Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide

[citizen]

December 11, 2006
Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET

WACO, Texas (AP) -- School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an
in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide
after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.

A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's
parents said that the boy was involved in ''inappropriate physical
behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of
(the) female employee'' on Nov. 10.

DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary
School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his
son doesn't understand why he was punished.

''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.

La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented
them from commenting.

After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the
district said the offense had been changed to ''inappropriate physical
contact'' and removed references of sexual contact or sexual
harassment from the boy's file.

Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no
specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students
but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a
discipline referral.

The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30
miles around Waco.

[[email protected]]

omfg that is the saddest thing i have every heard. like nowadays, ppl
aren't allowed to thank a person? little children need to stop being
given mixed messages. half of us say, kiss your daddy goodnight, and be
affectionate. then the others give SUSPENSIONS! what on earth! lmao...
Aviendha u682951
Games that I like to play

<a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
<a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>

[grammaticism/grammatichasm]

It sounds as if four-year-olds are supposed to be as street-smart as
adults (and what's wrong with hugging your Teacher at that age?).
That's really very sad!
citizen schrieb:

> December 11, 2006
> Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
>
> WACO, Texas (AP) -- School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an
> in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide
> after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.
>
> A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's
> parents said that the boy was involved in ''inappropriate physical
> behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
> after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of
> (the) female employee'' on Nov. 10.
>
> DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary
> School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his
> son doesn't understand why he was punished.
>
> ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
> story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
>
> La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented
> them from commenting.
>
> After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the
> district said the offense had been changed to ''inappropriate physical
> contact'' and removed references of sexual contact or sexual
> harassment from the boy's file.
>
> Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no
> specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students
> but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a
> discipline referral.
>
> The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30
> miles around Waco.

[Jeff]

"citizen" > wrote in message
...
> December 11, 2006
> Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET


<copyrighted material deleted>

There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?

Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent? Did
the kid complain?

What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?

A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
happened.

Jeff

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

Jeff wrote:

> There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?
>
> Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent? Did
> the kid complain?
>
> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?
>
> A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
> happened.

When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really
don't think that any other details are all that pertinent..
--
Ruth

[toypup]

"Ruth Baltopoulos" > wrote in message
news:9xyfh.3422$_55.3166@trndny09...
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?
>>
>> Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent?
>> Did the kid complain?
>>
>> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?
>>
>> A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
>> happened.
>
> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
> that any other details are all that pertinent..

Exactly. Even if he did something totally inappropriate, I would worry more
about abuse of the child by someone else. If it was something off tv, he
should just be told it is inappropriate.

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

toypup wrote:

> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:

>> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
>> that any other details are all that pertinent..

> Exactly. Even if he did something totally inappropriate, I would worry more
> about abuse of the child by someone else. If it was something off tv, he
> should just be told it is inappropriate.

This type of article makes me feel completely disgusted with
the decisions of some of our 'educators'. It is completely
ludicrous to 'suspend' a four year old. In attempting to
envision even a single scenario where I would find a child
that age to be responsible for their actions/reactions to
the point that I would feel suspension was appropriate, I
come up flat...
--
Ruth

[yD]

citizen wrote:
> December 11, 2006
> Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
>
> WACO, Texas (AP) -- School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an
> in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide
> after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.
>
> A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's
> parents said that the boy was involved in ''inappropriate physical
> behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
> after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of
> (the) female employee'' on Nov. 10.
>
> DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary
> School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his
> son doesn't understand why he was punished.
>
> ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
> story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
>
> La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented
> them from commenting.
>
> After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the
> district said the offense had been changed to ''inappropriate physical
> contact'' and removed references of sexual contact or sexual
> harassment from the boy's file.
>
> Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no
> specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students
> but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a
> discipline referral.
>
> The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30
> miles around Waco.

Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
she should not be around children of any age.
yD

[Donna Metler]

"Ruth Baltopoulos" > wrote in message
news:5Azfh.4160$it5.1651@trndny06...
> toypup wrote:
>
> > "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:
>
> >> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't
think
> >> that any other details are all that pertinent..
>
> > Exactly. Even if he did something totally inappropriate, I would worry
more
> > about abuse of the child by someone else. If it was something off tv,
he
> > should just be told it is inappropriate.
>
> This type of article makes me feel completely disgusted with
> the decisions of some of our 'educators'. It is completely
> ludicrous to 'suspend' a four year old. In attempting to
> envision even a single scenario where I would find a child
> that age to be responsible for their actions/reactions to
> the point that I would feel suspension was appropriate, I
> come up flat...
> --
> Ruth

Well, I can think of one. In my former district, when efforts had been made
to contact a parent and the parent has not been willing to return phone
calls, come to a conference, or similar things, a suspension can be issued
which must be cleared by the parent in person at the school. Now, the parent
can clear that suspension any time within the next three days and the child
never actually misses school, but based on the paperwork, the child was
suspended.

Let's say that this child has a history of rather aggressive or possibly
sexual behaviors towards staff and other children, and the teachers are
concerned and want to talk to the parent, not to punish the child, but to
try to set up a plan to help the child. The parent has repeatedly ducked any
efforts in communication.

The next time something happens, it is very possible, in my district, that a
"suspension" could be issued as outlined above for the purpose of getting
the parent to discuss the situation. Now, imagine that the media got word of
that suspension-the report would likely look a lot like that news article,
with no mention that the primary reason for the suspension was to get the
parent to come to school for a conference, not a single incident of behavior
or as a punishment for the child (and frankly, for a four year old, getting
to stay home with mommy is hardly a punishment. At that age, there's no
grade consequence, and a child is hardly going to understand what a
suspension means!)

There is ALWAYS two sides to every story.

[Cathy Weeks]

Jeff wrote:
> There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?

There was a story about it on cnn.com.

> Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent? Did
> the kid complain?

The aide complained. The kid was getting ready to get on the schoolbus,
and was hugging her goodbye.

> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?

Ummm... she was in a school, which suggests she was just wearing
regular clothes - ie, not a leather halter top or anything.

> A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
> happened.

You know what... I'm not sure what else *could* have happened. If he
had done something *truely* inappropriate, like pinch her nipples or
reached into her bra or or bit her or something, then I doubt the
school would have been willing to change the school record. But they
were willing.

Cathy Weeks

[Jeff]

"Ruth Baltopoulos" > wrote in message
news:9xyfh.3422$_55.3166@trndny09...
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?
>>
>> Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent?
>> Did the kid complain?
>>
>> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?
>>
>> A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
>> happened.
>
> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
> that any other details are all that pertinent..

