Usually, the kid will be enrolled in another school. If he goes out of line there, he might get expelled as well. It's not unusual for misbehaving kids to bounce from school to school until they turn 18. Most don't graduate high school. I guess the reasoning over here is that there's just some kids you can't save.
In my junior HS, one of the students got upset when the teacher told him to be quiet during a movie and threw a chair at him. He was suspended for 3 days, then he was right back to being an asshole in class. In my HS, several kids brought weapons to school, they were taken away, the kids suspended for a week and most were back in class soon after. Oftentimes, the security at those schools was very bad, they skipped checking many students bags on their way in and spend most of the time flirting with the girls rather than paying attention and breaking up fights.
And yet there they are; they don't go in to a corner and die, they persist, producing outcomes in a society whether or not they are engaged. I'd like to talk specifically about the article; other than a focus on Zevon, good and evil and anecdotal submissions, what, exactly, was this article for? I mean, it has lead to this discussion, but precisely because the things each of us brought TO the article are reflective of our interests and explorations. IOW, the article sucks.
So do you not think kids should be held accountable for their actions? It seemed to be the thrust of the column.
Don't know why the article sucks,then. It was clearly an observational piece about ineffective parenting within a class that can afford to pay their kid's credit cards off,expect admission to exclusive colleges as a right for that kid,and can afford the service of a private clinical psychologist to "solve" that kid's "problems". IOW,rich white-minded folk. Obvious,perhaps. Any connection to this being a clarion call for action against the working poor is in the eye of a beholder. IMV.