Though we moved from Scarborough in February, my children wanted to return to their old schools, Pleasant Hill and Wentworth, to say goodbye to their teachers and classmates on the last day of school. I contacted the teachers and both were enthusiastic about having the kids come back for a visit.

Things worked out for my second-grader, but after consulting with a lead teacher at Wentworth, my fourth-grader’s former teacher told me he could have lunch with his old classmates but a visit to the class would not be possible, saying the lead teacher had decided that “If a student is not enrolled here, visitation is limited for legal reasons.”

Hoping to salvage the opportunity and not understanding the legal threat posed by a fourth-grader, I called the principal’s office. An assistant didn’t understand the decision and referred me to the superintendent’s office but my call there was not returned, nor did the lead teacher explain the decision.

This wasn’t, and isn’t, a problem for my fourth-grader. He didn’t visit, and he’s not ruing the missed opportunity. But I still can’t understand the decision. Yes, I understand the need for heightened security at schools, but this explanation defies sensible policy and decision-making. Why aren’t other students who visit our schools legal threats and thus prohibited from access? Students visit other schools all the time. Guests come into classrooms regularly. Why aren’t we stopping them? Why aren’t we calling a halt to sporting events?

In this case, the fear of liability limited one student’s request to say goodbye to his class. Is this the kind of world we want to live in, where policy driven by legal threat and liability goes this far? The old adage about fear being more dangerous than the actual threat is apropos. Reason, not fear, should have won the day.

James Sullivan

Cape Elizabeth