are assholes.

Or the school who made the decision. This is the problem when you jump on the "oh look some unqualified rando!" argument.

[Pantalaimon]

Or the school who made the decision. This is the problem when you jump on the "oh look some unqualified rando!" argument.

Clearly it seems you are making some assumptions here. You seem to be assuming that they suspended him not just for what he did, but for understanding what he did as well. Ever consider that district policy simply required the child to be suspended for a day, regardless of how much he understood?

[GutsAP]

And now he gets to stay home a day and watch cartoons instead of going to stupid school, I'm sure he's irreparably damaged.

[TirielWoW]

Or the school who made the decision. This is the problem when you jump on the "oh look some unqualified rando!" argument.

When schools have a "no tolerance" approach to things, they actually don't have the leeway to tailor the punishment/reaction to the age/level of development of the child involved. If this had been an older child, I would understand the reaction. But this was a 5 year old, and 5 year olds still have imaginary friends. 5 year olds often don't understand the difference between pretend and reality. Unfortunately, a "zero tolerance" policy means that those involved can't take that into account even though they should.

[Post]

Clearly it seems you are making some assumptions here. You seem to be assuming that they suspended him not just for what he did, but for understanding what he did as well. Ever consider that district policy simply required the child to be suspended for a day, regardless of how much he understood?

My entire argument is that you shouldn't jump on people with the "oh look some unqualified rando!" argument because it's worthless and works against you in this case...

When schools have a "no tolerance" approach to things, they actually don't have the leeway to tailor the punishment/reaction to the age/level of development of the child involved. If this had been an older child, I would understand the reaction. But this was a 5 year old, and 5 year olds still have imaginary friends. 5 year olds often don't understand the difference between pretend and reality. Unfortunately, a "zero tolerance" policy means that those involved can't take that into account even though they should.

Read above, though what you said is 100x more useful than what I was referring to above.

[Pantalaimon]

My entire argument is that you shouldn't jump on people with the "oh look some unqualified rando!" argument because it's worthless and works against you in this case..

You seem to like making assumptions. Just because all of us are on here on a random forum that doesn't mean none of us have gone to school or have jobs/careers directly, or even indirectly, related to one or more of the topics at hand. Shocking I know.