Actually, they are. The child could have been warned about his behavior,
something else might have been happening, etc. We don't know what happened.

Jeff

> --
> Ruth

[Jeff]

"yD" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> citizen wrote:
>> December 11, 2006
>> Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>> Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
>>
>> WACO, Texas (AP) -- School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an
>> in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide
>> after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.
>>
>> A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's
>> parents said that the boy was involved in ''inappropriate physical
>> behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
>> after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of
>> (the) female employee'' on Nov. 10.
>>
>> DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary
>> School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his
>> son doesn't understand why he was punished.
>>
>> ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
>> story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
>>
>> La Vega school district officials said student privacy laws prevented
>> them from commenting.
>>
>> After Blackwell filed a complaint, a subsequent letter from the
>> district said the offense had been changed to ''inappropriate physical
>> contact'' and removed references of sexual contact or sexual
>> harassment from the boy's file.
>>
>> Administrators said the district's student handbook contains no
>> specific guidelines referring to contact between teachers and students
>> but does state that inappropriate physical contact will result in a
>> discipline referral.
>>
>> The La Vega school district, which has five schools, covers about 30
>> miles around Waco.
>
> Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
> she should not be around children of any age.
> yD

Maybe the principal or a school board member thought (s) he saw something
inappropriate. Maybe another parent complained. Or maybe, the kid ran into
the principal and said, "The teacher hugged me."

Quite frankly, it seems that if there were any inappropriate contact, the
aid would seem to be more responsible.

But, we don't know exactly what happened or who reported this.

Jeff

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

Donna Metler wrote:

> Well, I can think of one. In my former district, when efforts had been made
> to contact a parent and the parent has not been willing to return phone
> calls, come to a conference, or similar things, a suspension can be issued
> which must be cleared by the parent in person at the school. Now, the parent
> can clear that suspension any time within the next three days and the child
> never actually misses school, but based on the paperwork, the child was
> suspended.

Yes, but that is based on the parent's lack of response to
attempts by the school to communicate. That policy makes sense.

> Let's say that this child has a history of rather aggressive or possibly
> sexual behaviors towards staff and other children, and the teachers are
> concerned and want to talk to the parent, not to punish the child, but to
> try to set up a plan to help the child. The parent has repeatedly ducked any
> efforts in communication.

Again, understandable, and not based on a child's action,
but concern regarding incidences that is being ignored by
parents, which is sensible and forces the parent to respond.

> The next time something happens, it is very possible, in my district, that a
> "suspension" could be issued as outlined above for the purpose of getting
> the parent to discuss the situation. Now, imagine that the media got word of
> that suspension-the report would likely look a lot like that news article,
> with no mention that the primary reason for the suspension was to get the
> parent to come to school for a conference, not a single incident of behavior
> or as a punishment for the child (and frankly, for a four year old, getting
> to stay home with mommy is hardly a punishment. At that age, there's no
> grade consequence, and a child is hardly going to understand what a
> suspension means!)

Understood.

> There is ALWAYS two sides to every story.

Reading the article as presented, as well as the CNN
accounting, I found this bothersome, regardless of how many
sides there are to this particular story:

"A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the
student's parents said that the boy was involved in
''inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual
contact and/or sexual harassment'' after he hugged the woman
and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female
employee'' on Nov. 10."

Ludicrous at best. Sorry, the child is *four*! How can
this behavior be interpreted as sexual contact or harassment?
--
Ruth

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

Jeff wrote:

> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:

>> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
>> that any other details are all that pertinent..

> Actually, they are. The child could have been warned about his behavior,
> something else might have been happening, etc. We don't know what happened.

A child being warned about his method of hugging and showing
affection? Tell me, after reading the article, what details
do you need, really? What is the difference what the aide
was wearing? So what if the child were warned about his
proclivity for hugging? Many children are breast fed and at
the tender age of 4, I can't see where a kid would view a
woman's chest as anything other than a source of
food/comfort or a cushy place to lay one's head!

Did you note the contents of the letter to the parent and
the wording of the charge? Do you find the words 'sexual
contact and sexual harassment' to be incongruous when
referring to a child this age? If the child had been abused
or exposed to inappropriate material, does it seem
acceptable to aim this charge at a boy (or girl) this age,
or should it be directed toward the parent or guardian?

Donna made a good point regarding a school instituting a
theoretical suspension based primarily on parents being
unresponsive when requested to communicate regarding
concerns. Other than that, I think this entire affair,
based on the details that I have seen, is completely insane.
--
Ruth

[Jeff]

"Ruth Baltopoulos" > wrote in message
news:aBAfh.4165$it5.2218@trndny06...
> Jeff wrote:
>
>> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:
>
>>> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
>>> that any other details are all that pertinent..
>
>> Actually, they are. The child could have been warned about his behavior,
>> something else might have been happening, etc. We don't know what
>> happened.
>
> A child being warned about his method of hugging and showing affection?
> Tell me, after reading the article, what details do you need, really?

What really happened. We just don't know from the information that was
given.

It seems incredibly to suspend the kid for this. But we don't know what
happened.

And we have only one phrase in the letter that the parents recieved, not the
whole letter or the all the information.

> What is the difference what the aide was wearing? So what if the child
> were warned about his proclivity for hugging? Many children are breast
> fed and at the tender age of 4, I can't see where a kid would view a
> woman's chest as anything other than a source of food/comfort or a cushy
> place to lay one's head!
>
> Did you note the contents of the letter to the parent and the wording of
> the charge? Do you find the words 'sexual contact and sexual harassment'
> to be incongruous when referring to a child this age? If the child had
> been abused or exposed to inappropriate material, does it seem acceptable
> to aim this charge at a boy (or girl) this age, or should it be directed
> toward the parent or guardian?
>
> Donna made a good point regarding a school instituting a theoretical
> suspension based primarily on parents being unresponsive when requested to
> communicate regarding concerns. Other than that, I think this entire
> affair, based on the details that I have seen, is completely insane.

I wouldn't call it insane. Stupid is more like it. It *sounds* like they are
completely overreacting.

However, we still don't know exactly what happened.

I wouldn't blame the school until we do.

Jeff
> --
> Ruth

[bizby40]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Jeff wrote:
>> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?
>
> Ummm... she was in a school, which suggests she was just wearing
> regular clothes - ie, not a leather halter top or anything.

