Conference back40::soapbox

Toy gun goes on boy's "record'

By Mark Melady
Telegram & Gazette Staff

WORCESTER _ A 5-year-old kindergarten pupil who bought a toy police gun with
a lucky dollar he found at Sunday's St. Patrick's Day parade was suspended
from school yesterday for bringing the toy to school.

Joshua Crowley of Pleasant Terrace, who attends Chandler Magnet School, was
given a one-day suspension for violating the city school system's weapons
policy, school officials said.

The boy's mother, however, said the policy makes no reference to toy guns
and that she was told the suspension would last five days.

"I know we have to keep guns and knives out of the schools, but this is
ridiculous,' Jennifer Crowley said. "There are weapons in that policy I've
never heard of and can't even pronounce,' she said as she read off some of
the prohibited weaponry, including zoobows, klackers, churikens and
manrikigusaris. "But nothing about toy guns.'

After the boy found the dollar at the parade, his mother said, they went to
the dollar store. "All he wanted was this police set with the gun and a
police cap and a badge,' said Crowley, 23, a single parent. "It would take
caps, but there weren't any with it. He was so happy he wanted to bring it
to school even though he knows I don't like him to bring toys to school.'

School Superintendent James L. Garvey said the boy pulled the toy gun from
his lunch bag in the cafeteria during lunch period.

"Apparently it created quite a disturbance,' Garvey said.

The superintendent said that without reading the policy he could not say
whether toy guns were prohibited.

"In situations like this, especially with a child this young, the policy
allows a lot of discretion on the part of principal,' Garvey said.

Joshua Crowley said he took the toy pistol from his bag to show his friend,
who then ran off and told the teacher he had a gun. He said he was then
taken to the principal's office.

"She said "don't bring toy guns to school,'' Joshua Crowley said. "I gave
her my gun.'

When Jennifer Crowley arrived to pick up her son at the end of the school
day, Joshua was standing with a teacher, who said they had to go see the
principal.

"I said, `Joshua, you better tell me what happened,' the mother said. "He
told me he was in trouble for bringing a toy to school. When we got into the
(assistant) principal's office, she had the gun covered up with a
handkerchief.'

The assistant principal informed her she had no choice but to suspend the
boy, Crowley said.

"I was laughing. It was all so ridiculous, but she told me this would be on
his record. I said, `My God, he's only a 5-year-old boy and the gun's only a
toy.'

The mother and school officials are at odds over the length of the
suspension.

Crowley said she was told by assistant principal Mary Rowe that the boy
would be suspended for five days, after which there would be a hearing
complete with the mother and son's "sworn testimony.'

When first told of the incident last night, Garvey said a five-day
suspension "seems severe.'

After consulting with Rowe and Clair Angers, Doherty quadrant manager,
Garvey said the boy would be suspended for one day.

"He'll be suspended for tomorrow (Tuesday), then the mother and boy and the
principal will sit down and talk about it,' Garvey said.

But one day or five, Jennifer Crowley said she is having trouble explaining
the concept to her son.

"How do you explain a suspension to a 5-year-old,' she said. "He thinks he
can't go back to school, and he really likes it there.'

The boy did have one request. Since he wasn't going to school today, he
asked to be allowed to stay up until 9 p.m.

His mother agreed.

"Know what he wants to be when he grows up?' she asked. "A police officer.
That's why he wanted that kit.'

     > '...When we got into the
     > (assistant) principal's office, she had the gun covered up with a
     > handkerchief.'
    
    It could've been worse, she could've slipped a condom over the
    disgusting eeeuuuwweeee gun.
    
    Of course, all we hear about are these nutso stories.  I can relate
    one from my kid's school that somewhat restores my hope that most
    school administrators may be mostly sane after all:
    
    The science class had an in-class project to build a "solar house"
    with various materials, and whichever group's house had the highest
    temperature after being out in the sun for x minutes would win a
    little prize of some kind.  Whilst shopping for materials the night
    before, we ran into a classmate and his mother, who was buying (among
    other things) an X-Acto (sp?) knife for the classmate to bring in,
    to cut the various materials.  A little bell went off in my head
    (a typical occurrence), but for some reason the signal didn't make
    it all the way to the frontal lobes, and I said nothing.
    
    I heard later that the next day, the teacher noticed the knife and
    took it without any kind of panic, horror, or recrimination, and
    simply told the kid that he couldn't have that in class, and that
    his mother would have to pick it up (or that she'd mail it to
    their house if the mother was unavailable during school hours).
    
    That's it.  No trips to the principal, no suspensions, no TV reporters
    hovering around the front of the school, no screaming, no handkerchiefs
    covering the feeelthee "weapon".
    
    Almost depressingly normal.  :-)
    
    Chris

    Rules. Doesn't matter whether they make sense or not. Doesn't matter
    whether the application is consistent with the motivation behind them.
    Nothing matters but the rules.

    In another boring story of sanity at my kid's school, asthmatic kids
    are allowed to carry around their own inhalers, and use them as needed
    on their own, using their own judgment.
    
    In our own case (after a recent diagnosis), we went to talk to the
    nurse, figuring that she'd have to hold the inhaler, and prepared with
    all kinds of complicated contingency plans based on our kid's schedule,
    and where he'd be in the school during the day relative to the nurse's
    office, and so on.  When she told us the kids-can-do-it policy, I was
    actually stunned speechless.
    
    That's how bad it's gotten, I'm at a loss for words when someone does
    something that actually makes sense.  And then it's difficult to know
    how to react in such a way that makes sense (i.e., not "Yes, that does
    make sense, but I just didn't think that you'd... uhhh..." :-)).
    
    Chris

    What's that song "Too much time on my hands?"
    
    Before ya know it, they're going to require kids to have concealed
    carry permits to bring their Exactos to school.
    
    I used to carry an exact-o knife in my purse.  It was handy for general
    purpose stuff.  One time, I got stopped at the scanner in an airport. 
    It never occurred to me that it could be a weapon, but apparently, it
    never occurred to the airport staff that it could be anything else.
    
    Later, I replaced it with a pen that has a knife inside.  Much easier
    to pass the scanners.

    Re: Nurse
    
    Especially funny, given how anxious all the schools are to put all
    their "problem" students on amphetamines.
    
    You can almost hear the mid-day announcement over the P.A.:  "Would
    half the school please report to the nurse for your afternoon dose of
    speed."

    
    Just curious.
    
    Do you all figure mom laughing at the assistant principal and then
    rewarding her son by letting him stay up late was a bright move?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .13204:
    
    > Do you all figure mom laughing at the assistant principal and then
    > rewarding her son by letting him stay up late was a bright move?
    
    Teaching people to think for themselves and not blindly accept
    authority is a good thing.
    
    The blame for the loss of respect the assistant principal suffered
    belongs to the assistant principal, not the mother.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

 !   Do you all figure mom laughing at the assistant principal and then
 !   rewarding her son by letting him stay up late was a bright move?

  
 First, I applaud her for not tipping the desk over on the twit. Laughing
 seems a fair alternative.

 Second, I see nothing wrong with a child staying up a little late on 
 non-school nights.

 The child did nothing wrong. The adults behaved like children.

 No wonder this country over-reacts to everything, it's a learned response
 from a very young age.

 Doug.

  ignorance of the rules is no excuse.  experience of the brutal reaction
 of entrenched elites is healthy preparation for employment

  the kid deserved defenestration

  bb

    
    
    Clearly, school officials are outgunned and need heavier armament.

    funny story, my wife and i were traveling through the Dallas
    airport 2 years ago. her purse with a Swiss Army knife never
    drew a second look as it passed through the  scanner, but my
    inhaler, hoo boy, that got some attention!

    
    You got a knife through an airport scanner?   

    
>    Later, I replaced it with a pen that has a knife inside.  Much easier
>    to pass the scanners.


  of course..what do they give you when you get on the plane?  Knives and
 forks..

    
    I took a serrated bread knife through an airport scanner once with nary
    a comment.  However, my curling iron excited much concern.
    

    
    Airport security is better today than it was 5-10 years ago, but it's
    still pretty bad.
    
    You send your gear through the scanner, and the guards are too busy
    talking to look it over.
    
    

    yeah, the whole world's incompetent.

    
    Glad you all think that toy guns are so funny.
    
    I sat on a jury to determine the fate of a man charged with
    "assault with a deadly weapon, replica handgun."
    
    
    This isn't even something new or "PC".  When *I* went to elementary
    school (back when banks were open from 10:00-3:00, and no money from
    walls) I would have been suspended for bringing a toy gun to school.
    
    
    Parents are *supposed* to read what they sign.  Obviously, that's too
    much to ask of some parents.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	I hate to admit it, but I also picked up on "kid gets suspended
    	and mom lets him stay up late as a reward".
    
    	However, the whole thing is sort of ridiculous.  I say "sort of"
    	because bringing a gun, toy or not, to school is definitely not
    	a bright thing to do.
    
    	However still, it appears that toy guns aren't against school
    	policy.  "Without reading the policy, I can't say whether or not
    	toy guns are forbidden."  No, really?  Do you want fries with
    	that MBA, idiot?
    

    
    	Mr. Bill, I'm sure edp will remind you that there was no assault
    	present in this situation.
    

>  <<< Note 14.13215 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Parents are *supposed* to read what they sign.  Obviously, that's too
>    much to ask of some parents.
    
	Fine.  Hold the parents responsible, but suspending the five-year
	old is, how you say, dumb.

    >You got a knife through an airport scanner?   
    
     Every time I fly. Never a problem.

 >   I sat on a jury to determine the fate of a man charged with
 >   "assault with a deadly weapon, replica handgun."

 Was the man a 5 year old child?

  >   This isn't even something new or "PC".  When *I* went to elementary
  >  school (back when banks were open from 10:00-3:00, and no money from
  >  walls) I would have been suspended for bringing a toy gun to school.
  
  When I was in grade school I wore my brand new cowboy outfit complete
  with two 6 shooters, holsters, and fake bullets on the belt. No one
  had a problem with it. I got many compliments from the teachers and more
  than a few jabs from the other kids. 

  >  Parents are *supposed* to read what they sign.  Obviously, that's too
  >  much to ask of some parents.

  Adults should be able to distinguish between fodder and what is truely
  important. Nothing positive come out of this situation when the boy 
  gets suspended.

  Take the 'offensive' toy away. Give it back the end of the day and tell him
  not to bring it back to school. In other words, teach the little nipper,
  don't overwhelm him with actions he certainly can't understand at that age.


  Doug.

    
    	I always have a pocket knife on me.  For the last few years it's
    	been a bright red 3-4" Cutco.
    
    	I haven't been to a concert in years, but when I did go I'd slide
    	the knife into my boot before the "pat-down" and put it back in
    	my pocket when I got inside.
    

    
    Where can I get a job patting down guys when they go into concerts?!
    
    8^)
    

    
    	Heck, you can pat me down any time you want.
    
    	The pay sucks, but the benefits would make it well worth the
    	effort.
    

>    I took a serrated bread knife through an airport scanner once with nary
>    a comment.  However, my curling iron excited much concern.
    
"Captain, there's a lady here who wants to go to Cuba.  She's got a curling
iron and she says she's ready to use it."

There are toy guns and toy guns.  I think those "replica handguns" that Mr.
Bill mentioned are probably more realistic looking than the kind you get
at the dollar shop.

    We were allowed to bring toys to school, period.  If you
    got caught, the toy got confiscated and you had to pay
    a quarter to the children's mission fund to get it back
    (I went to Catholic School).  Seems a lot more reasonable
    to me that suspending the kid.  Weapon schmepon.  They
    can poke their eye out on the playground with a sharp 
    stick, for crying out loud.  Are they going to out-law
    trees next?

    The "replica handgun" that I mentioned was a cheap toy.
    
    
    As far as is a single day suspension is some sort of harsh penalty that
    a five year old could never understand, give me a break.
    
    First of all, it's a *minor* penalty.
    Second, a child younger than five can understand the simple concept
    that they can't go to school because they did whatever.
    
    								-mr. bill

What!!! No Sizzler races at recess!!! 

I'm glad I grew up in a town that allowed children to be children ....

Doug.

  look, 5 days suspension may be harsh, but the principle is sound :
 discipline is important, rules will be enforced.  To get from ordered
 liberty to bestial depravity, disregarding a few rules suffices.

  bb

    The kid asked if he could take it school.  Mom let him.  The kid
    suffers for it.  Bzzzt.  Spin again bunky.  The administrators and the
    mom need to work this out.  Mom knew he took it to school.  This has
    nothing to do with errant behavior on the child's part.  The
    administrators once again disprove the theory that you actually need to
    be intelligent to run a school.  Mom should have known better as well
    but maybe she doesn't read the papers about kids getting chucked out of
    school for having a butter knife or vitamins or aspirin.  
    
    RE: Pocket knives on planes.  I was shaken down in the Munich airport for 
    a Swiss Army knife in my backpack.  The obersturmbagchecker took it out, 
    opened a blade, checked the sharpness and then shoved it as deep into my
    backpack as he possibly could.  Domestically, I have sent it through the
    scanner in my pack with nary a second glance.  Better believe they want
    to know what my CD player is all about though.  

