A Fine Line

We're carrying a story this week about an incident that occurred at Dayton High School in October and still has reverberations in the community today.

As reported on the front page, an alleged threat to at least one student and the reported subsequent discovery of a weapon on a freshman who allegedly made the threat a week earlier concerned some parents and students in the district.

Naturally so.

But how serious was it really? It might be impossible to gauge because of privacy laws that limit the district's ability to share information.

Many people inside and outside the district were left guessing, piecing together bits of information and filling in the blanks. This is a normal human inclination. Parents in particular have every right to be concerned about such reports and to make decisions that are in the best interest of their children.

Without knowing the details, however, it's tough to do so.

The district walks a fine line. It is caught between laws that safeguard personal student records and the safety (or perception of safety) among students, parents and staff.

We believe in the principle of privacy. It's the reason we withheld the freshman's name and other information known to us. When it comes to educational records, state law shields personal details, such as names, telephone numbers, addresses, social security numbers or other information specific to an individual student.

However, it does not necessarily bar the school from sharing general information about "an incident," particularly if such information can help students, parents and staff put the situation in perspective.

In the absence of this information, they lack the tools to do that. It only risks exacerbating the feeling of anxiety on campus and in that sense, the student's alleged past actions affect others. Now, we're talking about the climate on campus and it's no longer merely a private matter.

Its own policies leave it up to the principal whether and how much information to share.

"To promote the safety of all concerned, the principal shall determine if classroom teachers, school staff, school security, and others working with the student(s) involved in the threat circumstances, should be notified," according to District Policy No. 4314P.

Subject to confidentiality provisions, "principals shall consider all available information when determining the extent of information to be shared, including prior disciplinary records, official juvenile court records, and documented history of violence of the person who made the threat."

It turns out the district reportedly shared some information with some parties. The closer the parties were to the incident, the more details they reportedly received on a need-to-know basis. A family close to the incident was informed and teachers were informed in general terms and reportedly to a lesser extent.

We understand that the rest of the school community was left with only vague notions of what happened and how it was addressed.

As best as we can tell, the district took the right steps in addressing the situation. We can't know for sure because district officials have said they can neither confirm nor deny the incident even took place, which we confirmed through law enforcement officials.

But indications are that they did follow the right policies.

The weapon found in the student's possession reportedly was a pocket knife and if under a certain size, fails to meet the definition of a "dangerous weapon." Whatever its size may have been, the district elected to expel the student and allowed him back after he reportedly met the conditions (presumably counseling) set for his return.

We hope this puts such behavior in the past and the school community can now move on. Succeeding in high school is tough enough without the anxiety over one's personal safety.

We also hope the school community can be forgiving to a teenager who realizes he did something dumb and resolves to refrain from doing it again, so he too can receive a public education to which he is entitled.