Understand that I am *not* saying that a school is right in charging a
4 year old with sexual harassment no matter what.

That said, there was a discussion on this board a year or two ago
about a pre-school worker wearing belly-baring shirts and mini-skirts.
Most school districts have stricter dress codes, but there have been
discussions on here too about teachers failing to adhere to the same
dress codes as the students are required to. So I don't think we can
take it for granted that she was wearing conservative or completely
covering clothing.

Of course, if she wasn't, and if that is partly why she felt
uncomfortable -- because "rubbing his face" on her shirt exposed more
than she wanted -- then I would think that she is the one who behaved
inappropriately, not the child.

But my gut feeling is that it wasn't what she was wearing so much as
how he was "rubbing." She must have been weirded out by it and didn't
feel that it was normal behavior for a child his age.

The question still remains why the school would suspend a 4 year old
under a charge of sexual harassment instead of doing whatever was
necessary to start and investigation into why the child would be
engaging in such unusual behavior.

Bizby

[Jeff]

"Cathy Weeks" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Jeff wrote:
>> There are some major details missing, like what other things happened?
>
> There was a story about it on cnn.com.
>
>> Who reported the incident? Was it the aide? A teacher? Another parent?
>> Did
>> the kid complain?
>
> The aide complained. The kid was getting ready to get on the schoolbus,
> and was hugging her goodbye.

There is something not right. It seems really odd that an aid would complain
about a kid hugging her. It is not clear whether she thought there was
something sexual going on or it was the administration's interpretation.

The aid had to have a reason to complain. Did the aid have a history of
making complaints against kids? Did she percieve that this kid did
something inapprorpiate? Is there a history of behavior issues with the
kid? Were there other concerns about this kid?

The news stories don't tell us what is really happening.

I am not going to condemn the school until I know what really happened.

Jeff

>> What was the woman wearing? Why was he hugging her?
>
> Ummm... she was in a school, which suggests she was just wearing
> regular clothes - ie, not a leather halter top or anything.
>
>> A suspension certainly seems to inappropriate, but we don't know what
>> happened.
>
> You know what... I'm not sure what else *could* have happened. If he
> had done something *truely* inappropriate, like pinch her nipples or
> reached into her bra or or bit her or something, then I doubt the
> school would have been willing to change the school record. But they
> were willing.
>
> Cathy Weeks
>

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

Jeff wrote:

> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:

>> A child being warned about his method of hugging and showing affection?
>> Tell me, after reading the article, what details do you need, really?

> What really happened. We just don't know from the information that was
> given.

Obviously, much of the discussion will be based on what
information is given.

> It seems incredibly to suspend the kid for this. But we don't know what
> happened.

See above :)

> And we have only one phrase in the letter that the parents recieved, not the
> whole letter or the all the information.

That one phrase seems glaringly asinine.

[...]
>> Donna made a good point regarding a school instituting a theoretical
>> suspension based primarily on parents being unresponsive when requested to
>> communicate regarding concerns. Other than that, I think this entire
>> affair, based on the details that I have seen, is completely insane.

> I wouldn't call it insane. Stupid is more like it. It *sounds* like they are
> completely overreacting.

Yes, I guess insane was a bit strong. I will settle for
stupid...

> However, we still don't know exactly what happened.

So, therefore, I guess I can only proffer my reactions to
the circumstances as outlined in the articles.

> I wouldn't blame the school until we do.

Understood.
--
Ruth

[bizby40]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:a2Bfh.3646$LL4.1966@trnddc04...
> I am not going to condemn the school until I know what really
> happened.

I agree with everything you wrote except one thing. I think it is
wrong for the school to assign a sexual motivation to a 4 year old
child, no matter what he did. If he's behaving in what seems to be an
inappropriately sexual manner, that seems to me to be a red flag to
bring in social services to discover what is going on in his life to
cause him to exhibit that kind of behavior.

Bizby

[Donna Metler]

"Ruth Baltopoulos" > wrote in message
news:4jAfh.4163$it5.2260@trndny06...
> Donna Metler wrote:
>
> > Well, I can think of one. In my former district, when efforts had been
made
> > to contact a parent and the parent has not been willing to return phone
> > calls, come to a conference, or similar things, a suspension can be
issued
> > which must be cleared by the parent in person at the school. Now, the
parent
> > can clear that suspension any time within the next three days and the
child
> > never actually misses school, but based on the paperwork, the child was
> > suspended.
>
> Yes, but that is based on the parent's lack of response to
> attempts by the school to communicate. That policy makes sense.
>
> > Let's say that this child has a history of rather aggressive or possibly
> > sexual behaviors towards staff and other children, and the teachers are
> > concerned and want to talk to the parent, not to punish the child, but
to
> > try to set up a plan to help the child. The parent has repeatedly ducked
any
> > efforts in communication.
>
> Again, understandable, and not based on a child's action,
> but concern regarding incidences that is being ignored by
> parents, which is sensible and forces the parent to respond.
>
> > The next time something happens, it is very possible, in my district,
that a
> > "suspension" could be issued as outlined above for the purpose of
getting
> > the parent to discuss the situation. Now, imagine that the media got
word of
> > that suspension-the report would likely look a lot like that news
article,
> > with no mention that the primary reason for the suspension was to get
the
> > parent to come to school for a conference, not a single incident of
behavior
> > or as a punishment for the child (and frankly, for a four year old,
getting
> > to stay home with mommy is hardly a punishment. At that age, there's no
> > grade consequence, and a child is hardly going to understand what a
> > suspension means!)
>
> Understood.
>
> > There is ALWAYS two sides to every story.
>
> Reading the article as presented, as well as the CNN
> accounting, I found this bothersome, regardless of how many
> sides there are to this particular story:
>
> "A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the
> student's parents said that the boy was involved in
> ''inappropriate physical behavior interpreted as sexual
> contact and/or sexual harassment'' after he hugged the woman
> and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of (the) female
> employee'' on Nov. 10."
>
> Ludicrous at best. Sorry, the child is *four*! How can
> this behavior be interpreted as sexual contact or harassment?