    
    	I recently read a spy novel where the bad guy shipped a pair of
    	detonators inside hollowed-out Walkmans via Federal Express.
    

    
    	RE: .13229
    
    	bb, it might help if it could be proven that there is a rule that
    	prohibits toy guns at that school.
    

|   The kid asked if he could take it school.  Mom let him.
|   Mom knew he took it to school.
    
    To reading the article again, for comprehension this time.
    
    								-mr. bill

>  <<< Note 14.13227 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    As far as is a single day suspension is some sort of harsh penalty that
>    a five year old could never understand, give me a break.

      I _think_ I understand that sentence.  Thing is, it's just stupid
      to make him miss any school at all for this, isn't it?  He's 5,
      fer cryin' out loud.

  Slab, it was the Super who said he could not tell what was in the
 policy without reading it.

  I never said I couldn't.

  bb

    Those posting "the rules must be obeyed" in response to this incident
    reveal the mindlessness of their position and the true motivation of
    their behavior.  According to the news report in .13198, there is NO
    assertion that the rules do prohibit toy guns.  It's not the rules that
    are being supported -- rather, these posters are mindlessly obeying
    authority.  That is a hard-wired biological impulse -- something
    thoughtless and irrational.  One might as well follow the lead of a
    monkey as listen to such people for advice or opinion.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>              <<< Note 14.13236 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Spott Itj" >>>
> We he my employee, he'd be upbraided for his knee-jerk
> reaction and failure to employ the escalating scale of sanctions
> available to him.

	aagagag.  say what?  have you been reading "toward a more picturesque
	speech" again, doctah?  

  oh, goody...are you mods now going to employ an escalating scale
 of sanctions on us ?

  bb

    I'd have guessed Binder had broken into the doctah's account but it
    hasn't been deleted and reposted with the requisite spelling
    corrections.  

    In the final analysis, the suspension accomplishes nothing positive. It
    teaches a lesson better taught in other ways, it undermines the few
    remaining shreds of respect the administrators have in the eyes of the
    subjects of this petty fiefdom, and it make a loud statement that the
    administrators have no ability to reason independently of "the roolz."
    The superintendent rightly stated that the principal had a lot of
    discretion over the punishment. It is to her discredit that she failed
    to exercise her discretion in a meaningful way. We she my employee,
    she'd  be upbraided for her knee-jerk reaction and failure to employ
    the escalating scale of sanctions available to her.
    
    In a lunchroom with a monitor with a working brain, the toy would have
    been removed from his possession and a note would have gone home to his
    parents saying that such toys are not appropriate on school grounds.
    Problem solved, everybody's happy, and nobody's lack of judgment gets
    into the newspaper.

|   The principal rightly stated that he had a lot of discretion over the
|   punishment.
    
    The principal was not quoted in the article.
    Crowley did not see the principal.
    The assistant principal is a she.
    
    
    This is one mom's story, with a bad reporter getting *anybody*
    associated with the school district on the record.
    
    								-mr. bill

  >  As far as is a single day suspension is some sort of harsh penalty that
  >  a five year old could never understand, give me a break.

  It is, in terms relative to the infraction, a harsh penalty.
  being kicked out of school for playing with your favorite toy can be
  quite difficult for a 5 year old to understand. 

  Explaining that he shouldn't bring toys to school is all that is necessary.

  >  First of all, it's a *minor* penalty.

  Its a big deal to a 5 year old who can't why he is being kicked
  out of school for playing with a toy.

  >  Second, a child younger than five can understand the simple concept
  >  that they can't go to school because they did whatever.

  Whatever? He was playing with a toy? Had he hit someone, or behaved
  badly, he could certainly understand his wrong doing. But a toy?

  I would not want my child to associate playing with a toy as being a 
  bad thing. 

  At 5 years of age, kids shouldn't have to worry about such things ...

  Doug.
 

    
    I blame the Doc's recent contact with patent lawyers.  But I bet
    he told them to get stuffed when they explained all the patent
    application rules and regulations to him.

| <<< Note 14.13212 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Because I Can." >>>


| However, my curling iron excited much concern.

	That thing looks like a rifle though, right?

    
    Actually, it looks like a...
    
    never mind 8^).
    

| <<< Note 14.13223 by BUSY::SLAB "Audiophiles do it 'til it hertz!" >>>


| Heck, you can pat me down any time you want.

	She said guys, not balsa wood.

    
    ...balsa wood?  I thought that was a mayonnaise jar.
    

    
    	RE: .13247
    
    	Nope, just happy to see you.
    
    
    	RE: .13237
    
    	Yes, I've said this a couple times, and people continue to spout
    	"them's the rules" even thought them's apparently NOT the rules
    	in this case.
    

| <<< Note 14.13247 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Because I Can." >>>


| ...balsa wood?  I thought that was a mayonnaise jar.

	That is WAY too think for it to resemble slab!

I have a 5 year old in attending school daily. He more often than not brings
toys with him. This is even supported by the practice of 'show and tell' by the
school.

He once brought his Phobias costume, complete with toy sword. This particular
toy was very importnat to him at the time and he wanted to share it with
his friends, I imagine much like the toy gun was important to the boy who
wanted to be a policeman.

If my son were to do exactly as this boy had done, I would expect the school
admin folks act no differently than they did with his other toys.

I understand how toy guns are construed by many adults to be something 
other than toys, but the children shouldn't have to suffer because of the 
adults limitations.

Doug.

    
|   He once brought his Phobias costume
    
    Well that's something to fear.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	I remember my friend bringing in a REAL rifle to show and tell (dad
    had removed the firing pin and asked the school if it was ok). How
    times have changed..
    
    
    

    the teachers at my school CARRIED guns. nobody messed with those
    nuns.

Or was that Phobeus, or phobeous, or ...

    >	Yes, I've said this a couple times, and people continue to spout
    >	"them's the rules" even thought them's apparently NOT the rules
    >	in this case.
    
     To be more pointed, none of the adults involved in the decision or up
    the administrative chain seems to know whether the toy is prohibited
    per se or not. 

    Is that what they mean by conventional weapons?

|    	I remember my friend bringing in a REAL rifle to show and tell (dad
|   had removed the firing pin and asked the school if it was ok). How
|   times have changed..
    
    Also this week, a sixth grader in Maine brought a couple of .22
    handguns to school.  One was loaded.  No disruption of the class. 
    School only found about about it after a parent of one of the
    show-and-tellees called the school that night.
    
    
    Back in the olden days, if you had taken a couple of your parent's
    handguns to school, figure you would have been able to stay up late?
    
    
    Student is on indefinate suspension - the school is waiting for the
    *CRIMINAL* investigation to complete.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   To be more pointed, none of the adults involved in the decision or up
|   the administrative chain seems to know whether the toy is prohibited
|   per se or not. 
    
    Uh, since we have only heard from mom and a superintendent, you might
    want to rethink that.
    
    								-mr. bill

|Or was that Phobeus, or phobeous, or ...
    
    Phoebus.
    
    								-mr. bill

>  <<< Note 14.13258 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Student is on indefinate suspension - the school is waiting for the
>    *CRIMINAL* investigation to complete.

	indefinite


	hth

    
    	Yes, that helps immensely.  Now this case is all wrapped up.
    

|	hth
    
    Obviously doesn't.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	re: .13258 Mr. Bill
    
    	Agreed, special permission and special precaution are a bit
    different, but that wasn't my point. It's all about it being a toy GUN.
    Any other toy would have been removed from the student's possession and
    returned to the parents at the end of the day, probably with a warning
    that toys were not allowed. But, because it was a toy GUN (and we've
    all been whipped into the anti-gun feeding frenzy) it warrants a
    suspension and a black mark on this child's record. 
    
    	Were rules broken? Perhaps. Should toy guns be brought to school?
    No. Is the punishment too harsh for what this child did? Oh yeah. I
    don't believe removing the child from school (a learning environment)
    is going to be productive or "teach" this child anything. 
    
    	This child didn't set out to do anything wrong. The six grader in
    Maine certainly knew what he was doing was wrong. Big difference. 
    
    	IMHO, HTH, YMMV, etc, ad nauseum...
    
    
    jim 

|   It's all about it being a toy GUN.
    
    No, it's not all about it being a toy GUN.  I know that's what sparked
    your interest here.
    
    It is *not* uncommon for schools to have policies against weapons -
    real or pretend.
    
    And as this millenium draws to a close, there are unfortunately damn
    good reasons for such policies.
    
    
    Now, see if you can come up with some sound reasons for such hard
    nosed policies.  Think safety.  Do it with a less-close-to-your heart
    object.
    
    For example, how about matches in the school box?  (Luckily only
    demented Dan Aykroyd-types would come up with "toy matches.")
    
    Think mom would be laughing at the vice-principal then?
    
    
    Think, mom, think.  It's not tough.  You want *your* kindergartner to
    decide that the matches are only toy matches?  Those could be *fun* to
    play with, huh?
    
    Think, mom, think.  It's not tough.  You want *your* kindergartner to
    decide that the gun is a only a toy gun?  If it isn't that'll be *damn*
    fun to play with, huh?
    
    
    Safety policy.  A rational *SAFETY* *POLICY*.
    								-mr. bill

    re: .13267
    
    Gee, I guess we'd better not be giving them any 
    battery operated vehicles to tool around in either.
    

   .13267   But how do you justify suspending the little sweetheart
	    from school, William?

    Just because he's five doesn't automatically make him a sweetheart. He
    could be the child from hell.

|   Gee, I guess we'd better not be giving them any 
|   battery operated vehicles to tool around in either.
    
    I'd expect that few schools would allow one of those toddler pink
    barbie jeeps on school grounds, but what do I know.
    
    								-mr. bill

  wanna go to school and have some fun ?
  better not pocket that plastic gun.

  bb

    
    I think Glenn has a bit of a point here (but if he combs his hair
    carefully, etc.).  I have read more times than I want to in the
    newspapers about teens and God forbid pre-teens killing and robbing and
    raping and setting fires and mutilating animals and creating all sorts of 
    mayhem.
    
    MY point is, in these wonderful and enlightened times, it's no longer
    always accurate to say, "But he's only in kindergarten!  He's only five 
    years old!  He's harmless!"
    
    Next year he might be the kid that took the baby out of the crib and
    beat it to a pulp.
    

    re: .13267
    
|   .13267   But how do you justify suspending the little sweetheart
|	    from school, William?
    
    So, you think a mom's story of the unthinking administration
    suspending "little sweetheart" for bringing matches in the
    lunchbox would have been published in the paper?  (And here?)
    
    								-mr. bill

    I heard he was still in kindergarden.

>  <<< Note 14.13274 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    So, you think a mom's story of the unthinking administration
>    suspending "little sweetheart" for bringing matches in the
>    lunchbox would have been published in the paper?  (And here?)

	Hello?  What does that have to do with my question about this
	child being suspended and how you justify it?

|	Hello?  What does that have to do with my question about this
|	child being suspended and how you justify it?
    
    I think it is perfectly justified to suspend a child for bringing any
    of the following to school:
    
    	A gun (real or pretend)
    	A knife (real or pretend)
    	Any matches (real (or pretend if they are ever available))
    	A lighter (real (or pretend if they are ever available))
    	Any bullets (real or pretend)
    	Any fireworks (real or pretend - yes, there *are* pretend fireworks,
    		complete with *pretend* warnings, thanks for nothing Disney.
    		"The Big One" stayed home.  Period.)
    	Any bombs (real or pretend)
    	....
    
    Now you explain to me why you wouldn't suspend a "little sweetheart" for
    any of the above violations of safety policy.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    Next year he might be the kid that took the baby out of the crib and
>    beat it to a pulp.
 
   Has anyone made a connection between young children playing with toy
   guns and teenage kids blowing each other away? 

   This country needs a clue in this area BADLY!!! 

>    Safety policy.  A rational *SAFETY* *POLICY*.

   Rational? Reactional maybe. Rational, no.

   Doug.

  >  So, you think a mom's story of the unthinking administration
  >  suspending "little sweetheart" for bringing matches in the
  >  lunchbox would have been published in the paper?  (And here?)
  
  If it can be hyped, it will be published. If they can over-react,
  they will over-react.

  Recent memories recall kids being suspended for touching and kissing.
  You think suspension was appropriate in these cases too?

  Doug.

    re: .77
    
    Ok, then explain to me how any of the following are
    less dangerous:
    
    a pointed stick
    a sharp pencil
    scissors
    cutlery
    weights in gym class
    a heavy book bag
    a karate kick
    a fist fight
    a rock
    
    All hysterical ranting aside, it isn't what the child has,
    it's what the child DOES with it that makes it wrong. You
    know, behavior?  What the parents and teachers are supposed
    to be teaching them?  A child bringing an inappropriate toy
    to school should have the toy confiscated for the day, and
    then returned with a note to the parents that the children
    are not allowed to bring toys to school.  A child with a
    pocket knife should be treated pretty much the same. When
    you get to the point where a child is *using* a knife 
    in an inappropriate manner, *then* you starting thinking
    suspension.  
    
