Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you won't like this, but when your son decided to fight back...instead of seeking help from one of dozens of adults in the school...it changed from an attack to a fight. That's what a fight is.
I know it's tempting to say "fight back" and "defend yourself". But I've seen a few, and heard of more, really serious injuries (and even one death) in the kind of situation you describe. All it takes is one student falling and hitting his head on a desk or a water fountain, or just the hard floor to have a brain injury (as one example). I'm sorry, but "we" can't allow fights in schools. Why didn't you press charges against the other kid and his family?
FWIW I was fully aware of the zero tolerance rule and "use your words".
I didn't object to the 2 day suspension. That was the consequence of zero tolerance even if you were the victim.
If that happened to my kid, I would look into filing a grievance.
Your kid should not get suspended from school for defending himself from someone who physically attacked him.
This is exactly why we need cameras in schools.
Schools have zero tolerance. It was a rule intentionally broke knowing what the consequences would be.
I taught my son to defend himself and not rely on other people to do it for him.
I let the Principal know of my stance as well. It is what it is.
FWIW I was fully aware of the zero tolerance rule and "use your words".
I didn't object to the 2 day suspension. That was the consequence of zero tolerance even if you were the victim.
No, that's really not what it is. It's about saying to the school body that we don't allow fighting in this school. That there are alternatives. And, frankly, it's where your goals as a parent may have to be different than our goals as a school. Sometimes those goals don't match.
No, that's really not what it is. It's about saying to the school body that we don't allow fighting in this school. That there are alternatives. And, frankly, it's where your goals as a parent may have to be different than our goals as a school. Sometimes those goals don't match.
In my case it was their Zero Tolerance rule. The Principal thought I was going to object to his suspension and was all prepared with a handout for me
Okay. We didn't have a zero tolerance policy toward it, and I might very have suspended the initial aggressor out of school for 3 days and your son in-school for a day or two...based on what you have described.
But my point here is that a parent's "goal" (for wont of a better term) and a school's goals are sometimes not the same, and legitimately so.
Okay. We didn't have a zero tolerance policy toward it, and I might very have suspended the initial aggressor out of school for 3 days and your son in-school for a day or two...based on what you have described.
But my point here is that a parent's "goal" (for wont of a better term) and a school's goals are sometimes not the same, and legitimately so.
Legitimate at the time. The original intent of Zero Policy was about drugs, gangs and guns.
But some schools took it too far...remember the Pop Tart kid ?
He got suspended for chewing his pop tart into a shape of a gun.
Now if that were my son..yes I would object.
Studies years later showed that Zero Tolerance did not reduce drugs, gangs and guns in schools.
But they let that genie out of the bottle and now have to live with it.
IMHO cellphones should have been banned in k-12 from Day 1
Yes, because the PARENTS (at least in my school) were RELENTLESS about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.