My first thought was-maybe this child is breastfed at home, and was trying
to nurse for comfort (the way a fairly young baby will do if they've been
breastfed), or has seen a younger child being breastfed and wanted to try
it.
And, let's face it, a school age child diving at your breast and grabbing it
or trying to "bite" it would seem strange to most people-and probably would
seen sexual, not comfort related. The AAP doesn't even recommend
breastfeeding to US mothers past the age of 1-I nursed/pumped until age 2
and was definitely the exception to the rule. Usually, details wouldn't be
provided in writing, because anything in writing is kept on file long-term.
I had one situation where a little boy was repeatedly pulling his pants down
and penis out in class, and I believe the official wording was similar to
the above, although what was discussed with parents was more on the level of
"He keeps pulling his penis out. I've tried sending him to the bathroom, and
that isn't it-do you have any ideas?". In fact, in many cases behaviors are
grouped into specific codes which can be entered into the computer. There's
no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this is
unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt". There is
one for "sexual behavior".


I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous incidents and
efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any behavior
from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension, however,
as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.


> --
> Ruth

[Jeff]

"bizby40" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:a2Bfh.3646$LL4.1966@trnddc04...
>> I am not going to condemn the school until I know what really happened.
>
> I agree with everything you wrote except one thing. I think it is wrong
> for the school to assign a sexual motivation to a 4 year old child, no
> matter what he did. If he's behaving in what seems to be an
> inappropriately sexual manner, that seems to me to be a red flag to bring
> in social services to discover what is going on in his life to cause him
> to exhibit that kind of behavior.

The school removed any reference to sexual behavior from his record and the
reason for suspension.

One would hope that the school also reexamined whether or not he should
have been suspended in the first place in light of the fact (apparenlty new
to the school) that there was no sexual motivation. (In other words, he
should get the same consequence as if he hugged her tummy instead of her
chest, which, maybe, is a suspension or maybe is a hug back and a wave as he
walks out the door - we just don't know what happened).

Jeff

> Bizby
>
>

[Banty]

In article <5bBfh.4168$it5.2559@trndny06>, Ruth Baltopoulos says...
>
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:
>
>>> A child being warned about his method of hugging and showing affection?
>>> Tell me, after reading the article, what details do you need, really?
>
>> What really happened. We just don't know from the information that was
>> given.
>
>Obviously, much of the discussion will be based on what
>information is given.
>
>> It seems incredibly to suspend the kid for this. But we don't know what
>> happened.
>
>See above :)
>
>> And we have only one phrase in the letter that the parents recieved, not the
>> whole letter or the all the information.
>
>That one phrase seems glaringly asinine.
>
>[...]
>>> Donna made a good point regarding a school instituting a theoretical
>>> suspension based primarily on parents being unresponsive when requested to
>>> communicate regarding concerns. Other than that, I think this entire
>>> affair, based on the details that I have seen, is completely insane.
>
>> I wouldn't call it insane. Stupid is more like it. It *sounds* like they are
>> completely overreacting.
>
>Yes, I guess insane was a bit strong. I will settle for
>stupid...
>
>> However, we still don't know exactly what happened.
>
>So, therefore, I guess I can only proffer my reactions to
>the circumstances as outlined in the articles.
>
>> I wouldn't blame the school until we do.
>
>Understood.
>--
>Ruth


My radar says there's another side to the story. I may be wrong, but it was
already blipping at me before I read the responses.

Being as a lot of folks are pretty eager to put public schools in a bad light.
Being as a lot of folks don't understand procedures and checks, and think
everyone should be dealing as neighbor-to-neighbor.
Being as we've seen a LOT of these half-true stories plastered all over USENET.

Donna's description of how these things sometimes have to happen completely
rings true to me, and should give pause to those reading this thread.

This kinda reminds me of the fathers' rights hullaballo some years back, when a
mother was being allowed to move far out of state, taking a child with her,
necessitating long distance visitation on the part of the father.

From California to Massachusetts. HOW could they do that!!??! HOW can step all
over a loving father's rights like that!!!?!! What an example this is of our
terrible court system and how fathers are bulldozed over right and left and
their children are practically ripped from their very loving arms!!?!!!

Then (as Paul Harvey says) the REST of the story outs. The couple had never
married or had much of a connection and the father's efforts at fathering had
been slight. The mother had been granted a full scholarship to a prestigious
university, and showed that she had support and showed every sign of sucessfully
completing the course while raising the child. The father, on the other hand,
in his mid twenties had never held a full time job, was still living with his
parents, and had steadfastly refused to move so much as a mile to make any
accomodation for the mother's life. A family court judge held this to be one of
the RARE exceptions to the normal rulings.

But oh, when *we* heard about it, it all sounded sound like yet another
ditzy-headed female had flown off to some silly "self-actualizing" endeavor
leaving a salt-of-the-earth man behind, taking his child, with full accomodation
from a very biased court that allows this sort of stuff day after day.

All my pushing the fathers' rights folks for an example of a father who, say,
had a standing business endeavor in a locale, losing custody of a child when the
mother moved far away (even without examining why she did!) turned up - nada.
Not even a Mr. Kramer for a Mrs. Kramer. (Just weak excuses about men
supposedly being cowed and intimidated by courts - that's why we don't hear
about it - the real salt-of-the earth men don't try. Oh phooey.)

Which is why these marginal or complicated sorts of things get stripped of a lot
of facts and shotgunned all over USENET and blog-land. See it's damn hard to
find *real* stories that are nice clean and neat and unassailable and prove all
the points those with agendas want to prove! For *any* agenda. Even the ones
*I* have ;) Life just isn't like that.

Now, I'm not saying the school didn't go overboard. The Amercian educational
establishment isn't exactly perferct, to say the least. But really, let's get
the rest of the story on this one. I don't think the whole story is here.

Banty

[Ruth Baltopoulos]

Banty wrote:

[...]
> Now, I'm not saying the school didn't go overboard. The Amercian educational
> establishment isn't exactly perferct, to say the least. But really, let's get
> the rest of the story on this one. I don't think the whole story is here.

Nice post, and while I agree with much of it and strongly
support public schools, I simply cannot wrap my mind around
this statement: "inappropriate physical behavior
interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the
chest of (the) female employee''. Regardless all else, that
statement seems just (thank you, Jeff :) stupid.
--
Ruth

[Sanders Kaufman]

yD wrote:

> Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
> she should not be around children of any age.

No, she didn't complain.
The regular teacher did.
The regular teacher was ****ed off because the aide was better liked.

It's a town that spends a lot on TV preachers, so they're not very
bright. And being dim-witted, they are hypersenstive to any slight to
their egos.

The teacher started out by trying to say something sexual was going on.
But when the school pressed her for details, she spun around and said
that the student was misbehaving.

The idiots who run the school are hard-pressed for certified teachers,
so they decided to remove the student who was behaving, instead of the
teacher, who was not.