    You'd think we had an entire nation of children armed to
    the teeth and waiting for an excuse to do their Clint
    Eastwood impression.  We don't.  Rather than focussing
    on the weapons, why not try figuring out why kids think
    they need to have them.  That's probably the real problem.  
    Why not simply confront and correct bad behavior when it
    occurs rather than making up hundreds of ineffective and
    ridiculous rules which only serve to make administrators
    feel marginally useful?

  right, mb

  also, he or she should be defenstrated if bringing in :

     any drugs, medications, or substances without a prescription
     any literature of a political, religious, or proselytizing nature
     anything with a commercial purpose
     any sexual materials or objects, or any lewd items
     any noisy, malodorous, or brightly lighted items
     any living animals

  bb

>   <<< Note 842.77 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Now you explain to me why you wouldn't suspend a "little sweetheart" for
>    any of the above violations of safety policy.

    I can explain to you why I wouldn't suspend _this_ little sweetheart
    for bringing the toy gun to school.  That is what I'm asking you about.
    
    a) It's not clear that toy guns are included in the list of forbidden
       objects.

    b) It's not clear whether or not he had permission from his mother
       to bring it to school.

    c) He doesn't sound, from the report, like a problem child.

    d) Being reprimanded by school authorities was probably sufficiently
       disturbing to him.

    e) His parents should be able to deal with impressing upon him
       further that it's not to happen again, if that's necessary.

    f) It's absolutely asinine that this big a deal should be made out of
       such an occurrence.  We're talking about a five-year old and a toy
       gun.
 

    > I think it is perfectly justified to suspend a child for bringing any
    > of the following to school:
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > A knife (real or pretend)
    
    Interesting... would you have thought it justified to suspend the
    boy that I described in (what is now) .2?  His mother had bought
    the X-Acto knife for the in-class science project.  Given the
    materials being used for the solar house project, she thought it
    would be needed, so she bought it and sent him in with it (along
    with the other materials).
    
    In this school kids are at various times given access to equally
    dangerous things like scalpels, scissors, needles (the sewing kind),
    power tools (in wood and metal shop), fire (in science lab), chemicals,
    and so on.  Heck, that school's probably more dangerous than home.
    
    Chris

>    Now you explain to me why you wouldn't suspend a "little sweetheart" for
>    any of the above violations of safety policy.


   Because the toys do not present any danger to anyone. Safety has not
   been compromised.

   Of course, the real thing should be dealt with quickly with parent 
   involvement and, depending on the danger, severe consequences.

   Now, I say this for 5 year olds. 10 year olds, assuming they understand the
   rules, would have a punitive assignment which stops well short
   of suspension unless they presented a clear danger to others in the school.

   Malicious behaviour with a toy gun would result in expulsion.

   Doug.

    Sorry Chris, but anyone who pees on a live fan doesn't carry
    much cred when it comes to determining what's dangerous.

    Re .77:
    
    > Now you explain to me why you wouldn't suspend a "little sweetheart" for
    > any of the above violations of safety policy.
    
    Because toy guns are safe.  Because toy knives are safe.  Because toy
    matches are safe.  Because toy lighters are safe.  Because toy bullets
    are safe.  Because toy fireworks are safe.  Because toy bombs are safe.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Yeah, good thing I didn't have an X-Acto knife in my hand while
    I was using the fan room.
    
    By the by, there are certain kids in this school that I'd hate to
    see bringing in X-Acto knives for any reason whatsoever, justifiable
    or otherwise.  This particular kid, though, is a bright, mostly
    well-behaved kid who is rarely any trouble (aside from asking girls
    out to date all the time, which to me seems ridiculous at 11-12).
    
    This seems to indicate that there may be no simple set of rules
    that you can mechanically apply to every situation and every
    individual student.  In this particular case, I'd say the teacher
    exercised unusually good judgment, given the circumstances and
    the particular kid.
    
    No, it's not my kid.  :-)
    
    Chris

    You could choke on a toy lighter by having it lodge in your throat.

    Re .88:
    
    You could choke on school policy too.
    
    Let's presume these toy objects meet other standards, shall we?  They
    don't fit in a "choke tube", et cetera.  The issue we're discussing is
    the safety of their portrayal of other objects, not the safety of the
    toy itself.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    What if someone attacks you with a pointed remark?

    pointed remark?!

    ho ho ho! We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed
    remarks do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh remarks not good
    enough for you, eh?! ho ho ho ho!

    Well let me tell you something my lad! when you're logging on from home
    tonight and some homicidal maniac comes after you with a fresh remark,
    don't come crying to me!!!!

    
    	Some of you are really starting to scare me.
    
    	Specifically, Glenn and Ned and Onondunga.
    

    No Sir, I would just pull the e-mail lever and the 16-ton Moderator
    would delete the fresh remark.
     
    I mean, if someone was defaming me and stuff, and like the remark
    didn't fit in my choke tube, could I invoke the rules and have the
    fresh remark deleted.  Or would that be like, mindless adherance?
     
    I mean like, it's not mindless adherance when the rules work in my
    favour and stuff, right?
     
     
     
     
     
     

  .93  oh great, everybody's a critic.  

    
    	16-ton moderator?
    
    	Which of the moderators did you just insult with that, anyways?
    

    It's a satire m'dears. The 16-Ton weight being a literary reference to
    the work of Tony M. Nythop and is a metaphor for the force of the
    law, suspended over us like the sword of Damocles.

    
    	Ahah ... that definitely makes more sense than the "apple and tree"
    	thing.
    
    	Thanks.
    

    
    
    re: .67
    
>   <<< Note 842.67 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    
>    No, it's not all about it being a toy GUN.  I know that's what sparked
>    your interest here.
    
    	It IS all about it being a toy WEAPON, William. It's all about our
    ingrained overreaction to such things. I would have the same interest
    had it been a toy knife, a toy firecracker, toy matches, whatever.
    
>    It is *not* uncommon for schools to have policies against weapons -
>   real or pretend.
    
    	No kidding, really?? Wow. C'mon Bill, do you take me for an idiot?
    I have two kids in school and I know they are not allowed weapons, real
    or pretend. But, these policies were also spelled out clearly and my
    children and I are AWARE of these policies.
    
>    Now, see if you can come up with some sound reasons for such hard
>    nosed policies.  Think safety.  Do it with a less-close-to-your heart
>    object.
    
    	Safety could be accomplished by simply confiscating the offensive
    items and sending them home with the parents at the end of the day.
    There is no reason to punish a child who was not aware of any wrong
    doing. When your kid makes a mistake, do you punish him or try and help
    him realise his mistake so he won't make it again? Sounds like you'd
    send your kid to bed without supper for failing to pass a test. 
    
>    Think, mom, think.  It's not tough.  You want *your* kindergartner to
>    decide that the gun is a only a toy gun?  If it isn't that'll be *damn*
>    fun to play with, huh?
    
    	The mother knew the gun was a toy. She didn't leave it up to her
    kindergartner to decide if it was a toy or not....she had already made
    that decision for him. Think, Bill, think.
    
    jim

    
    	So you hold the gun until the end of the day, and you give it back
    	to him/her to take home with the warning that it shouldn't ever be
    	brought back to school.
    
    	Then you make a note of it somewhere ["Black mark list for stuff
    	that didn't hurt anybody and shouldn't be part of a permanent rec-
    	ord"] that you can check if the kid happens to do it again.  If he/
    	she does do it again, then maybe you could consider disciplinary
    	actions.
    
    	But I'm still waiting to hear whether or not toy guns are forbidden
    	in that school.  Mom says no, and "quoted school official" says I'm
    	not sure.  So we can be reasonably certain what the rules do or do
    	not say about toy guns [IE, nothing and everything, respectively].
    

               \|/ ____ \|/
                @~/ ,. \~@
               /_( \__/ )_\-----don't shoot, Billy! 
               ~  \__U_/  ~ 

    If I was Billy, i would shoot. That face looks pretty scary.

    Billy, don't be a hero

    
    Don't be a fool with your life!
    

    Billy, don't be a hero
    come back and make me your wife

    
    As as he started to go
    she said, "Billy, keep your head looooooow"
    

	Has anyone mentioned the Netherlands?

	Or another highly-advanced country, like Sweden, where supposedly
	toy weapons are completely banned nationwide.

	It's tough living in America, the world's backwater, where these
	sort of nutty pedagogues seem to be in such great abundance.

    That's not how I remember the next verse.   They must have released a
    different version for youse guys.

   <<< Note 842.71 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
    [...] but what do I know?
    
    This might be an appropriate time to remind ourselves of the lawyer's
    creed, especially the second part.
    
    "Never ask a question unless you know the answer AND it is the one you
    want to hear."
    
     I thank you.
    

    -1 :-)

    The assertion that this is at all a matter of safety is a fig leaf.
    This isn't about safety. It's about power, hysteria, and a lack of
    judgment.
    
    In case people of William's ilk have forgotten (memories being
    convenient in this era, of course) nobody dies from being shot by a
    plastic toy gun. Nobody gets injured when toy guns are brandished.
    Claiming that safety is the underlyiing issue here is a lie. An
    utter fabrication. See "whole cloth".
    
    We see evidence that even the administration recognizes that it
    overreacted by the fact that when the suspension became exposed to the
    light of day, it magically became a "communication problem" between the
    mother and administrator and the 5 day suspension became a 1 day
    suspension. They call this backpedaling, and of course Bill will come
    in and claim that "No, one day is all it ever was" and "the mother was
    mistaken or lying or both". Sure. But Bill's committed himself to
    justifying the inexcusable, so he's going to pour it on like always.
    Funny thing is, in cases like this he ends up feeling stronger about it
    than the principals...
    
     This is a classic overreaction, mute testimony to the failure of
    administrators in public schools to exercise common sense. But there
    are always people willing to stand up for authority, no matter how
    wrong they are. And in this case it's only a little wrong. Fortunately
    for the clown in charge, the american people have set their
    expectations at a sufficiently low level that aside from the raised
    eyebrows, nothing further will come of this error in judgment.
    Sanctimonious assertions that the right thing was done aside, of
    course.

  .96  Ah yes, the sword of Damocles - very popular allusion with
       people in your group this week.

  In 1993, the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth passed legislation,
 which the Governor signed with alacrity, which greatly enhanced the
 disciplinary powers of school administrators.  Since then, both have been
 re-elected by large majorities, and the new toughness, the zero-tolerance
 policies dealing with weapons and drugs have broad political support.  There
 is considerable backing for the Worcester school administrators in this.

  Safety is irrelevant.  It is a question of discipline.

  If these administrators buckle under pressure, they should be replaced by
 tougher administrators who won't.  The suspension should stand.

  bb

    how about justifiable discipline? this seems to be the question.
    
    

>        <<< Note 842.112 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>


    see .40

    Sam Browne belt on the uniform?

>  In 1993, the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth passed legislation,
> which the Governor signed with alacrity, which greatly enhanced the
> disciplinary powers of school administrators.
    
    Being granted the ability to use "enhanced disciplinary powers" also
    burdens one with the _responsibility_ to use the powers wisely, lest
    they be taken away. Again.
    
    No, we the people want administrators to have the power to weed out the
    bad actors but to use discretion, common sense and judgment to make
    wise choices, not knee-jerk, mindless reactions that satisfy only the
    autocratically minded.

    Billy...don't be a hero...come back to me.......
    
    (Compelled to finish the stanza)

  I read .40, and as you know, I'm not impressed with edp's libertarian
 views.  We have abundant experience with schools with no discipline.
 They don't work.  The kids grow up not knowing how to read or write
 or cipher.  Free universal compulsory education is just that : compulsory.
 The kids, given their druthers, don't go.  But in those parts of the
 society that still function, they are compelled.

  I now hear the suspension was only one day, not the five.  They were
 lenient, probably regretting all the publicity this has gotten, and
 showing the weak, conciliatory nature of bureaucrats in the face of the
 power of the press.

  But fortunately we live in a democracy : an artificial condition of
 ordered liberty, not an anarchy of beasts.  The elected officials of
 Worcester will know there is support for the policy, and I expect the
 disciplinarians will get political support.  Good !  You have to nip
 this "do your own thing" business in the bud, or you lose control.

  bb

    Re .118:
    
    > We have abundant experience with schools with no discipline.
    
    Well, gosh, if the only choices were punishing kids with toy guns and
    no discipline, I guess we'd have to choose the former.  Fortunately,
    those aren't the only choices.  There is, now hold on, the alternative
    of sensible policy!  Imagine that, a policy that punishes kids for
    doing things that are actually bad, instead of just because they
    violate some inane political correctness fad.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Good discipline here.
    
    The kid asks "Hey, mom, can I take my toy gun to school?"  She answers
    "yes," and as a result, the kid finds himself waist-deep in doo-doo.
    
    Yup.  Discipline is important to teach valuable lessons.  Which lesson
    is it this time?  Don't trust mom?  Step out of a line (that wasn't
    clearly drawn), and the world comes crashing in?
    
    I shouldn't complain, rather I should simply see this for what it is: a
    future source of revenue.

> We have abundant experience with schools with no discipline.
> They don't work.

 Do you honestly feel that Billy bringing a toy gun gun to school
 at such a tender age is cause for such discipline? Or are you just
 a 'roolz are roolzs' kinda guy ....

 Doug.

