I will grant the last point. But to conclude from a narrative of it past the teacher, to an assistant principal, to a counselor, to a conversation with a parent with a formal warning, and a statement this was not a “reaction to a single incident” that this was a warn once, suspend the second time, seems absurd.
We do not know what else was or was not done. What else the teacher tried before sending him up the ladder, if anything. Generally teachers only send to the principal’s office after they’ve exhausted their in classroom approaches, but who knows maybe this teacher is a sieve.
We do not know if other kids were irrationally afraid given the news of the week or not. I do know that irrational fears are still very very real. And unlike being afraid of red cars, a six year old being irrationally afraid in that particular context would not be abnormal behavior. OTOH another six year old continuing to pretend shoot other kids when told he was making others upset and that such is forbidden behavior at multiple levels including the dreaded call to the parent, is abnormal. If either is what occurred.
I can tell you as a parent that if I had a child who still six (youngest now 11) who had been scared by the news and came home that week saying that another child kept pretend shooting her (or him) even though she (or he) asked him to stop, I’d be asking what the school was doing about it. If the school told me well they told him to stop, at the teacher level, at the counselor level, at the assistant principal level, and asked the parents to talk to him, but he kept doing it, I’d be telling them that they need to make sure the school is a place that my child can feel safe and that they need to ramp it up. If I was that hypothetical parent and the parents of that other child were trying to say that their child had every right to do that, you can bet I’d be in those parents’ faces. No your child does not have a right to terrorize mine. Even if you don’t think my child should care. Hypothetically of course.
Guess what, giving another adult, or a policeman the finger is legal. Giving your teacher the finger will get you disciplined. Speech is “harmless.” But see what happens if you send a letter that discusses killing the President. Hang an effigy of your neighbor from your tree and hit it with a bat, just pretend, and see what happens, even if you don’t understand why anyone would be upset when you are just … soft-spoken, with no propensity for violence … skinny and meek … just playing.
If your child feels “terrorize[d]” by a kid pointing his finger at her and saying “bang” then the problem is with your child and not the school administration.
A six year old child in that particular week? Really?
No. You are wrong. From a child’s POV they have heard that a person no one thought was a threat, a skinny meek kid, came in and just murdered a whole bunch of kids just like them in a school just like theirs. Do you really think that no normal kids had nightmares over that? Do you really think that no normal child was bit scared that it could happen to them and that a pretend threat might actually be followed up with real harm? Do you really and truly have no understanding that the same age that often still believes in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy can have irrational fears as a normal behavior in the face of atypical events?
I don’t know what really happened but I’d be more able to projective test a kid who as a teen would also think it funny to put firecrackers behind a vet he knows has PTSD. What? It is not rational to be afraid of firecrackers …
No, I don’t have to move my lips when I write. Besides that, I’m just writing what was reported in the article.
First, children do not have license to do whatever they want under the guise of playing. Secondly, they are not at liberty to play at will in school. Additionally, a child whose practice when reprimanded by a teacher is to laugh and repeat the behavior is very atypical and kind of fucked up. They are certainly going to be disruptive to the classroom, to undermine the teacher’s authority and the cohesion of the classroom. They are very likely going to have ti be removed from the classroom.
A typical response to being reprimanded by a teacher is a slighr feeling of shame and complant behavior.
Repeated noncompliance, violations of rules, and disruptive behavior most certainly needs to be dealt with through escalating disciplinary procedures.
And I would not want you or a child like your describing anywhere near a normal classroom. You sound like the kind of parent who needs suspensions, the involvement or the magistrate or special placement in order to get the picture.
So yes, Virgina, pretending your finger is a gun and saying “POW” is potentially going to get you in legal trouble. No idea what the ultimate court case said, but it’s a fookin’ inconvenience to be arrested even if you’re ultimately acquitted. I think it’s a fair lesson.
Hentor, true but the response was directed at me, and my incredulousness that some here would react to a hypothetical circumstance of some children as being upset by that action this week as something that was just irrational and that should not be “pandered to.” That a hypothetical child doing something that he knew was upsetting others should be allowed since these adults don’t see why a child would rationally be upset by what that child did.
Again, unclear if that has anything to do with what actually occurred here, here just the fact there was a clear rule that was persistently ignored is enough, but that response to a what if shocks me in its ignorance.
BTW, legal or not, having lived in the city of Chicago I can tell you that giving a Chicago cop the finger is ill advised. Had a friend who did that once.
Do “2nd circuit court of appeal” rulings apply everywhere or just to its state?
Aware that case was about the middle finger and yours was about pointing, but I guess it’s for a later case to decide if that ruling applies to pointing too.
The 2nd Circuit applies to New York, Vermont, and Connecticut only. But there is certainly a difference between giving a cop the middle finger and pretend pointing a gun at him. The first one is basically a “fuck you” which is protected speech. The second could be interpreted as “I’m going to kill you” which is not protected speech.
I was checking out a few of the sites reporting on this, and it seems more like a case of the police… creatively interpreting… what the guy was doing. I know that’s besides the point of whether or not the gesture is okay, but in reading, I also found this: Police Brutality Man Arrested For Pointing Finger At Cops
“One of the most outrageous is last year’s attack at a mentally handicapped 17-year-old boy whose speech impediment was interpreted as a sign of disrespect towards the cops, who was pepper sprayed, tasered and charged with an assault.”
The school denied it was behind Sandy Hook, yet they brought Sandy Hook up while justifying his suspension in the meeting with the child’s parents. That is simply stupid. What kid, who, as his parents said, watches the cartoon channel, hasn’t sen the finger gun used in jest. Fortunately the school has removed the matter from his school record.
[QUOTE=From the Linked Article]
For the family, the main issue was Rodney’s permanent school record, she said. The boy’s father, Rodney Sr., took off work to care for him during his suspension. Jeannie said she wondered: What if he wants to be a police officer? Or join the FBI?
[/QUOTE]
Ok, now I don’t know who’s crazier: the school or the parents. Son, it will go on your (cue music) PERMANENT RECORD! Does the FBI deny applicants who were subject to school discipline when they were six years old??
As a child, did you ever have an adult that was frustrated with you make a hand gesture (with both hands) as in a choking fashion and pretend to wring your neck?
Would it have been reasonable for you to assume that the adult was threatening strangulation and should be charged with attempted murder?
This is the most ridiculous part. No teacher is gonna pay attention to an ISS from a previous year. But every teacher is gonna pay attention to parents who overreact in this manner. The parents have not done their child any sort of service here.
The standard isn’t “terrorized,” the standard is “harrassed.” (And yes, I’m aware of what you’re responding to; I’m saying we need to change what we’re discussing). If a kid is harassing another kid, the means of harassment doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the harassment stops. The kid might equally have been chanting “Anna banana” at another kid, and if he won’t stop doing that, the other kid is gonna start to cry, even if her name’s Madison. That’s how kids work. They get upset entirely because they know someone is trying to get them upset. Conversely, they engage in an upsetting behavior entirely because they know it’s upsetting.
Teachers have a duty to stop harassing behavior. If this kid was harassing another kid, with a pointed finger or a silly chant or an obnoxious face, he needed to stop. Again, conversations about whether it was a real threat are beside the point.