[Banty]

In article <usCfh.4222$IG6.706@trndny01>, Ruth Baltopoulos says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Now, I'm not saying the school didn't go overboard. The Amercian educational
>>establishment isn't exactly perferct, to say the least. But really, let's get
>> the rest of the story on this one. I don't think the whole story is here.
>
>Nice post, and while I agree with much of it and strongly
>support public schools, I simply cannot wrap my mind around
>this statement: "inappropriate physical behavior
>interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
>after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the
>chest of (the) female employee''. Regardless all else, that
>statement seems just (thank you, Jeff :) stupid.

See, how I read that is - this strikes me as one of those statements that are
largely determined by what they feel they need to do. Because of legal concerns
and policy. I'm thinking - - if whatever happened is of enough concern that
they feel they really need to deal with it, they may *have to* say something
along those lines, or something else from a very short list of approved reasons
for suspension. And that's the closest to it.

Of course, it sounds just awful broadcast all over tarnation like this.

I grant that there's good reason to want to question how and why they have to
operate this way. I sense that the whole "zero tolerance" thing may have to do
with it, either in the incident and the objections or both. But as I read it I
think we can't say how it came in. Did the student simply comfort himself in a
somewhat infantile way, and the teacher and school went all hoo haa over it (as
it's made to sound, and I grant it may really be the case!), or did the student
show some really over-the-top behavior in doing so that justifiably scared the
teacher and school, and they need to proceed carefully as to exactly what they
say.

I dunno. I've seen both kinds of similar scenarios. I had my son kicked out of
a daycamp for talking about "building fires", and the director express to me
that she was concerned that his was a case of incipient psychosis, when he was
only talking about what he had learned in a Cub Scout camp the week before, in a
somewhat melodramatic way! So I've been on the 'wrong' end of some
institutional silliness myself. On the other hand, I've been fairly close to
cases where a school needed to proceed ever so carefully about a real problem.

Cheers,
Banty

[Banty]

In article >, Sanders Kaufman
says...
>
>yD wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
>> she should not be around children of any age.
>
>No, she didn't complain.
>The regular teacher did.
>The regular teacher was ****ed off because the aide was better liked.
>
>It's a town that spends a lot on TV preachers, so they're not very
>bright. And being dim-witted, they are hypersenstive to any slight to
>their egos.
>
>The teacher started out by trying to say something sexual was going on.
>But when the school pressed her for details, she spun around and said
>that the student was misbehaving.
>
>The idiots who run the school are hard-pressed for certified teachers,
>so they decided to remove the student who was behaving, instead of the
>teacher, who was not.
>
>

You know all this - how??

Banty

[bizby40]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
> There's
> no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this
> is
> unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt".
> There is
> one for "sexual behavior".

Then there shouldn't be -- or there should at least be a lower limit
at which it is allowed to be used. Saying that touching or displaying
"private" areas is "sexual behavior" is ascribing sexual motivation to
an act. 4 year olds are not capable of sexual motivation.


Bizby

[yD]

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> yD wrote:
>
> > Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
> > she should not be around children of any age.
>
> No, she didn't complain.
> The regular teacher did.
> The regular teacher was ****ed off because the aide was better liked.
>
> It's a town that spends a lot on TV preachers, so they're not very
> bright. And being dim-witted, they are hypersenstive to any slight to
> their egos.
>
> The teacher started out by trying to say something sexual was going on.
> But when the school pressed her for details, she spun around and said
> that the student was misbehaving.
>
> The idiots who run the school are hard-pressed for certified teachers,
> so they decided to remove the student who was behaving, instead of the
> teacher, who was not.

Thanks. It's sad, but this makes sense (I mean the teacher and the
"idiots" who punished the child.) Damn! Four years old! My mind is,
once again, boggled! I hope the parents don't let this pass and don't
accept some 'form' apology.
yD

[Penny Gaines]

Donna Metler wrote:
>>Donna Metler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, I can think of one. In my former district, when efforts had been
> made
>>>to contact a parent and the parent has not been willing to return phone
>>>calls, come to a conference, or similar things, a suspension can be
> issued
>>>which must be cleared by the parent in person at the school. Now, the
> parent
>>>can clear that suspension any time within the next three days and the
> child
>>>never actually misses school, but based on the paperwork, the child was
>>>suspended.

[snip]
> I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous incidents and
> efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any behavior
> from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension, however,
> as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.

Poking around a bit, it seems that the suspension was an "in-school
suspension" of the type Donna mentioned.

This article makes it all sound a lot more reasonable:
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/12/12102006_wac_offensivetouching.html

Basically, it says that the boy the boy spent the day in in-school
suspension, and they had tried telephoning the parents. In addition it
says that the punishment might not be put on the boy's permanment
record.

One of the things the father is complaining about is that he was not
present when the reason for the punishment was explained.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Donna Metler]

"bizby40" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > There's
> > no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this
> > is
> > unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt".
> > There is
> > one for "sexual behavior".
>
> Then there shouldn't be -- or there should at least be a lower limit
> at which it is allowed to be used. Saying that touching or displaying
> "private" areas is "sexual behavior" is ascribing sexual motivation to
> an act. 4 year olds are not capable of sexual motivation.
>
Unfortunately, when you're dealing with a system which goes from 3 and 4 yr
olds (often with special needs, since usually the only preschools within
the public system are special ed, ESL or Title I) and 18+ yr olds, and a
limited number of computer codes, sometimes common sense takes second place
to programming speed and efficency. I really suspect that this was more like
my 6 yr old exhibitionist where there wasn't a good code to put in place for
what turned out to be "mommy needs to buy a different laundry detergent,
because it's itching his penis and he doesn't know how to tell us" than
anything else.

Another thing to remember-despite claims of "permanent record", very little
actually follows children from year to year in school. Again, my former
district had three levels of suspension- In school suspension (where the
student is simply in a different room and removed from the social parts of
the school day for a few days, then two forms of out of school suspension-
school level, and could be "cleared" at the school. At most, the child was
excluded for 3 days, and often, as I stated, it was used as much to get the
parent to the school when other means of communication had failed as any
disciplinary means, and Board Level, where the student would be excluded
from school until they went before a hearing committee, which would then
decide on sanctions and placement-which might be an alternative school,
homebound, or even expulsion for up to a semester if the student is old
enough. Only a board level suspension has any record kept except for
statistical purposes beyond that school year, and it pretty much took
something where the police were involved to get a board level suspension. I
don't ever recall one occurring for a primary level child, let alone a
preschooler.