>        <<< Note 842.118 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

	Not that this particular case has much at all to do with refusing
	to conform, but	as an aside, I seem to recall one sunny afternoon,
	chez Topaz, listening to your dulcet tones as you instructed me
	with earnest on the importance of railing against authority (any
	and all kinds of authority, you seemed to nobly imply).  Art thou
	talking out of the other side of thy mouth now?

    
    .120
    
    So you also believe that this insignificant fly-fart of an event is
    somehow a significant indicator of the state of affairs in public
    schools?
    
    A carefully selected media story, designed to push the precisely
    the right buttons to get 'em frothing at the mouth.
    
    If Billy the Kid had chosen a cow-girl outfit, they'd all be lining
    up on the side of discipline.
    
    Coma baby lives!  (at least Meg and Di will understand that one)
    
                          

    the thing is the school policy is so unclear the administrators can't
    even figure it out.  Loverly.  Another example of a law that can be
    over or under enforced because nobody understands it.  
    
    Now, there is sense.  The sense would be, no toys permitted, period. 
    This could have been handled by removing the "offending" object that
    the VP was so upset about she needed to figleaf it.  Xacto knives??????
    for a project?????????  It was a requirement to have for art class when
    I was in the 7th grade.  
    
    meg

|   There is no reason to punish a child who was not aware of any wrong
|   doing.
    
    Oh?  Oddly enough, there are consequences to a child's mistakes even
    when the child isn't aware there might be consequences.  And no,
    I don't think you should whack a child for spilling a cup of juice.
    I do believe the child should take part in cleaning up the spill.
    
|   When your kid makes a mistake, do you punish him or try and help
|   him realise his mistake so he won't make it again? Sounds like you'd
|   send your kid to bed without supper for failing to pass a test. 
    
    Oddly enough, he's never been sent to bed without his supper.  (Though
    "it was still hot" is probably his favorite last line of a book.)
    
    Making mistakes *is* learning.
    
|    	Safety could be accomplished by simply confiscating the offensive
|   items and sending them home with the parents at the end of the day.
    
    Yes, in some cases all that might be needed is confiscating the
    toy.  In other cases it might require suspending the child for a day.
    
    Of course, you *know* that the teacher and principal overreacted,
    because, well, uh, how do you know that?  Again, this is *MOM'S* story
    in the paper.  Teacher and vice-principal are tried and convicted of
    mindless rules followers because, well, why were they convicted by the
    'box rabble of being mindless rules followers?
    
|   	The mother knew the gun was a toy. She didn't leave it up to her
|   kindergartner to decide if it was a toy or not....she had already made
|   that decision for him. Think, Bill, think.
    
    Oddly enough, there is more than *ONE* child in a Kindergarten.
    Think, Jim, Think.
    
    *Your* five year old is sitting in class with "little sweetheart"
    Joshua.  "Litte sweetheart" Joshua pulls out his "toy gun."  I know
    what my child has been taught to do when a "friend" shows him a
    "toy gun" in pre-school.
    
    								-mr. bill

  I agree the policies ought to be public and reasonably clear.  Back
 when we had a kid in school, there was a list of rules that came home
 with the kid the first day.  The no-weapons policy statement was pretty
 much perfunctory, something like, "No sharp objects or weapons, such as
 pocket knives."  Yes, they had had a stabbling with one once, and had
 outlawed them.  Can't recall any mention of fake weapons.  But it was
 quite clear the point of the rules was discipline, not safety.  For example,
 commercial activity was not permitted, nor were radios or walkmen.

  bb

    William Of Ilk?
    
    Kinda has a nice ring to it.

>   <<< Note 842.125 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>       -< There is more than one "little sweetheart" in classrooms.... >-

	Uh-oh, he's Conlonizing the phrase.  To me, all five-year olds
	are little sweethearts until proven otherwise.  Get over it.

|   The assertion that this is at all a matter of safety is a fig leaf.
|   This isn't about safety. It's about power, hysteria, and a lack of
|   judgment.
    
    According to *MOM* it's about power, hysteria and a lack of judgment.
    
|   In case people of William's ilk have forgotten (memories being
|   convenient in this era, of course) nobody dies from being shot by a
|   plastic toy gun.
    
    I'll remember your ilk's refrain the next time I read about a child who
    was shot dead by a "toy gun."
    
|   This is a classic overreaction, mute testimony to the failure of
|   administrators in public schools to exercise common sense.
    
    You're absolutely convinced that Mom is right and absolutely convinced
    that teacher and vice-principal are absolutely wrong.
    
    Tried and convicted.
    
        							-mr. bill

    Re .125:
    
    >> There is no reason to punish a child who was not aware of any wrong
    >> doing.
    >
    > Oh?  Oddly enough, there are consequences to a child's mistakes ...
    
    "Consequences" is not "punishment".
    
    > I do believe the child should take part in cleaning up the spill.
    
    Cleaning up the spill is not punishment.  An appropriate consequence
    for bringing an innocuous but improper object to school is to be
    instructed to take it home and not bring it in again.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    re: .129
    
    We used to shoot each other dead with toy guns when I was a 
    kid.  Of course, we used to do all sorts of other things too,
    back then it was called "being a kid".  Amazing any of us
    survived to reproduce, given today's standards.  You'd think
    we would have all drunk Draino, chugged asprin (with no child-proof
    tops), stabbed each other with X-Acto knives and shot ourselves
    with our parents hunting rifles, but no, somehow we survived. 
    Clearly a fluke.  Society is so much safer when we try to 
    protect ourselves from ourselves.
    
    The most important lesson being taught today is blind
    adherence to the rules.  All rules.  Start 'em young,
    they're so much easier to control that way as adults.
    
    Personally, I'd much rather teach my child to think.
    
    

 >   *Your* five year old is sitting in class with "little sweetheart"
 >   Joshua.  "Litte sweetheart" Joshua pulls out his "toy gun."  I know
 >   what my child has been taught to do when a "friend" shows him a
 >   "toy gun" in pre-school.
  
  Who was it who said this wasn't about toy guns, but toys in general?

  I wonder what your child would do if Joshua pulled out a toy Barbie Doll?
  (They both pose the same threat; ie: None).

  As for a comment on choking on some toys made earlier, there are plenty
  of things to choke on that are provided by the school.

  Doug.

    
    >I wonder what your child would do if Joshua pulled out a toy Barbie Doll?
    >(They both pose the same threat; ie: None).
    
    Well, now, I don't know.  I've heard that Barbie Dolls are directly
    responsible for the appalling amount of anorexia, bulemia and
    self-loathing amongst young girls as they strive, and fail, to develop the 
    same unreal bodily proportions (36-18-33) that a Barbie Doll has. 
    Barbie Dolls promote sexism, pure and simple.
    
    Ban Barbie dolls!
    
    
    
    8^)
    
    
                                                

|   We used to shoot each other dead with toy guns when I was a 
|   kid. 
    
    In our backyard, all the time.  At school, never.
    
    See if you can figure out why.
    
    								-mr. bill

Things we did at recess:

	raced sizzlers
	played hockey, kickball, dodgeball, baseball, football, basketball
	Played cowboys and indians

Some toys were provided by the school and the rest we brought with us.
(and all toys were (*GASP*) allowed on the bus too!!

>     In our backyard, all the time.  At school, never.
>     See if you can figure out why.

Lack of confindence in the towns children? School administrators?
Hair across someones behind? Lack of common sense amoungst the adult
population? Implementation of lame Safety Policy?

 
Am I close?

Doug.

   I don't know, William.  You're always going on about "nutters", but
   you seem to be playing the part yourself here.

|   Ban Barbie dolls!

    Barbie dolls are not banned from my son's classroom.
    Buzz Lightyear is.
    Wild Things are not banned at my son's classroom.
    Spiderman is.
    The Very Hungry Caterpillar is not banned at my son's classroom.
    Princes Lei Organa is.
    Jasmine is not banned at my son's classroom.
    The Pink Power Ranger is.
    
    
    If a banned toy is brought to the classroom, the toy is taken away,
    the teachers explain to the child why it was taken away, and we parents
    would be reminded of the policy of the classroom later that day.
    
    None of these are *safety* issues.  The teachers in his
    classroom banned "action figures" when the children showed
    that they got into too many conflicts which they couldn't resolve
    by themselves.
    
    
    Another classroom policy?  Children open their own lunchboxes,
    and are not allowed to share any food.  If the child wants to eat
    all of their cookies first, no problem.  If the child eats nothing
    but cookies, no problem.  What doesn't get eaten does NOT get thrown
    away, it gets packed up in the lunchbox.  And finally, NO medicine
    in the lunchbox, EVER!
    
    
    Some of these rules seem silly.  Some of these rules make some sense.
    Some of these rules make a lot of sense.
    
    My son is taught to obey the classroom rules.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .137:
    
    >                                 -< Wonder why? >-
    
    >     My son is taught to obey the classroom rules.
    
    Okay, let's wonder.  Hmm, maybe it's because you don't want your son to
    be a future Rosa Parks.  If mindless obedience is good enough for six
    billion people, it's good enough for your son too!
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>   <<< Note 842.137 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    If a banned toy is brought to the classroom, the toy is taken away,
>    the teachers explain to the child why it was taken away, and we parents
>    would be reminded of the policy of the classroom later that day.

       But Marsden wouldn't be suspended?  Fancy that.

    
    Not for a Buzz Lightyear.
    
    But if he pulled a toy gun out at lunch, he'd almost certainly be
    sent home for the day.
    
    								-mr. bill

ban 1 toy in school, then ban all toys in school (stupid admistrators making 
kids decide which toys they can bring to school instead of letting the teachers 
teach the kids).

and why can't the kids throw out the food they don't want? some food goes 
rancid and could be a health concern if the kid decides to eat it later in the 
day. and since when is sharing brownies and chocochip cookies such an evil 
thing?

gawd, just shut down all the schools and we end the silly stupid probs that 
dweebs worry about to begin with.

>     and since when is sharing brownies and chocochip cookies such an evil 
>thing?

How about life-threatening allergies?

    No kidding.  What's wrong with swapping the PB&J for a balogna on
    white?  Sheesh.  Things really were simpler "back then".
    

>    No kidding.  What's wrong with swapping the PB&J for a balogna on
>    white?  Sheesh.  Things really were simpler "back then".
 

 lotsa kids are allergic to peanut butter, it seems.



 Jim   

i don't usually keep the ball rolling, but it's one of those responsibility 
things:  all the kids/adults i know that have an allergy towards certain foods 
know to keep away from those foods and have been instructed to do so since they 
can remember; what they hate is for some weenie to come along and constantly 
hound them about if they know if they are eating the right foods.  i suppose 
some parents tell the schools that their child is allergic to bee stings and 
supplies the appropriate bee sting kit (we do) to insure that their kid is taken
care, thusly the same administrators should be aware the johnny or sally is 
allergic to chocolate, etc.  the kids are supervised aren't they or is some 
frumpy unhappy housewife looking for something to do and decide to become a hall
monitor looking after them?

sheesh people, get a grip: life is NOT that scary; it's the wackos that take an 
issue to the extremes i worry about.

|   ban 1 toy in school, then ban all toys in school
    
    So much for thinking and judgement.
    
|   and why can't the kids throw out the food they don't want?
    
    1 - each kid making multiple trips to the trash can was disruptive.
    2 - parents want to know what kids do or don't eat.  This is the
        most efficient (if not always the most pleasant) way to find out.
    
|   some food goes rancid and could be a health concern if the kid decides
|   to eat it later in the day.
    
    1 - you've heard of cold packs, haven't you?
    2 - lunch is eaten during - surprise - lunch.  Lunch boxes don't get
        opened again after lunch is done.
    
|and since when is sharing brownies and chocochip cookies such an evil 
|thing?
    
    1 - Since there are parents who don't want their children eating
        brownies and chocochips cookies.
    2 - Since there are chilren with allergies.
    
    
    Before someone says "you mean you can't send a batch of cookies
    to school with your kid, what's the world coming to?"
    
    You *can* send a batch of cookies to school with your kid.  Your kid
    gives them to the teacher in the morning, and the teacher shares them
    with the children at snack time.  Imagine that, rational huh?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 842.140 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>                      -< You think it's silly.  I don't. >-

	Yup, and you still haven't justified suspending the child
	as far as I'm concerned.  Not even close.

gee, billy boy- you're one of the ones that scare me. always reading way too 
much into the simplest of things. i should've have clarified that banning toys 
in school seems a ridiculous thing, unless of course they aren't only played 
with at recess (which is the way is was in my days); if they are a disrruption 
in the classroom, then there is a problem with the teacher not doing what they 
are paid for. however, if the school and parents  decide to ban toys in school, 
then so be it; you just don't tell johnny or sally which toy they can take to 
school to play with in the classroom: it's either any or none.

too many kids taking trips to the trash can during lunch? oh my!

    well, we won't say anything to you when the next child is killed with a
    toy gun, but please let us know when Unsolved Mysteries will schedule
    it for programming. I wanna see Stack explain that one!

|   it's either any [toy] or none.
    
    Well, having "clarified" things you finish with exactly the same thing.
    
    The choice isn't ban everything or ban nothing.
    
