Boy, 7, Suspended Over Imaginary Grenade

[Alarm]

I think whoever came up with that rule probably had been imbibing a little too much Absolut.

But Watkins, who had a meeting Wednesday with Lara-Black and Director of Elementary Education Paul Bankes to discuss the suspension, maintains that the principal told her Friday that the suspension was due to the imaginary grenade.

During Wednesday's meeting, Watkins alleges that Lara-Black changed her story, saying that Alex had been throwing rocks on the playground and that adult and students had provided accounts to that effect. When Watkins asked to see such statements, she says they were not provided to her.

I think the chances of their "absolute" being imaginary are going up.

[HazyCosmicJive]

Originally Posted by Dondi

What happened to the days when we could play cowboys and indians during recess?

That has its own set of cultural problems. The last time I ranted about it here, I was told that no one really plays it anymore, and I hope that's true.

I find it surprising that the general sentiment is to take the mother's story at face value. Isn't it possible that mom's version of the story favors her precious son? Isn't she at least as likely as the school to distort the story in a way that benefits her side?

[Richard W]

Well, the school does seemingly admit to having a rule which, taken seriously, could lead to exactly that situation. And when asked, they apparently pointed the press to it as a justification for the suspension.

So even if the actual suspension happened for a different reason, it still could have happened for the silly reason, and they gave the impression that it had done so by telling people the silly reason...

[HazyCosmicJive]

I guess I don't find "violation of a rule for which a student has been disciplined twice before" to be a silly reason.

[Richard W]

That depends on the rule, surely? If it's a silly rule then it doesn't stop being silly just because they repeated it three times. And it doesn't mean that he somehow wasn't suspended for throwing an imaginary grenade.

[RobDBlackwolf]

Of course, I personally wonder if his imaginary grenade was an actual rock. If a 7 year old throws a rock, pretending it to be a grenade, he might say it was an imaginary grenade.

[Beachlife!]

I would think that if it threw a rock, that would have come up in the article.

[erwins]

The school can't tell their side of the story because of FERPA. All there is to go on is what the mother is telling the press. It's possible she's faithfully relating what the school is telling her, it's possible that she's relating things based on mistaken impressions, and it's possible that she's deliberately obfuscating. There's really no way to know.

And the policy they pointed to says "weapons, real or play" which could just mean real weapons or objects or toys being used as weapons. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a rule that covers imaginary weapons. (IOW, the quote that Alarm posted, suggesting that he may have been throwing rocks could easily jibe with the rule).

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by HazyCosmicJive

That has its own set of cultural problems. The last time I ranted about it here, I was told that no one really plays it anymore, and I hope that's true.

The basic game still exists as you'd recognize it, but instead labeled as whatever video games are popular. I've seen children playing what they call Real Life Halo/Gears of War/Minecraft/Call of Duty/Skyrim. It's functionally the same as Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians.

[Twankydillo]

Originally Posted by Dondi

What happened to the days when we could play cowboys and indians during recess? Or "Jets" and "Sharks" a day after a broadcast of West Side Story on TV? Yeah we would pick sides and have play "rumbles" (and not even with fake knives or guns, just fingerplay). We weren't even segregated by race when we rumbled, it didn't matter which "gang" you picked.

Those days are apparently part of history.

May I ask why, if you think it is, this is a bad thing?

I mean, my childhood was different to my parents', which was different to theirs, which will be different to my children's. I get nostalgic for the things I used to love as a child but I don't think it's important that my children, when and if they exist, do the same thing or play the same way. For one, The Animals of Farthing Wood isn't popular, and that's pretty much all I played and cared about for a while. Damn, I loved that. But I don't think it's especially important that children play Cowboys and Indians (nor do I think they're not being allowed to now, but that's a different story).

[Sue]

Originally Posted by Twankydillo

I mean, my childhood was different to my parents', which was different to theirs, which will be different to my children's. I get nostalgic for the things I used to love as a child but I don't think it's important that my children, when and if they exist, do the same thing or play the same way.

Perhaps important isn't the word, but I do know when my children were small it was very special for me when they discovered things that I had enjoyed as a child. My daughter reading Anne of Green Gables for the first time, both children playing Candyland and almost believing it was a real place, taking them to the Nutcracker ballet at Christmas. Things like that. I'm not sure I'd put playing cops and robbers (our version of cowboys and indians) in the same category but I can understand why someone else might.