The bottom line is that I'm guessing that the media got wind of something
which was a disconcerting situation being handled by school district and
state policy, with steps in place which seem insane in context but which are
there to insure the child's due process rights and that the school's legal
you know what is covered, and has made it seem arbitrary and capricious.

There's a lot which goes on behind the scenes administratively that you
usually don't know about unless you're dealing with it directly. Even as a
teacher, I didn't realize a lot of what was required until I started
stepping in as the interim administrator the last year I was in the public
system and having to do a lot of the paperwork myself. It is rather
nervewracking the first time you have to key in a record number for
"assault, minor injury" for what was in reality two 7 yr old boys who got a
bit overinvolved in their Power Ranger game on the playground and one ended
up with a bloody nose and a black eye"-but legally, that record has to be
put into the computer and that's the appropriate code for it.

[Jeff]

"Sanders Kaufman" > wrote in message
...
> yD wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that the aide complained? About a 4 year old? If so,
>> she should not be around children of any age.
>
> No, she didn't complain.
> The regular teacher did.
> The regular teacher was ****ed off because the aide was better liked.
>
> It's a town that spends a lot on TV preachers, so they're not very bright.
> And being dim-witted, they are hypersenstive to any slight to their egos.
>
> The teacher started out by trying to say something sexual was going on.
> But when the school pressed her for details, she spun around and said that
> the student was misbehaving.

When there is something "sexual" going between an aid and a 4-year old, for
the most part, it would not be something the kid did. The only exceptions
that I could think of is if there is child abuse going on or if the child
had a precoious puberty (which you would expect an adult to pick on up,
duirng toileting or bath time).

> The idiots who run the school are hard-pressed for certified teachers, so
> they decided to remove the student who was behaving, instead of the
> teacher, who was not.

Schools being hard-pressed for certified teachers doesn't make the
administrators idiots.

Backing a teacher when the teacher is clearly behaving in an ethical manner
doesn't make the administrators idiots either. It does make them unethical
or inept, however.

Assuming this is the correct story (I haven't seen any reports about who
reported this or why, perhaps the poster can cite some), we still don't why
the principal continued to discipline the child or if the teacher was
disciplined. There still need to be more details before we can pass judgment
on the teachers and administrators. However, if this is the correct story,
it is very easy to pass judgment on the boy: Hug away, as long as the mean
teacher doesn't see you.

Jeff

[Marty Billingsley]

In article <aBAfh.4165$it5.2218@trndny06>,
Ruth Baltopoulos > wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>
>> "Ruth Baltopoulos" wrote:
>
>>> When discussing a four year old who hugged someone, I really don't think
>>> that any other details are all that pertinent..
>
>> Actually, they are. The child could have been warned about his behavior,
>> something else might have been happening, etc. We don't know what happened.
>
>A child being warned about his method of hugging and showing
>affection? Tell me, after reading the article, what details
>do you need, really? What is the difference what the aide
>was wearing? So what if the child were warned about his
>proclivity for hugging? Many children are breast fed and at
>the tender age of 4, I can't see where a kid would view a
>woman's chest as anything other than a source of
>food/comfort or a cushy place to lay one's head!

It would be interesting to know if the aide is a mother herself.
A woman who has raised a baby probably wouldn't find the same
things disturbing as a woman who hasn't.

[Jeff]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> In fact, in many cases behaviors are
> grouped into specific codes which can be entered into the computer.
> There's
> no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this is
> unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt". There
> is
> one for "sexual behavior".

Behaviors are grouped into computer codes?

By whom? For what reasons?

How is this relevent?

Doctors group symptoms and problems for statistical and billing purposes
(this is call ICD-9 and DSW-4 - Diagnostic and Statistcal Manual, 4th
edition). But this has nothing to do with our discussion.

In addition, often states or other government units will require schools to
report the number of suspensions, number of crimes, etc. However, this has
nothing to do with whether or not the boy has done anything.

>
> I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous incidents
> and
> efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any
> behavior
> from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension,
> however,
> as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.

A suspension is not something that a 4-year old would comprehend.

>
>
>> --
>> Ruth
>
>

[bizby40]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "bizby40" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Then there shouldn't be -- or there should at least be a lower
>> limit
>> at which it is allowed to be used. Saying that touching or
>> displaying
>> "private" areas is "sexual behavior" is ascribing sexual motivation
>> to
>> an act. 4 year olds are not capable of sexual motivation.

> The bottom line is that I'm guessing that the media got wind of
> something
> which was a disconcerting situation being handled by school district
> and
> state policy, with steps in place which seem insane in context but
> which are
> there to insure the child's due process rights and that the school's
> legal
> you know what is covered, and has made it seem arbitrary and
> capricious.

I understand what you are saying, but I know that if I were the parent
in question, I would be shocked and dismayed. I would also probably
be shamed, and therefore I wouldn't get the media involved. However,
I think it's probably a good thing that the media did get involved in
this case, because it may end up forcing the school system to change
its policy. And I do think it needs to be changed in this case.

Bizby

[Banty]

In article >, Penny Gaines says...
>
>Donna Metler wrote:
>>>Donna Metler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, I can think of one. In my former district, when efforts had been
>> made
>>>>to contact a parent and the parent has not been willing to return phone
>>>>calls, come to a conference, or similar things, a suspension can be
>> issued
>>>>which must be cleared by the parent in person at the school. Now, the
>> parent
>>>>can clear that suspension any time within the next three days and the
>> child
>>>>never actually misses school, but based on the paperwork, the child was
>>>>suspended.
>
>[snip]
>> I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous incidents and
>> efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any behavior
>> from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension, however,
>> as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.
>
>Poking around a bit, it seems that the suspension was an "in-school
>suspension" of the type Donna mentioned.
>
>This article makes it all sound a lot more reasonable:
>http://www.wacotrib.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/12/12102006_wac_offensivetouching.html
>
>Basically, it says that the boy the boy spent the day in in-school
>suspension, and they had tried telephoning the parents. In addition it
>says that the punishment might not be put on the boy's permanment
>record.
>
>One of the things the father is complaining about is that he was not
>present when the reason for the punishment was explained.
>

It also alludes a strong possibility that there was subsequent behavior
connected with this that really made it concerning.