    I really can trust a teacher to figure out that certain toys disrupt
    the classroom and certain toys do not.  Remarkably, the teachers were
    more than able to communicate this observation to the parents.  Even
    more amazing, *FOUR YEAR OLDS* are able to comprehend a world of grey.
    
    
    You want to know what's most amazing?  It works.  Young children
    can figure out what "from home" toys can be brough to school and which
    can't.  All by themselves even.  *GASP*.
    
    They can even figure out that there are only certain times of the day
    when they can play with at home toys.  *AMAZING*.
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 842.150 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    You want to know what's most amazing?  It works.  Young children
>    can figure out what "from home" toys can be brough to school and which
>    can't.  All by themselves even.  *GASP*.

	And they can probably figure out they shouldn't bring certain
	toys to school again without being suspended.  *GASP*.

|   	Yup, and you still haven't justified suspending the child
|	as far as I'm concerned.  Not even close.
    
    
    Tell you what.  Next time you are sitting on board an airplane,
    open your briefcase and show the passengers around you your toy
    gun.

    When they release you from custody a few hours later, feel free to
    whine that it wasn't justified.
    
    								-mr. bill

    .150
    
    No Fair! He's speaking from practical experience.
    

>   <<< Note 842.152 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>

	Oh, another scenario that has nothing to do with the current
	topic of discussion.  Quelle surprise.

 thank goodness he didn't bring cigarettes to school.

    Ooh this mindless obediance thing is still giving me a hard time.
     If I become a libertarian and some entity transgresses or trespasseth
     against me, should I sue, or pat them on the back for demonstrating
     independent thought?
     

>                     <<< Note 842.156 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>

   If you can't decide that for yourself, you should probably give up on
   the notion of becoming a libertarian, dear.

    .156
    
    you should muster all the hated authorities you can 
    against your opponent.  make it a hobby.

>    You want to know what's most amazing?  It works.  Young children
>    can figure out what "from home" toys can be brough to school and which
>    can't.  All by themselves even.  *GASP*.
    
     How is this possible without mass suspensions? Perhaps, because 
    knee-jerk suspensions aren't necessary after all?
    
     Funny how you rail about how "right" it was to suspend the child, yet
    you yourself provide evidence that such extremes are unnecessary, and
    you can even obtain the desired behavior! My goodness, what a complete
    surprise that is! *GASP*.

    Thanks ladies.  I don't know what Id do if I had to think for myself.
    It's a jolly good job that I have this forum.

    >I'll remember your ilk's refrain the next time I read about a child who
    >was shot dead by a "toy gun."
    
     Document a single case where anyone has died from being shot from a
    plastic toy gun of the type used in the commission of this horrible
    crime. Of course you can't, but it's ever so melodramatic when you beat
    your chest...
    
    >You're absolutely convinced that Mom is right and absolutely convinced
    >that teacher and vice-principal are absolutely wrong.
    
     Absolute is too strong a word. Given the information we have, the
    vice-principal overreacted. And even though I feel the
    vice-principal overreacted, that does not make her "absolutely wrong."
    It was appropriate to remove the toy from the child's possession. It
    was inappropriate to make a such a big deal out of it.
    
     And for the record, there are plastic toy guns (and other toys) that
    are dangerous and ought to be prohibited, so do me a favor and don't
    try to put words into my mouth.

    re:.92 >Some of you are really starting to scare me.
    
    {drool}

|   Funny how you rail about how "right" it was to suspend the child, yet
|   you yourself provide evidence that such extremes are unnecessary, and
|   you can even obtain the desired behavior! My goodness, what a complete
|   surprise that is! *GASP*.                                  
    
    1 - Suspension for this infraction can be justified - even for a five
    	year old.  (Even for a four year old.)
    2 - Outside of a onesided story from one whining mom, nobody has given
    	me reason boo to suspect the judgement of the teacher and the
    	vice-principal.  They decided to suspend the child IN THIS CASE.
    	They haven't been heard from, have they?
    3 - I'm not arguing that you *MUST* suspend a child, I'm saying that
    	you *can* suspend a child.
    
    Now, if you have a quote from the vice-principal that she *WAS FORCED*
    by the rules to suspend the child because rules is rules, then I'll
    join with the 'box rabble in condemning such foolishness.
    
    But pardon me if I disagree that suspending a five year old can't be
    justified.  It most certainly can.
    
    								-mr. bill

|   >I'll remember your ilk's refrain the next time I read about a child who
|   >was shot dead by a "toy gun."
|
|   Document a single case where anyone has died from being shot from a
|   plastic toy gun of the type used in the commission of this horrible
|   crime. Of course you can't, but it's ever so melodramatic when you beat
|   your chest...
    
    Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
    Sadly, a young child dies.
    
    How do you figure this could happen?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >But pardon me if I disagree that suspending a five year old can't be
    >justified.  It most certainly can.
    
     Nobody ever said it couldn't. What was said was that nothing has been
    demonstrated that even remotely justifies the suspension of this
    particular child for this particular infraction. You choose to
    disagree. Fine. But, for the record, what is the particular
    circumstance that justifies this particular suspension, in your mind?

  .165  good - let's see if you can get an answer - i can't seem to.

>  .165  good - let's see if you can get an answer - i can't seem to.
    
     I will continue to breathe in the interim. ;-)

Too bad I gave up drugs decades ago.  This would be a great time for joint.

   > Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
   > Sadly, a young child dies.
   > 
   > How do you figure this could happen?
   
   So you're saying that there is some connection between 5 year old
   children bringing toy guns to school and:

	Parents who leave guns accessible to kids?
	Kids getting hold of a real gun and popping one off?

   Do you think either of these things couldn't or wouldn't happen
   if the child didn't bring a toy gun to school?

   
   Television is so much greater an influence in this regard ...

   Doug.

   

    Let's see.                              
    Joshua pulls a toy gun out during lunch and creates "quite a disturbance."
    
    There's the judgement of the teacher that the behavior was serious
    enough to send Joshua to the principal's office - not simply take the
    toy and tell mom at the end of the day no more toy guns in school.
    
    The *first* adult's judgement.
    
    There's the judgement of the vice-principal that the child should be
    suspended.
    
    A second adult's judgement.
    
    There's the assertion by the school superintendent that the principal
    has a lot of discretion to suspend the child.
    
    A third adult's judgement.
    
    The school superintendent calls the Doherty quadrant manager, the
    vice-principal, and confirm the judgement of the vice-principal
    that the boy would be suspended for a day.
    
    Four responsible adults now feel that *this* case suspension is
    justified in this case.
    
    
    What would make me question their judgement?  Ah, they clearly are
    mindless idiots following the rules to absurd conclusions.
    
    
    Clearly I should believe the 23 year old single mom who let her five
    year old stay up late the night of his suspension over those blathering
    idiots.
    
    								-mr. bill

   > Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
   > Sadly, a young child dies.
   > 
   > How do you figure this could happen?


Uh,

1) He chokes on it
2) He's running and chasing someone with it.  He falls on it, and it
pierces his heart
3) He gets suspended from school, and his father, outraged over his child's
transgression, shakes him to death
4) Some do-gooder liberal (like me) takes it away from him, and screams at
him about playing with toys that perpetuate the patriarchal penchant for
war and violence.  The terrified child flees in terror, inadvertantly
running in front of a bus.

    Oh, so your justification is based on facts not in evidence. Thanks.

->    Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
->    Sadly, a young child dies.
    
->    How do you figure this could happen?
    
								-mr. bill

  
i guess we're no longer talking about toys?  

  
>  Joshua pulls a toy gun out during lunch and creates "quite a disturbance."
 
  So it is Joshuas' behaviour that he is being suspended for .......


  Hmmm .....

    re: .164
    
    	>Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
        >Sadly, a young child dies.
    
        >How do you figure this could happen?
    
    The trigger broke off and he swallowed it?  He cut his
    aorta on a sharp piece of plastic?  His parents never
    bothered to point out the difference between a *toy*
    gun and a *real* gun?  
    
    I supposed one could also be injured by mistaking
    a real blender for the fake one, or a real lawnmower
    for a fake one, or a real hammer for a fake one.  There
    are lots of child sized toys that mimic their adult counterparts.
    
    Most handguns are much heavier than their toy counterparts.
    Most handguns look like weapons, ie they aren't read or blue
    or have little cowboy stickers on them.  Most adult weapons aren't
    marked "Official Star Wars Light Sabre" or "Official Robo-Cop
    Handgun".  
    
    I suppose we could just ban everything and raise an entire
    generation that's afraid of it's own shadow.  Let's just hope
    we don't have to ever ask them to fight for anything.  
    
    

  gee, and even I got that one - child picks up toy gun, other person
 with real gun thinks toy gun is real and shoots child

  of course, the fact that that exact scenario has been in the news
 several times takes a bit of the lustre off my guess...

  bb

>  gee, and even I got that one - child picks up toy gun, other person
> with real gun thinks toy gun is real and shoots child
>
>  of course, the fact that that exact scenario has been in the news
> several times takes a bit of the lustre off my guess...


In the middle of lunch period?

    re: .176
    
    Oh well, there's a likely scenario: 
    
    "A 5 year old child was killed today when he took
    out a gun and demanded the boy next to him eat a 
    peanut butter sandwich.  The other child then pulled a 
    rock out of his lunchbox and hit the gun-toting boy
    on the head, killing him instantly. The mother of
    the child with the toy gun is being sued by the
    school district.  The boy with the rock is being
    hailed as a hero in the fight against violence
    in the schools.  
    
    Next up, hockey!"
    

<-               <<< Note 842.171 by BULEAN::BANKS "Saturn Sap" >>>
�   > Young child picks up a "toy gun" and plays with it.
�   > Sadly, a young child dies.
�   > 
�   > How do you figure this could happen?

  You are on the right track here, but i think the scenario plays out
  more like this.

  5 year old child takes out toy gun at school.
  <person-in-authority-at-school> fires up ol' Sparky and teaches that
  kid a real lesson.

  Sadly, a young child dies.

kb

    Ooh ooh!  Here's another one.
    
    The child picks up a toy gun.  His science teacher (mistaking the gun
    for a barometer) asks the child to measure the height of the school
    building using it as a tool.
    
    The child attempts to scale the exterior of the building (measuring its
    height in "gun lengths"), and inadvertantly falls to his death.
    
    

>   <<< Note 842.170 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    What would make me question their judgement?

	Your understanding of the nature of bureaucratic processes, perhaps?

    
>    "A 5 year old child was killed today when he took
>    out a gun and demanded the boy next to him eat a 
>    peanut butter sandwich.  The other child then pulled a 
>    rock out of his lunchbox and hit the gun-toting boy
>    on the head, killing him instantly. The mother of
>    the child with the toy gun is being sued by the
>    school district.  The boy with the rock is being
>    hailed as a hero in the fight against violence
>    in the schools.  
    
 
    but you forgot to mention, that while this was going on, another kid
 grabbed the peanut butter sandwich and had an allergic reaction..the mother
 of the hero is being sued by the mother of the PB thief.


 Jim    

    Re .150:
    
    > Even more amazing, *FOUR YEAR OLDS* are able to comprehend a world of
    > grey.
    
    Then why can't you?  Your position is among the most extreme in the
    conference:  No compromise, no tolerance for any disagreement with
    authority, not even any acceptance of the need to support your position
    with actual data.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

wahoo! youse guys are a hit! 

let's see, you made it proper to suspend the kid because 3 (or 4?) _adults_ 
said they agreed? however, each agreed with the previous one's decision and in 
this pc world, lets not disrepect those who have been given some 'power' less we
hurt their wittle feelwings.

it's about a freakin' toy TOY T O Y  T O Y  T O Y !!!  

BTW: _i_ would've laughed (and prolly said worse) if'n it was my kid and would 
still have let 'im (her) stay up on a non school night 'cause _i_ should've been
more sensitive to the wants of the school (didn't it send home a school book 
outlining do's and don't's and didn't i read it?)

So, what "socially advanced" countries have banned such toys completely?

Sweden we know about.

Wasn't Canada considering it?

/john

|>    What would make me question their judgement?
|
|	Your understanding of the nature of bureaucratic processes, perhaps?
    
    Such a prejudice is all the 'box rabble have to go on in this
    particular case, isn't it?
    
    Odd how the mindless school bureaucrat always seems to be located at
    some *OTHER* school.
    
    Odd how 'boxers very own school bureaucrats seem to be rational folks.
    (Example - .2 and .4.)
    
    
    BTW, I'll freely admit a bias here.  In my experience, most "stupid
    school official trick" stories fall apart quickly.  The fact that
    there aren't hundreds and hundreds of "stupid school official trick"
    stories related (people get a lot of mileage out of that kiss) says
    they are pretty damn rare events.
    
    
    BTW, the biggest source of conflict between pre-school bureaucrats and
    parents?  Potty training.
    
    								-mr. bill

    ...and because they are rare they should be discounted and are not
    consequential? sorry, no sale.
    
    just for the record, it's the 'box rabble 15 - Mr. Bill 0.

|   ...and because they are rare they should be discounted and are not
|   consequential? sorry, no sale.
    
