Except that it is different from talking out of turn. And these parents are, even from a purely selfish standpoint, idiots for taking it as far as they did: rather than removing a blot on the kid’s reputation, they’ve made that blot massively worse. If you’d take it further than these parents did, that doesn’t reflect well on you.
In your defense, you’re most likely just Internet Tough Guying it up, though, and in real life of course you’d settle for the reversal, if you were foolish enough to push it that far in the first place.
I don’t see how anyone could have children and have so little knowledge of children’s behavior and development, so I think all is right with the world.
is that a reference to something? otherwise i could easily see how a fear of toilets would trump that of a third hand report of a distant gun incident. to kids, guns are just cool stuff that heroes use to kill the bad guys in movies or games, while every school has at least one toilet that is haunted.
Who told you this? Suzy with the tummy ache? The more common and reasonable inference, that this is simply a six-year-old’s silly misbehavior, is apparently irresponsible speculation. But we should accept as a given that this was terrorism that freaked out a classroom.
That single day was apparently a real nightmarish terror for the kids in that school. Thank God they nipped it in the bud. This thread is funny.
You’re being ridiculous. The evidence that this was something more serious than silliness is that the school took it seriously. Granted, that’s not strong evidence at all, but nobody here has strong evidence at all. If you’re not willing to admit that, you don’t have any business discussing the issue. And if you are willing to admit that, then it’s ridiculous to have a firm opinion on the issue one way or another.
I was reacting to the assertion, offered as a given, that the kid did this to freak out his classmates. Try reading a little more closely next time and direct your nonsense elsewhere. I’m already on record saying no one has all the facts, me included. And who the hell died and made you the arbiter of who’s qualified to participate in a thread? “You’re being ridiculous.” Get over yourself, sparky.
One more thing: the school gets no benefit of the doubt from me in this instance, from the moment they selectively shared “details.” If they had said from the start that they simply, as a matter of policy, will not discuss student matters such as these publicly, I’d be much more inclined to think, “Well, there may be much more to this.” But they didn’t. They shared, but only with weasel words. “This was not a single incident.” All that stuff about conferences, dealt with by a staff weary with the burden of how seriously they took this. It read to me as spin, intended to create the impression of this long history of problems. If that were the case, they would have shared those details, it seemed to me, once they decided the matter was properly discussed in a public forum. But they didn’t. And we’re all still parsing statements trying to figure out exactly what they’re saying.
So, I’ll say again, no one has all the facts (you included), but my speculation is that this feels like overreaction and spin. If such an assertion in a message board thread has you gasping and clutching your pearls in shock and outrage, so be it.
Read more carefully, uh, “Sparky.” They said, “This was not a kneejerk reaction to a single incident.” Note the very careful phrasing, not weasel words, but phrasing that ensures they’re not talking at all about the student, but rather about their own actions. That’s because they cannot talk about the student action.
Nice try, though. And that whole clutching pearls line–what wit you show! Can I borrow that, if I’m sure to attribute you on it? I can’t believe I ever suggested you were ridiculous.
That’s the very definition of weasel words. It could cover anything from, “it happened twice earlier that morning” to “this has been an endless string of incidents that have been occurring daily since the start of the school year.” And saying this was not a single incident IS talking about the student action. It’s just talking about it in a way that is not terribly illuminating, I believe deliberately.
Feel free to use the pearls line, no need to attribute. I think I stole it from elucidator anyway.
They cannot talk about the student action. If they do so, they’re breaking federal law. If they were using weasel words, they were doing so in order to give information about the student action, not to obscure information about the student action. To fault them for not being terribly illuminating is to misunderstand their legal situation.
I think the idea is the parents are also supposed to severely punish a kid for getting suspended, so the kid doesn’t decide to get suspended whenever they feel like a day off.
Then this must be a very technical legal distinction. Describing something as “not a single incident” seems to me is describing the student’s actions. Maybe I’m crazy. And once they cross that line, what would have prevented them from describing the litany of administrators’ actions in response to the endless string of offenses? If they could describe the school’s actions once, and if they could make clear there was more than one student incident, what technicality prevented them from making clear the long history of problems, the parade of horribles this little monster has unleashed on his unsuspectiung classmates–of course, limiting their clarification to explaining that they’ve been talking to the little bastard ad infinitum? “This was not a single incident. The administration has spoken to this student on 18 separate occasions, starting in the first week of school, in each instance make clear the inappropriateness of such actions.” How would this have crossed a confidentiality line when the comments they did make did not?
My speculation? Because there isn’t a parade of horribles to describe. Or they would have, instead of the weasel words they used.