Banty

[Bo Raxo]

citizen wrote:
> December 11, 2006
> Texas Child Suspended After Hugging Aide
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Filed at 6:30 p.m. ET
>
> WACO, Texas (AP) -- School administrators gave a 4-year-old student an
> in-school suspension for inappropriately touching a teacher's aide
> after the pre-kindergartner hugged the woman.
>
> A letter from La Vega school district administrators to the student's
> parents said that the boy was involved in ''inappropriate physical
> behavior interpreted as sexual contact and/or sexual harassment''
> after he hugged the woman and he ''rubbed his face in the chest of
> (the) female employee'' on Nov. 10.
>
> DaMarcus Blackwell, the father of the boy who attends La Vega Primary
> School, said he filed a complaint with the district. He said that his
> son doesn't understand why he was punished.
>

There may be some issue with the child having behaved inappropriately
before and been warned numerous times. But even so....he's four.
Since this is deep in the heart of redneck country, I'm going to
venture a guess that DaMarcus is black and the teacher's aide is not.
You know how crackers get out the torches and pitchforks if their
wimmen folks are even looked at by anyone with even a deep tan.


> ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
> story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
>

I'd have gone over to that school with a baseball catcher's chest
protector for the aide, and a process server clutching the papers drawn
up by my attorney. The right lawyer could **** that district so hard
they'd fondly remember inappropriate touching as the gentlest thing in
the world.


Bo Raxo

[Donna Metler]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:xRDfh.1325$IO5.223@trnddc01...
>
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
> > In fact, in many cases behaviors are
> > grouped into specific codes which can be entered into the computer.
> > There's
> > no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this is
> > unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt". There
> > is
> > one for "sexual behavior".
>
> Behaviors are grouped into computer codes?
>
> By whom? For what reasons?
>
> How is this relevent?
The federal government requires reporting of certain things by category as
part of the NCLB act. This is how they determine whether a school is deemed
"safe". Therefore certain offenses are grouped by code. What's more, in
large districts at least, the letter is probably a boilerplate, generated by
a computer, and carefully vetted by the school district's lawyer (in fact,
in most large districts, any note a teacher sends to a parent must be
approved by the office). Therefore, there isn't a way to specifically refer
to individual behaviors. Rather it's a matter of picking the least
inappropriate code.

You must remember that while we're talking about a preschool student, we're
not talking about a preschool, or even probably a stand alone elementary
school. A district is a large, governmental agency, and like any large
governmental agency, rules don't always make sense.

>
> Doctors group symptoms and problems for statistical and billing purposes
> (this is call ICD-9 and DSW-4 - Diagnostic and Statistcal Manual, 4th
> edition). But this has nothing to do with our discussion.
>
> In addition, often states or other government units will require schools
to
> report the number of suspensions, number of crimes, etc. However, this has
> nothing to do with whether or not the boy has done anything.

If something is to be reported by the parents, it is very likely that the
boilerplate form sent out will refer to one of these codes-so yes, it is
relevant, as it explains why 4 yr old behavior would be grouped with 18 yr
old behavior. Basically, the computer has one set of codes, which apply to
every child in a district, which in a district like my former one, is well
over 100,000 students.


>
> >
> > I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous incidents
> > and
> > efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any
> > behavior
> > from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension,
> > however,
> > as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.
>
> A suspension is not something that a 4-year old would comprehend.
No, but as I've said REPEATEDLY, the goal of a suspension may or may not be
disciplinary-it may have more to do with "we need the parents to come in and
talk about this, and the parents have repeatedly ducked less aggressive
attempts to make contact". It can also be a case of "we have to put this in
the computer in some way to meet requirements of the law."

And, whether it's a displinary issue or not, sexual or potentially sexual
behavior in a 4 yr old IS a behavioral issue which requires parent contact,
if for no other reason than that there's a good chance that other parents
will complain. And, when a parent goes to the district office and complains
that "That kid is doing XYZ in the classroom", the person at that level in
the district will pull up the file on the computer and say "Oh, yes. On
January 27th, we got a report of this (code 49-inappropriate sexual
behavior). This was listed as resolved on January 29 (code 5-parent
conference to clear suspension), and you shouldn't see any further
problems.". If that code 49 hadn't been entered because the school
administrator considered it to be silly to consider this behavior a problem,
the principal is likely to be called on the carpet because this incident is
required to be federally reported, and if a school district is not reporting
said incidents, the federal funding can be jepordized. For the same reason,
even if the aide didn't see it as a big deal, the teacher was likely
required to report.

[Jeff]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:xRDfh.1325$IO5.223@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <...>
>> > In fact, in many cases behaviors are
>> > grouped into specific codes which can be entered into the computer.
>> > There's
>> > no code for "he pulls his penis out in class after being told this is
>> > unacceptable" or "tried to latch on through the teacher's shirt".
>> > There
>> > is
>> > one for "sexual behavior".
>>
>> Behaviors are grouped into computer codes?
>>
>> By whom? For what reasons?
>>
>> How is this relevent?
> The federal government requires reporting of certain things by category as
> part of the NCLB act. This is how they determine whether a school is
> deemed
> "safe". Therefore certain offenses are grouped by code. What's more, in
> large districts at least, the letter is probably a boilerplate, generated
> by
> a computer, and carefully vetted by the school district's lawyer (in fact,
> in most large districts, any note a teacher sends to a parent must be
> approved by the office).

I don't think it is true that in most districts, notes sent home by teachers
have to be approved by the office.

In fact, I would think that it is more likely that small districts would
require teacher's letters be approved by the office (or an administrator)
than in a big district.

> Therefore, there isn't a way to specifically refer
> to individual behaviors. Rather it's a matter of picking the least
> inappropriate code.
>
> You must remember that while we're talking about a preschool student,
> we're
> not talking about a preschool, or even probably a stand alone elementary
> school. A district is a large, governmental agency, and like any large
> governmental agency, rules don't always make sense.

Thanks for the clarification.

The NCLB act doesn't make sense, either.

I think I read that this district has four schools. So it is not a big
district.