    No, just hightened scrutiny is all.  Sorry if I require a few facts
    before I leap off the cliff with the 'box rabble.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    aye, we are a motley crew.

 billy billy bo pilly, bananafana fo filly, fee fi fo fo milly

    i have read nothing that resembles people going off the deep end.
    
    heightened scrutiny would lead me to believe that a more reasonable
    reaction would have been exercised. particularly in a situation where
    the powers that be are unclear on policy and the background on how the
    toy actually made it into the school.

Back in my high school days, two friends and I skipped study hall and spent
some time in the stage hall. There was a projector in the room. We were goofing
around but never gave that piece of equipment a second thought when ...

An AV flunky came into the room and caught my two friends skipping class.
I, being in the right place at the right time, was able to conceal myself
and watch the ensuing conversation in amazement. The AV flunky accused
the two of trying to steal parts off the projector (they were no where
near it) and reported these 'facts' to the VP.

The VP dragged their butts down to his office, accused them of attempted
theft of projector parts so they could sell them to get cash to buy drugs
with, and suspended them.

So, I says to myself, I can't let this injustice continue. I march down
to the VP office and tell him the story and letting him know what a fine
example he is setting for the rest of us when he accuses me of being
part of the projector theif gang and suspends my sorry butt too.

Fortunate for me I have a redheaded pitbull for a mom who saw things as they
were. I was later brought back to the VP office where it became quite 
clear that the VP must have been a schizophrenic because while he may 
have looked the same on the outside, his behaviour was that of a different 
person altogether. My mom has that effect on some people :-)

While Mr. William may choose to side with the admin staff when there is
no evidence to support such a position, I choose to put the burden
of proof on the admin staff and the benifit of the doubt goes to the
5 year old and his mom.

>   <<< Note 842.187 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Such a prejudice is all the 'box rabble have to go on in this
>    particular case, isn't it?

        No.  We have the story in .1.

    Re .189:
    
    > Sorry if I require a few facts before I leap off the cliff with the
    > 'box rabble.
    
    Oh, there's no problem with you leaping.  The problem is with you
    requiring "a few facts" before leaving a building when the fire alarm
    goes off.  And a second problem is you requiring " a few facts" when
    you rarely provide the same to others.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|       No.  We have the story in .1.
    
    Which by your own admission, does not answer:
    
    	a) if toy guns are forbidden
    	b) if the child had permission from mom to bring toy gun to school
    	c) if the child is a "problem child" (what that has to do with it,
    	   I'll never know)
    	d) if a reprimand would be sufficient
    	e) if his parents [uh, parent] is capable of making sure it not
    	   happen again.
    
    We do have two firm answers:
    	f) He is five, and it is a toy.
    
    								-mr. bill

    >   -< re: .165  Don't you think there's a "rest of the story" here? >-
    
     There may well be, but I'm not going to base any conclusions on what
    "the rest of the story" may turn out to be. You choose to base your
    conclusions on an untold "rest of the story" that is favorable to the
    school administrators. I choose to base my conclusions, subject to
    revision as is necessary in light of whatever relevant facts become
    available, on the facts as we know them, not on a "rest of the story"
    that may not even exist.
    
     Funny that you elect to base your support of the administration on
    the conjecture that some circumstances exist which provide the elusive
    justification for this strong sanction. I doubt you'll ever hear a
    "rest of the story" that provides a substantive basis for the
    suspension for the very simple reason that I don't think such a basis
    exists in this case. 

|       No.  We have the story in .1.
    
>    Which by your own admission, does not answer:
    
>    	a) if toy guns are forbidden
>    	b) if the child had permission from mom to bring toy gun to school
>    	c) if the child is a "problem child" (what that has to do with it,
>    	   I'll never know)
>    	d) if a reprimand would be sufficient
>    	e) if his parents [uh, parent] is capable of making sure it not
>    	   happen again.
    
    Nor does it contain any evidence whatsoever of circumstances that would
    lead a reasonable person to believe that any suspension was necessary
    and proper resolution to the incident.

>   <<< Note 842.196 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    We do have two firm answers:
>    	f) He is five, and it is a toy.

	Ah.  And these would seem to be the most relevant aspects of this
	whole overblown incident.  He is five and it is a toy.  Think about
	that for a minute or two.  Let it sink in.  Don't rush.  Close your
	eyes, if necessary.  

>    	f) He is five, and it is a toy.
    
    Imagine.  Ah yes, the consequences of getting suspended for a day from
    Kindergarten.
    
    He'll never catch up from all the work he missed yesterday.
    
    Any thoughts of getting into Harvard are dashed.  Ruined.  (Maybe Yale
    will take him.  They took George Herbert Walker Bush after all.)
    
    A promising political career ruined by such a "weapons violation."
    (Didn't seem to effect Alan Cranston's career when he offed a few
    mailboxes, but these are different times.  And he was older, and
    knew better.  Anyhow, certainly CIA director seems completely out
    of the question, what with what the FBI background checks will
    turn up and all.)
    
    I think mom is right, his chances of being a police officer 20 years
    from now are very very slim.  (Of course, his chances of being a police
    officer 20 years from now were very very slim.  Odd thing about five
    year old's, their career's often diverge so dramatically from their
    current plans.)
    
    
    -----
    
    More seriously.
    
    So, if he was six, then it would be OK to suspend him?  Seven?  Eight?
    How old before the "little sweetheart" loses the benefit of the doubt
    with you?  Eighteen?
    
    And it's a toy.  Ah, that's different then.  Create a disturbance,
    you might be suspended.  Create a disturbance with a toy - ah can't
    be suspended.
                 
    								-mr. bill

Of course, it is punishment for the parent if the parent works.  Now,
there's a kid at home, and care has to be arranged.

Maybe they were trying to punish the mom for saying it was ok.

>   <<< Note 842.200 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Imagine.  Ah yes, the consequences of getting suspended for a day from
>    Kindergarten.

        If the consequences are so negligible, then why do it at all?
	Just to be unnecessarily dramatic?

>    How old before the "little sweetheart" loses the benefit of the doubt
>    with you?  Eighteen?

        You're assuming that he would lose the benefit of the doubt at
	some point.  Not necessarily a safe assumption to make, but
	irrespective of that, it's irrelevant.  He is five.

>    And it's a toy.  Ah, that's different then.  Create a disturbance,
>    you might be suspended.  Create a disturbance with a toy - ah can't
>    be suspended.

	I never said that anyone creating a disturbance with a toy
	couldn't be suspended.

  >  So, if he was six, then it would be OK to suspend him?  Seven?  Eight?
  >  How old before the "little sweetheart" loses the benefit of the doubt
  >  with you?  Eighteen?
 
  A measured response based on the infraction and the age is all we ask.

  >    And it's a toy.  Ah, that's different then.  Create a disturbance,
  >  you might be suspended.  Create a disturbance with a toy - ah can't
  >  be suspended.
 
  Having trouble distiguishing between intended behaviour and results?
  He could well have puked up on his little classmates at lunch which
  would certainly have created a disturbance, but you wouldn't have
  suspended him for that. Or would you?

  Showing a toy gun to classmates that are conditioned to run to the nearest
  adult upon seeing such a thing does not equate to poor behaviour on the
  childs part.

  Confiscation of the toy, with a brief explaination ('we don't bring toys
  to school Joshua') is all that is necessary to address the issue.

  Now, if the kid pulled out the gun and started behaving poorly ('gee Joshua,
  you shouldn't be threatening your classmates' that would be a different
  story. However, there is no indication of poor behaviour in the piece.

  Doug.

|   He is five.
    
    Is there *anything* a five year old can do to warrant a suspension?
    
    								-mr. bill

>   <<< Note 842.204 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    Is there *anything* a five year old can do to warrant a suspension?

	Yes.

|  Now, if the kid pulled out the gun and started behaving poorly ('gee Joshua,
|  you shouldn't be threatening your classmates' that would be a different
|  story.
    
    Evidently it would not be a different story.  He is five.  And it's a toy.
    
|   However, there is no indication of poor behaviour in the piece.
    
    "Created quite a disturbance" might be a clue.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Playing with fire.
    Pulling the fire alarm.
    Beating up on another kid, unprovoked.
    Smoking.
    Doing drugs. 
    Bringing a real weapon to school, not a toy gun, butter knife or x-acto
    for a school project.  
    
    For starters.

>   <<< Note 842.206 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    "Created quite a disturbance" might be a clue.

	One can create quite a disturbance without intending to do so and
	indeed without even knowing the disturbance has been created.

    
|>    "Created quite a disturbance" might be a clue.
|
|	One can create quite a disturbance without intending to do so and
|	indeed without even knowing the disturbance has been created.
    
    Might might be a clue.
    
    But it doesn't matter.  He is five and it's a toy.
    
    								-mr. bill

    maybe he brandished it.

    Brandished a ruckus?  My my that would be quite a sight.  

>   <<< Note 842.209 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
    
>    But it doesn't matter.  He is five and it's a toy.

	You're starting to catch on, I see.  Now if you could just
	expand that to include "so suspending him from school is
	ludicrous", we'll have made some real progress.

    
    i have never heard of *any* five year old suspended from school before.
    This whole matter is ridiculous. not to mention over 210-215 replies
    since late yesterday on this subject alone.

>    <<< Note 842.213 by ACISS1::BATTIS "Kansas Jayhawks-Toto's favorite" >>>

> not to mention over 210-215 replies
> since late yesterday on this subject alone.

	just shocking, isn't it?  why if i didn't know better, i'd think
	this was Soapbox.

|   i have never heard of *any* five year old suspended from school before.
    
    Because most mommies and daddies don't call a newspaper when their kid
    is suspended from Kindergarten.  And once upon a time, a newspaper
    editor would not publish a non-story.
    
    This is *not* the first five year old who couldn't go to school one day.
    And yesterday wasn't the last school day a five year old will miss.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    	RE: .146
    
    	Geez, so many contradictions, so little time.  But I'll pick two:
    
    	1)  Kids making several trips to trash to dispose of unwanted food
    	    is "disruptive".  However, lunch is only eaten during, surprise,
    	    lunch.  Who cares if lunch is "disrupted"?
    
    	2)  How do allergies know if a child got cookies from a fellow
    	    student rather than the teacher?  Are allergy molecules really
    	    as omniscient as you make them out to be?
    

>     And once upon a time, a newspaper  
>     editor would not publish a non-story.

 Some old newspaper guy said: 
      Dog bites man is NOT a story
      Man bites dog IS a story

      A five year old suspended from kindergarten for having a toy smacks of
      "Man bites dog". 

      

|    	1)  Kids making several trips to trash to dispose of unwanted food
|    	    is "disruptive".  However, lunch is only eaten during, surprise,
|    	    lunch.  Who cares if lunch is "disrupted"?
    
    Uh, gosh, the children and the teachers?  You feed lunch to a couple of
    dozen four year olds.  What works for older children won't always
    work best for younger children.  In the toddler room the kids aren't
    expected to unpack and pack their lunchboxes.  Wow, paying attention
    to what children can and can't be expected to accomplish.  Amazing.
    
|    	2)  How do allergies know if a child got cookies from a fellow
|    	    student rather than the teacher?  Are allergy molecules really
|    	    as omniscient as you make them out to be?
    
    No, allergy molecules are stupid dolts.  Oddly enough, teachers aren't
    stupid dolts.  Since the teacher knows about the allergies of the
    children, they can help along by not giving them food that causes
    an allergic reaction.  Rocket science, huh?  (The children with food
    allergies even have a stash of treats for when they can't have the
    peanut butter cookies someone sends in.  Wow, huh?)
    
    								-mr. bill

    Now here's a story, of a boy named Billy
    Who thought that he was having a lucky day.
    He found a dollar, and bought a toy gun,
    And from that moment his life has been in disarray.
    
    It seems that Bill, had aspirations,
    Of a future involving a Badge and Cap.
    One day at lunchtime, he flashed his toy gun,
    The result was a situation one could only refer to as being crap.
    
    Seems Billy's teacher had to disagree with Billy's mother,
    On the severity of Billy's little crime.
    The lesson, as learned by Billy....
    Get in trouble, stay up late and watch primetime.

    
    	RE: .218
    
    	Yeah, and parent #1 makes cookies and for some reason decides to
    	put a dash of ginger or oregano in the cookies and the teacher
    	hands them out and for some reason child #2 develops a serious
    	rash.
    
    	That's definitely preferable to what would have happened had child
    	#2 gotten the cookies directly from child #1.  Namely, child #2
    	would have developed a serious rash.
    

    oregano in cookies?  really?

    >    Because most mommies and daddies don't call a newspaper when their kid
    >    is suspended from Kindergarten.  And once upon a time, a newspaper
    >    editor would not publish a non-story.

    Turn on a radio Bill. Watch the news. Read the papers. This kind of
    stuff is in vogue right now. I can imagine reporters hanging outside
    of schools just looking for the kid who got suspended for lack of
    reasoned judgment.

    5 year old boy kisses 5 year old girl; Sexual harassment the adults
    say. Suspend 'em.

    Girl carries midol for cramps with parents permission. Zero tolerance
    the adults say. Suspend 'em.

    Asthmatic requires inhaler and is thrown out because he didn't involve
    the nurse. No adult supervision in dispensing drugs. Zero tolerance.
    Suspend 'em.

