Bellefonte school board expels senior over accidental weapon possession, drawing criticism

BELLEFONTE -- The unanimous decision to expel a Bellefonte Area High School senior who turned over a pocketknife he accidentally brought on a school field trip drew sharp criticism Tuesday from community members who argued the district punished honesty instead of intent.

The student surrendered the knife to a sheriff's deputy before entering security at the Centre County Courthouse for the school's May 1 Law Day field trip after realizing he still had it on his person. While district policy mandates expulsion for weapons violations, several speakers at this week's school board meeting argued the circumstances warranted a lesser punishment.

Details of the incident were disclosed in an Act 44 notification sent that day to high school families and staff. Under a Pennsylvania law that took effect in January, schools must directly notify parents, guardians and employees when a student is found with a weapon on school property, at a school-sponsored activity or on school transportation, regardless of the threat level.

In that communication, Superintendent Dr. Roy Rakszawski said, "At no time was this weapon used to harm or threaten anyone."

The notification said immediate action was taken in accordance with district policy and safety protocols and that student and staff safety remained the district's top priority.

All persons entering the courthouse are required to pass through a standard metal detector and empty their pockets. Before proceeding through the security line, the notification said the student surrendered the weapon -- a cutter card with a 2.75-inch blade -- to the sheriff's deputy on duty.

Law enforcement was notified in accordance with standard protocol. The district, however, said the incident did not constitute an active threat and was not referred to the District Threat Assessment Team.

Possession of weapons in the school setting is considered a threat to the safety of students and staff and is prohibited by law.

District policy requires the board expel any student who violates the school's weapons policy for at least one year, with expulsion carried out through formal due process proceedings required by law and board policy. It does, however, allow the superintendent to "recommend modifications of such expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis."

Speakers during public comment at Tuesday's board meeting, including a local police officer and administrators from other Pennsylvania school districts, said the situation called for that discretion.

Ken Shaffer, a police officer in State College, said many students "hunt, they fish, they work on farms," and questioned how schools should respond when a student forgets a pocketknife in a bookbag.

"What do they do if they forget there's a pocketknife in their bookbag?" he asked. "Do you want them to come to a teacher and tell you, or do you just want them to hide it?"

Shaffer said police "want people who are in trouble to come to us," noting that amnesty laws exist for that very reason.

"You've got to have some common sense here," he said, adding that while he supports having a weapons policy, enforcement should allow for flexibility. He compared the situation to DUI cases in the justice system, where penalties vary based on circumstances.

"If the policy is so restrictive that you have no other choice than to expel or suspend, the policy needs rewritten," Shaffer said. "It's called discretion."

Josh Hoagland, a family member of the student and vice president of the Southern Columbia Area School District Board of Directors, said he understands "from your side of the table" the burden school officials face, but questioned whether the district's approach actually improves safety.

Hoagland said expulsion is no longer considered best practice because it has not been shown to reduce school violence and may have unintended consequences that make schools less safe, as punishing students who turn in a weapon can discourage honesty and deter reporting.

He said trained professionals on the District Threat Assessment Team should be responsible for evaluating potential threats. Hoagland noted that in seven of eight Act 44 weapon disclosures this year, including this one, that team was not activated.

"It's likely that none of these incidents posed a threat, but how can that determination be made without the team looking at them?" he asked. "And if it was deemed so completely and thoroughly not a threat as to not warrant assembling the team, then why are we recommending this punishment?"

"It simply cannot be both a non-issue and a big issue warranting discipline," he said.

Robert Varholka, assistant principal at Danville Area High School, said that while no one would dispute the district acted legally, educators must weigh their authority against their primary mission, "which is the long-term wellbeing and care of the students in your district."

He said expulsion not only removes a student from the classroom, but also bars him from walking at graduation and receiving a diploma, and can jeopardize his college plans and scholarships.

He then encouraged the board to "please do the right thing for your students."

Before the expulsion vote, board President Jon Guizar said, "I appreciate that the district and our solicitor -- who are in charge of those types of hearings -- exercise discretion, and I feel (there is) common sense in their recommendation," while also adding that the recommendation is consistent with past practice.

The superintendent reinforced that position in a statement to The Express after the fact.

"I can only say that, in every one of these cases, we carefully consider all the facts to make a decision that is fair and consistent with the facts and the policy," Rakszawski said when asked under what circumstances, if any, reduced disciplinary action would be considered in the future.

The board did not respond to questions about revisiting its weapons policy, nor did the student's family respond to requests for comment.