Jeff

>
>>
>> Doctors group symptoms and problems for statistical and billing purposes
>> (this is call ICD-9 and DSW-4 - Diagnostic and Statistcal Manual, 4th
>> edition). But this has nothing to do with our discussion.
>>
>> In addition, often states or other government units will require schools
> to
>> report the number of suspensions, number of crimes, etc. However, this
>> has
>> nothing to do with whether or not the boy has done anything.
>
> If something is to be reported by the parents, it is very likely that the
> boilerplate form sent out will refer to one of these codes-so yes, it is
> relevant, as it explains why 4 yr old behavior would be grouped with 18 yr
> old behavior. Basically, the computer has one set of codes, which apply to
> every child in a district, which in a district like my former one, is well
> over 100,000 students.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > I do think that unless, as I outlined, there had been previous
>> > incidents
>> > and
>> > efforts to communicate with the parents had failed that almost any
>> > behavior
>> > from a 4 yr old, however disconcerting doesn't merit as suspension,
>> > however,
>> > as I outlined above, suspensions are not purely disciplinary.
>>
>> A suspension is not something that a 4-year old would comprehend.
> No, but as I've said REPEATEDLY, the goal of a suspension may or may not
> be
> disciplinary-it may have more to do with "we need the parents to come in
> and
> talk about this, and the parents have repeatedly ducked less aggressive
> attempts to make contact". It can also be a case of "we have to put this
> in
> the computer in some way to meet requirements of the law."
>
> And, whether it's a displinary issue or not, sexual or potentially sexual
> behavior in a 4 yr old IS a behavioral issue which requires parent
> contact,
> if for no other reason than that there's a good chance that other parents
> will complain. And, when a parent goes to the district office and
> complains
> that "That kid is doing XYZ in the classroom", the person at that level in
> the district will pull up the file on the computer and say "Oh, yes. On
> January 27th, we got a report of this (code 49-inappropriate sexual
> behavior). This was listed as resolved on January 29 (code 5-parent
> conference to clear suspension), and you shouldn't see any further
> problems.". If that code 49 hadn't been entered because the school
> administrator considered it to be silly to consider this behavior a
> problem,
> the principal is likely to be called on the carpet because this incident
> is
> required to be federally reported, and if a school district is not
> reporting
> said incidents, the federal funding can be jepordized. For the same
> reason,
> even if the aide didn't see it as a big deal, the teacher was likely
> required to report.
>
>
>

[Sanders Kaufman]

yD wrote:

> Thanks. It's sad, but this makes sense (I mean the teacher and the
> "idiots" who punished the child.) Damn! Four years old! My mind is,
> once again, boggled! I hope the parents don't let this pass and don't
> accept some 'form' apology.

This kind of stuff happens every day in Dallas schools. It just hardly
ever makes the papers.

[-L.]

Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> There may be some issue with the child having behaved inappropriately
> before and been warned numerous times. But even so....he's four.
> Since this is deep in the heart of redneck country, I'm going to
> venture a guess that DaMarcus is black and the teacher's aide is not.
> You know how crackers get out the torches and pitchforks if their
> wimmen folks are even looked at by anyone with even a deep tan.
>
>
> > ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
> > story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
> >
>
> I'd have gone over to that school with a baseball catcher's chest
> protector for the aide, and a process server clutching the papers drawn
> up by my attorney. The right lawyer could **** that district so hard
> they'd fondly remember inappropriate touching as the gentlest thing in
> the world.
>

I mean, really. I have seen a child put his/her hands on an adult
woman's breasts simply because s/he's curious. You would hope that by
four a child would know not to do this, but who knows for sure if s/he
would stop doing it or not, by age four. Some 4 year olds still lack
impulse control.

-L.

[tiny dancer]

"-L." > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> >
> > There may be some issue with the child having behaved inappropriately
> > before and been warned numerous times. But even so....he's four.
> > Since this is deep in the heart of redneck country, I'm going to
> > venture a guess that DaMarcus is black and the teacher's aide is not.
> > You know how crackers get out the torches and pitchforks if their
> > wimmen folks are even looked at by anyone with even a deep tan.
> >
> >
> > > ''When I got that letter, my world flipped,'' Blackwell said in a
> > > story in Sunday's editions of the Waco Tribune-Herald.
> > >
> >
> > I'd have gone over to that school with a baseball catcher's chest
> > protector for the aide, and a process server clutching the papers drawn
> > up by my attorney. The right lawyer could **** that district so hard
> > they'd fondly remember inappropriate touching as the gentlest thing in
> > the world.
> >
>
> I mean, really. I have seen a child put his/her hands on an adult
> woman's breasts simply because s/he's curious. You would hope that by
> four a child would know not to do this, but who knows for sure if s/he
> would stop doing it or not, by age four. Some 4 year olds still lack
> impulse control.
>
> -L.


Seems like a lot of hoo haa over nothing. The child is four years old.
Unless he had been asked repeatedly to 'not hung in such a manner', a *hug*
is a *hug* when it comes to little children.


td
>

[Jeff]

"tiny dancer" > wrote in message
...
<..>

> Seems like a lot of hoo haa over nothing. The child is four years old.
> Unless he had been asked repeatedly to 'not hung in such a manner', a
> *hug*
> is a *hug* when it comes to little children.

I would restate this this way: "The child is four years old. *Even if* he
had been asked repeatedly not to hug in such a manner, a hug is just a hug
when it comes to little children."

Jeff

>
>
> td
>>
>
>

[tiny dancer]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:JvVfh.4490$_55.2224@trndny09...
>
> "tiny dancer" > wrote in message
> ...
> <..>
>
> > Seems like a lot of hoo haa over nothing. The child is four years old.
> > Unless he had been asked repeatedly to 'not hung in such a manner', a
> > *hug*
> > is a *hug* when it comes to little children.
>
> I would restate this this way: "The child is four years old. *Even if* he
> had been asked repeatedly not to hug in such a manner, a hug is just a
hug
> when it comes to little children."
>
> Jeff


I was thinking of one of my 20 month old grandsons, who *insists* on
pinching my breast every time I'm holding him. It hurts like hell. But
he's only 20 months old, so I live with it and *remove* his tiny hand every
time he pinches me. If he was four, I'd be a bit more adamant about 'no
pinching grandma'. :]


td

[Sanders Kaufman]

tiny dancer wrote:

> Seems like a lot of hoo haa over nothing. The child is four years old.
> Unless he had been asked repeatedly to 'not hung in such a manner', a *hug*
> is a *hug* when it comes to little children.

Yeah - this wasn't about the kid.
The kid was just collateral damage in a ****ing match between a teacher
and the teacher's aide.

[Banty]

In article >, Sanders Kaufman
says...
>
>tiny dancer wrote:
>
>> Seems like a lot of hoo haa over nothing. The child is four years old.
>> Unless he had been asked repeatedly to 'not hung in such a manner', a *hug*
>> is a *hug* when it comes to little children.
>
>Yeah - this wasn't about the kid.
>The kid was just collateral damage in a ****ing match between a teacher
>and the teacher's aide.

Again - on what basis do you make this claim?

Banty