    Gym teacher sends gradeschool asthmatic having an attack to walk across
    a large athletic field to the school nurse, who doesn't show for
    another 15 minutes while the attack progresses to the point that an
    ambulance is required. (This was local).

    These occurrences aren't nearly as rare as you might think.

    Adult stupidity makes great news in the mid '90s ...

    Seems the punishment of the times is suspension ...
    
    Doug.

'look classmates, little billy brought in cookies! everyone will get one during 
break. uh, sorry, johnny; he didn't bring in a kind you cane at and i don't have
anyhting for you- you just sit there and wait while your classmates enjoy the 
treat!'

lunchtime disruptions: i wish to h*ll somebody would hand out numbers to tell 
the folks in the hlo cafe when it's time to throw out their food! it can be so 
disruptive, what with everyone crashing at the dumpsters to discard their trays,
etc. not too mention the dolts that can't remember to pick up condiments and 
plastic ware and such getting in the way!

so disruptive!

    Re .200:
    
    > Imagine.  Ah yes, the consequences of getting suspended for a day from
    > Kindergarten.

    You seemed to think staying up late had serious consequences or that
    seeing his mother laugh at the assistant principal had serious
    consequences.  Will he never catch up on his sleep?  Will he never get
    into Harvard because of those?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    After over 200 replies, Bill has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever
    that the punishment was an appropriate response in proportion to the
    "crime"; moreover, he has yet to produce a single benefit that is
    expected to result from the suspension that would not have resulted
    from the teacher simply removing the "disruptive" object from the
    child's possession and telling him he was not to bring it into school
    again. The best he can do is imply that perhaps there are elements to
    the story that have not been revealed that somehow provide the
    justification that has proven so elusive thus far- a most tenuous
    position. Of course, Bill freely admits this implication is fueled by
    his bias in favor of the administration. He's being remarkably OJMish
    here.

    One benefit of the suspension:
    
    The kid will learn how important it is to have a job in school
    administration.  You can exercise a napoleonic complex unchecked, and
    while ruling your liliputian domain, feel comfortable in the knowledge
    that no matter how screwed up your own life is, you have the power to
    reach out and screw up someone else's.

  .225  You noticed that too.

|    	Yeah, and parent #1 makes cookies and for some reason decides to  
|    	put a dash of ginger or oregano in the cookies and the teacher
|    	hands them out and for some reason child #2 develops a serious
|    	rash.
    
    Oregano in cookies?
    
    Teacher asks parent - what's in the cookies?  Flour, sugar, ginger and
    oregano.  (Bleaugh.)
    
|    	That's definitely preferable to what would have happened had child
|    	#2 gotten the cookies directly from child #1.  Namely, child #2
|    	would have developed a serious rash.
    
    Child#2 asks Child#1 "what's in the cookies".  Child#1 answers "good
    stuff".  Child#2 asks "any nuts?"  Child#1 answers - noooooooooo,
    no nuts.  Child#2 knows she can't eat nuts.  Child#1 knows what
    nuts are, and they are crunchy.  These cookies do not have them.
    Nope.  (Too bad they have almond extract.)
    
    Believe it or not, it is better to get a rash from a known food than
    it is to get a rash from an unknown food.  The chances of finding
    out what your child ate at lunch when the children are swapping
    food is slim.
    
    
    But I've got to ask you.  This policy seems to work and work well.
    This is *pre-school* afterall.  What's *your* problem with it?
    
    								-mr. bill
    

| uh, sorry, johnny; he didn't bring in a kind you cane at and i don't have
| anyhting for you- you just sit there and wait while your classmates enjoy the 
| treat!'
    
    **********************************************************************
    **********************************************************************
    (The children with food allergies even have a stash of treats for when
    they can't have the peanut butter cookies someone sends in.  Wow, huh?)
    **********************************************************************
    **********************************************************************
    
    See, that's not tough to understand, is it?
    
    You are right, it's tough on a four year old when classmates get to eat
    a treat and they don't. Which is why parents of children with dietary
    restrictions are *encouraged* to have some "special treats" in the
    refrigerator for their child.
    
    								-mr. bill
    

I think a policy of children eating the lunch they brought in is a good one.
I also think the discussion around this issue is diversionary.

With that said, my wife volunteers at two schools and often brings baked
goods as treats for the kids ....

Her latest batch of cookies were the best I've ever had :-)

Doug.

 it must have been the oregano

  bb

refrigerators in the classroom?! wow, things sure are diff in yo' world! so, how
long do the 'special treats' last? do they have to be changed regularly? more 
disruptions. are special treats stashed (hidden) in their desks/lockers/coat 
pockets/etc? " why is johnny getting a special treat and the rest of us aren't?"

just how many people have friggin allergies? and why aren't they livin in a 
bubble? and is a little rash something to fret over? while the same kid gets 
covered with poison ivy and "oh, i'm so sorry, there's not much we cna do 
except keep it cool and try to dry it out." then again, you're prolly one to run
to doctor for the "cure all" itch shot.

sheesh.

    Most "food allergies" aren't even allergies in a medical sense (where
    allergies are things that cause a histaminic reaction).  Many "food
    allergies" are either intollerances (makes the tummy hurt),
    overreactions to minor symptoms that everyone gets, or magic,
    previously unknown ailments revealed by some uneducated massage
    therapist, based on the sample from a single drop of blood.
    
    I have a lactose intolerance, which most people call a "food allergy,"
    even though it isn't.  As with virtually everyone else with a lactose
    intolerance, it takes a moderate amount of dairy to get a reaction out
    of me, and generally, it's something that makes everyone else suffer
    more than me.  And, it don't stop me from eating dairy, even though I
    usually avoid dairy, not because of the intolerance, but because I
    can't stand the stuff.  In fact, the intolerance is probably because I
    quit eating dairy products years ago.

    Re .228:
    
    > But I've got to ask you.  This policy seems to work and work well.
    > This is *pre-school* afterall.  What's *your* problem with it?
    
    If we answer the questions you ask, will you answer the questions we
    ask?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

|   refrigerators in the classroom?! wow, things sure are diff in yo' world!
    
    Yes, things are "diff" in my world.  Gosh, a pre-school with a few
    small refrigerators.
    
|   so, how long do the 'special treats' last? do they have to be changed
|   regularly?
    
    Well, that depends on the 'special treat' doesn't it?
    
|   more disruptions.
    
    Oddly enough, the burden of a parent checking on a batch of cookies
    from time to time is no higher than checking on bedding from time to
    time.
    
|   are special treats stashed (hidden) in their desks/lockers/coat
|   pockets/etc? 
    
    No.
    
|   "why is johnny getting a special treat and the rest of us aren't?"
    
    Everyone is getting a special treat, johnny is getting a different
    special treat.  Four years olds understand the concept.  [Obvious
    rhetorical question left unasked.]
    
|   just how many people have friggin allergies?
    
    There's a couple of children in Marsden's class.
    
|   and why aren't they livin in a  bubble?
    
    Uh, because they don't want to?
    
|   and is a little rash something to fret over?
    
    Sometimes.
    
|   while the same kid gets  covered with poison ivy and "oh, i'm so sorry,
|   there's not much we cna do  except keep it cool and try to dry it out."
    
    Well, there's also keeping children away from poison ivy whenever
    possible.  But that's too rational, huh?
    
|   then again, you're prolly one to run to doctor for the "cure all" itch
|   shot.
    
    Given your track record, chances you are right about that are slim.
    
|sheesh.
    
    You said it.
    
    								-mr. bill
    

|I think a policy of children eating the lunch they brought in is a good one.
    
    Clearly, there are people who disagree.
    
    Children should be taught only to obey the classroom rules that they
    agree with.  Damn it, if the little darlings want to share their lunch,
    they should be *encouraged* to do so.
    
    								-mr. bill

  >  Clearly, there are people who disagree.
  >  
  >  Children should be taught only to obey the classroom rules that they
  >  agree with.  Damn it, if the little darlings want to share their lunch,
  >  they should be *encouraged* to do so.
   
  While the policy is a good one, I don't expect anyone to get suspended
  over swapping a P&J for a Bologna&mustard ....

  A simple, well intentioned rule with simple oversite and no over-reactions.

  Doug.
 

    
| While the policy is a good one, I don't expect anyone to get suspended
| over swapping a P&J for a Bologna&mustard ....
    
| A simple, well intentioned rule with simple oversite and no over-reactions.
    
    You think it's a good policy.  Someone else thinks it's a bad policy.
    
    Any reaction to a bad policy is an over-reaction.
    
    (Well, near as I can tell, the only permitted reaction is a reward to
    the child for initiative for thinking for themselves.  In a dream
    world....)
    
    
    "I wanna have Bologna&mustard, who wants to swap their Bologna&mustard
    for a PB&J?????"
    
    "Good for you, Johnny, you violated a stupid dumb rule.  Unfortunately,
    none of your friends wants to swap, but let me run out to the store and
    buy you some Bologna&mustard.  Oscar Myer, or organically raised on
    a small family farm that donates 5% for peace?  Frenches, or Grey
    Poupon, or do you prefer to grind your own?"
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .233
    
    Agreed, however the school should concentrate on the 
    ones that have "drop dead" potential, ie the asthmatics
    and the throat swellers.  
    
    I have lactose intolerance too (almost 75% of adults do
    to some degree) and a couple of other food allergies 
    that give me a scratchy throat and eustachon tubes.  It
    is unpleasant enough, in general, to encourage me to stay away from
    the foods that cause them.  However, there are also certain
    foods that give me very, very bad asthma attacks (I missed
    3 days of work last year because someone forgot to tell me
    they put crushed almonds in their pie crust).  I stay away
    from those foods like the plague.
    

   
>  Any reaction to a bad policy is an over-reaction.
 
   An over-reaction to a situation, in support or dispite of policy,
   is a bad reaction.

   HTH

    I'm glad I don't have an allergy that gives me eustachon tubes. What
    are those anyway?

    >        -< Rosa Parks!  Rosa Parks!  Rosa Parks!  Rosa Parks! >-
    
     I'm beginning to wonder if continuing this discussion is beginning to
    take a toll on dear William.

    re: .241
    
    Eustachian.  Pardon me.
    
    Eustachian Tube:  The narrow tube that connects the middle
    ear and the pharynx and allows the pressures on both sides
    of the eardrum to equalize.
    
    Having both tubes and the back of your throat itch at the same
    time is very, very annoying.  Bananas, most melons except
    watermelon and lichee nuts cause this for me.  Drinking lots
    of water will mitigate the symptoms fairly quickly.  
    

|  An over-reaction to a situation, in support or dispite of policy,
|  is a bad reaction.
    
    So, running to the store is an over-reaction?  How about a gold star
    for violating a stupid rule?  Or is that too much too?
    
    How do we support our children in our quest to teach them to violate
    rules that children think are stupid?
    
    								-mr. bill

given .238 you have the audacity to attempt to belittle me with .235. 

reading for comprehension: the special treat johnny was eating was that which 
was 'stashed' for which i would find it safe to guess that not all 'stashed' 
treats are kept under 'lock 'n key' by the 'teacher'.  teach your kid to take 
in special treats that they can have because of <insert allergy>, and they will 
find a way to secretly 'stash' some, just like some 5 yr olds [but you lowered 
the age to 4] secretly 'stash' a toy to take to school for recess 'show 'n 
tell' [not that that is to say that the mom of the story didn't know about the 
toy].

however, i did fall into the trap of the ever blessed rathole; we are supposed 
to be talking about why a 5 yr was suspended for a toy.

given that most any 4-5 yr old would question why they have to stay home because
of a toy, do you understand the problem as the rest of us do? [i asked the 
rhetorical question as i'm not afraid to equate age with age up front]

|given .238 you have the audacity to attempt to belittle me with .235. 
    
    be little you?  why would i take my time for such a thing?
    
    								-mr. bill

    Thanks MM! But you really didn't have to clarify that, I knew exactly
    what you meant.

    8)

.244 duh.


Mary, why would you appear to blame some person for not telling you they put 
crushed almonds in their pie crust when it is you that have the allergy and 
should have asked is there any of <insert that which one is allergic to> in 
the treat?

|     I'm beginning to wonder if continuing this discussion is beginning to
|    take a toll on dear William.
    
    Thank you for your concern.
    
    FWIW, I've never met a child that had to be taught civil disobedience.
    
    And it's damn hard to keep a straight face when someone so small
    looks you in the eye, throws the ball across the living room, and
    stomps away YELLING "I TIME-OUT NOW!"
    
    								-mr. bill

    I did, they forgot and said no (they remembered as I was
    streaking out into the kitchen to get my inhaler).  If
    someone is unsure about the ingredients and can't say no
    with confidence, I forgo it.  In this instance, they were
    positive (I asked the person who made it) and simply forgot. If 
    someone is not familiar with food allergies, they may assume that
    very, very small quantities of a substance should not cause
    a problem.  That isn't always the case.  

    Re .236:
    
    > Children should be taught only to obey the classroom rules that they
    > agree with.
    
    Nobody has proposed that.  You fabricated that phony position.  What
    else have you fabricated?
    
    There are, for intelligent people, alternatives to obeying
    "authorities" mindlessly other than completely disobeying them.  Such
    alternatives including limiting the power of "authorities" and
    requiring them to abide by sensible rules themselves.
    
    Your characterization of letting children obey only the rules they want
    is as ridiculous as letting administrators obey only the rules they
    want.
    
         
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
>    I have lactose intolerance too (almost 75% of adults do
>    to some degree) and a couple of other food allergies 
 


  I have no patience for lactose, and I won't stand for it!    

    Parents protest teacher's taping of 9-year-old's mouth
    
    Associated Press, 03/20/97 13:02 
    
    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - Officials plan to decide by Friday on the fate
    of a substitute third-grade teacher who taped a 9-year-old girl's mouth
    shut to stop her from humming during a math class. 
    
    A group of parents want the teacher barred from the city's schools. 
    
    ``I know how kids can drive you crazy. But any type of tape over a
    child's mouth is abuse,'' said Shirley Johnson, grandmother and legal
    guardian of the girl, Sonia Monique Johnson. ``If a teacher can put
    tape on a child's mouth, she might do anything to get order.'' 
    
    The teacher, Monica Vasquez, was placed on paid leave last week, but
    Superintendent Marylou McGrath later decided to bring her back to the
    classroom. About 20 protesting parents met with McGrath on Wednesday to
    complain. 
    
    About 10 students previously taught by Vasquez wanted to speak on her
    behalf, but were not allowed into the meeting. 
    
    Students in the class at the Longfellow School tell different versions
    of what happened, but there is no dispute that Vasquez put a piece of
    paper tape over the mouth of Sonia Monique Johnson two weeks ago. 
    
    ``We were doing division, and I started humming and then she got this
    tape and put it on my mouth for about five minutes. I felt mad and
    scared,'' the child told the Boston Herald. 
    
    Laura Clarke told The Boston Globe that her daughter, Britany, 8, who
    sits next to Sonia in class, gave a similar description of what
    happened. 
    
    However school officials told the Globe that based on interviews with
    the teacher and students, Sonia urged the teacher to tape her mouth,
    joking that it might stop her from making noise in class. 
    
    Jim Ball, director of public information for Cambridge schools, said a
    decision on what will be done about the teacher is expected by Friday. 

    
    	Do school rules specifically prohibit in-class humming?
    
    	That's what I want to know.
    
    	I mean, hey, if she broke a rule then she deserved whatever she
    	got, right?
    

    I say the kid should have been suspended, her parents fined, and
    everyone should be started on Ritalin within the week.
    
    After all, it would be the result of the decision of two reasonable
    people...

    i'd like to know how a taped mouth would stop
    a person from humming.

    I just tried it! people could still hear me!

|   but there is no dispute that Vasquez put a piece of paper tape over the
|   mouth of Sonia Monique Johnson two weeks ago. 
    
    Gosh, wonder if there's a school rule that teachers can't tape a
    student's mouth shut?
    
    I mean, unless there's a clear rule, and unless the teacher was aware
    of the clear rule, we really shouldn't over-react and fire her, right?
    
    								-mr. bill

    I see the Ronco apostrophe remover is working...

    
    Very well.
    
    								-mr. bill

  In Holland, they can handle it.

  bb

Paper tape?  Those Cambridge schools are on the cutting edge of computer
technology.

    Re .258:
    
    > I mean, unless there's a clear rule, and unless the teacher was aware
    > of the clear rule, we really shouldn't over-react and fire her, right?
    
    Yes, right, if you believe teachers and five-year-olds should be held
    to the same standards.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

it seems that the schools says that the girl egged the 'teacher' into taping her
mouth shut; what school has 8 yr olds teach 8 yr olds and pays them for it?

need we get into this? [yeessss] the girl should have been escorted from the 
classroom, taken to the principal's office, her guardian(s) called, told not 
to do that sort of disruptive behavoir and made to write [oh, pick a number: 
500?] times that "i will not hum in class".

however, the teacher in this case should flat out be fired; not a lot of common
sense was used on the teacher's part to handle the situation except to act just
like the 8 yr old.

|   Paper tape?
    
    Must be the AP's Ronco brand remover.
    
    								-mr. bill

|however, the teacher in this case should flat out be fired; not a lot of common
|sense was used on the teacher's part to handle the situation except to act just
|like the 8 yr old.
    
    Nine year old.
    
    And you overestimate the maturity displayed by the teacher by a couple
    of years.
    
    (But there is no merit to the children's complaint that the teacher
    told them to "shut up.")
    
    								-mr. bill

>    How do we support our children in our quest to teach them to violate
>    rules that children think are stupid?

   Feel free to point out where anyone in this string was talking about
   childrens decisions. 

   In case you missed it, we are talking about adults decisions to childrens
   behavior.

   Children still need guidance and discipline. However, the measurement of
   that discipline is not equal at all ages and levels of maturity for the
   same offense, or even between the 1st and repeated offenses.

   Doug.
   
   

8, 9 , ... yadda yadda yadda

_adults_ are supposed to behave like adults, but then a lot of children do tend 
to teach adults a lot of different things.

Oh, wait a minute. Perhaps Mr. Bill  thinks Joshuas' mom is somehow teaching 
Joshua that violating the rules is ok by letting him stay up late!

Bwwaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa .....


I hope is isn't true, but is is a funny thought ....
Doug.

  "flat out fire" a public school teacher in Massachusetts ?

  bwahahahaha !!!

  free clue : you signed a union contract, or you wouldn't be operating
 a public school in Massachusetts.  It says you can't fire anybody except
 for the causes enumerated in it, and in the manner it prescribes.  I'm sure
 the adminstrators who suspended her with pay consulted the town counsel.

  And it isn't far from here to a union shutdown.

  bb

    
    	bb, you think that assault/battery on a student is within the
    	rules?
    

|  Feel free to point out where anyone in this string was talking about
|  childrens decisions. 
    
    Children's decisions.  But you are correct, nobody in this string was
    talking about teaching children that it's OK to violate school rules.
    
    								-mr. bill

  Slab, be prepared to raise the tax rate to pay for the massive
 settlement your town's lawyer will recommend.  You just might be able
 to do this if the girl was hospitalized, and the diagnosis was sexual
 assault.  Even then, you better have solid proof and prepare your case.

  bb

    >-< wrongful depravation of employment... >-
    
    deprivation. nnttm

    I did 2/3 of a teaching degree about 9 years ago and it was a really
    hard decision when I decided not to bother finishing the year but I
    realized that there were way too many things I didn't like about the
    classroom situation.  Glad I can look back now and say I made the right
    decision.  

    
    	bb says that the teacher can hide behind union protection and
    	that a rule has to be broken.
    
    	If the school/parent wants to pursue this, it's not impossible
    	that that would be the grounds for dismissal.
    

that was flat out abuse, but I might be swayed to agree with you (in this case);
we entrust these people with our children during the day to teach, discipline, 
correct, guide, help, heal, play with, etc.  I do not expect one to act like 
the age group they are teaching in front of the class (except in the form of 
play/recess/gym): told'ja so, did not, did to, did not, punch your eye, dare 
you, i will, go for it  or something long those lines.

Child abuse like that should be left in the home, where it belongs.

    > I did 2/3 of a teaching degree about 9 years ago...
    
    I did a similar thing, 20-something years ago; I was a physics
    major with a math minor and a secondary ed minor, planning to
    teach high school physics.  I'd completed all the course work,
    and was just about to throw away a semester doing the student
    teaching when I sat back, thought about my observations and
    experiences doing the teacher-assistant thing over the previous
    year or so, and ran like hell.
    
    > Glad I can look back now and say I made the right decision.
    
    Same here! :-)
    
    Chris

                                                                
|repremanded perhaps .... Fired? Seems a little extreme to me ...
    
    Anyone think a reprimand is too extreme?
    
    Maybe we should just mildly criticize the teacher's method?
    Oooh, maybe that's too extreme?
    
    How about a "please don't use such a teaching method again"
    Ooooh, maybe that's too extreme?  What if the teacher does it again,
    then we'll have to decide what punishment is not too extreme all over
    again.
    
    How about we "could you consider that this teaching method is most
    effective when used rarely?"
    
    Maybe that'll do it.
    Anyone think that's too extreme?
    
    								-mr. bill

    By the way, if the taped-mouth kid had had a blocked nose from a
    head cold or whatever, we could be talking about more than a little
    bruised ego here.
    
    "I swear, I thought she was napping!" probably would cut the
    mustard with today's weepy juries.
    
    Chris

    
    	And then the teacher pleads temporary insanity or plea-bargains
    	down to felony assault and escapes from prison in a year while
    	on a holiday furlough.
    
    	SSDD
    

    re.274/275
    
    I liked .274's title the first way.

    
    I've made a mistake! (gee, I hope the moderators don't suspend me :-)
    
    The first time I read the note I thought the teacher had tapped the
    child in the mouth.
    
    Taping a childs mouth shut is certainly unacceptable and the teacher
    should be handed her papers. 
    
    Doug.

    
    	[Trying to picture look on bartender's face when Doug asks what
    	 kind of beer he has on tape.]
    

  the scotch tapping lady, properly chastened, will walk

  the humming tyke will go on to be the next alanis

  'boxers have underestimated how distracting this is.  does anybody think
 that say, slab could note sensibly if miz_deb was hummin nearby ?

  bb

   My fear would be of the celophane(sp?) being inhaled by the child.

   
   

    
    	RE: .288
    
    	That's a loaded question, and one that could get me in trouble if
    	I were to answer it the way I wanted.
    
    	8^)
    

    
    Shush, you.  Don't even THINK it.
    

Damn. Take a three-day course and look what I miss...

>        <<< Note 842.288 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  'boxers have underestimated how distracting this is.

	what a crock - no-one seems to have underestimated anything.
	they just don't think taping the kid's mouth is appropriate -
	as if that's the only way to handle it.

  yes, you have.  you've underestimated the fact that the incident
 was SYMBOLIC and intended as such

  normal humans can both hum and breathe with their mouths closed
 indefinitely, and the administrators, the teacher, the parents,
 and the kids all knew that all along

  there never was any danger to anybody, not even close

  and what the parents were complaining about was discipline of any kind
 
  they consider school glorified daycare and could care less if anything
 gets taught.  they caused a stink because they don't discipline their
 kids at home, and expect the schools to accomodate their spoiled brats

  bb

>        <<< Note 842.294 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

>  yes, you have.  you've underestimated the fact that the incident
> was SYMBOLIC and intended as such

	no, they have not.  SYMBOLIC?  even if it was SYMBOLIC, which is
	just plain stupid, it doesn't mean that anyone has underestimated
	the level of distraction.  they have merely expressed their
	opinions about the actions taken, which were excessive and
	no doubt unnecessary.

Uh, you know, once upon a time, kids who were being "distracting" were just
sent to the office, where they could explain to the Principal how distracting
they were being.

Call me old-fashioned, but it seemed to work just fine when I was in school.

  disagree again.  Symbolic IS NOT just plain stupid - standing in the
 corner, writing 50 times, wearing a duncr cap, etc.  It may seem HARSH,
 but 'stupid' ?  In what way ?  All of the punishments meted out to kids
 are symbolic - we don't actually harm them, we attempt to shame them.

  As to excessive, no, it was too mild.

  and the parents who complained ?  they should have agreed with the
 punishment, and thanked the teacher for trying to keep order.  Instead,
 they demonstrated for anarchism.  Defenestration is too good for them.

  bb

>        <<< Note 842.297 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "And nothing else matters" >>>

  You want to call it "HARSH"?  Fine.  Doing something that harsh
  is stupid, as far as I'm concerned.  The scotch tape wielding teacher
  should have known it was inappropriate and would likely cause an
  incident, where non-physical options probably wouldn't have.  Stupid.

>  disagree again.  Symbolic IS NOT just plain stupid - standing in the
> corner, writing 50 times, wearing a duncr cap, etc.  It may seem HARSH,
> but 'stupid' ?  In what way ?  All of the punishments meted out to kids
> are symbolic - we don't actually harm them, we attempt to shame them.

 There are many ways to maintain control of children which do not
 include putting objects in the vicinity of childrens mouths where
 they can he ingested and possibly do harm.

 Discipline yes, endangerment no.

 Doug. 

| There are many ways to maintain control of children which do not
| include putting objects in the vicinity of childrens mouths where
| they can he ingested and possibly do harm.
    
    But if the teacher had pulled out a toy gun, that would be different.
    
    (For what it's worth, a five year old bringing what he thinks is a toy
    gun to school is far more dangerous to students than a scotch tape
    totin' teacher.  Well, that's not quite fair, since the teacher has
    demonstrated such awful judgement, who knows just how dumb things can
    get?)
    
    
    BTW, you all know that the teacher in question is a part-time temp who
    has worked in the classroom since January?
    
    								-mr. bill

She's a long-time substitute teacher who's been "team-teaching"
(which seems to mean job-sharing) for a short time.  Reminds me
of Viola Swamp in Harry Allard's "Miss Nelson" books.

 >   (For what it's worth, a five year old bringing what he thinks is a toy
 >   gun to school is far more dangerous to students than a scotch tape
 >   totin' teacher. 

  Not if is a real toy gun ....   

    
    
    	The teacher placed her hands on the student. She can't do that (can
    you say, assault and battery?). End of story...