6-Year-Old Suspended From 1st Grade for Kissing Classmate.
Grinch
Associated Press, 9/25/96
LEXINGTON, N.C. --
These days a kiss isn't just a kiss -- not even in the first grade.
A 6-year old boy who kissed a girl on the cheek was suspended from his
public school last week for committing sexual harassment.
Jackie Prevette said the school overreacted to an innocent peck on the
cheek when it banished her son, Jonathan. Jonathan said that the girl
had asked him to kiss her and that he was expressing friendship,
according to his mother."Can't you just imagine children skipping down
the hall holding hands? Isn't that Norman Rockwell's America?", Prevette
asked.
But School District spokeswoman Jane Martin said school policy is clear
"A 6-year-old kissing another 6-year-old is inappropriate behavior.
Unwelcome is unwelcome at any age." The rules are outlined in a student
handbook given to each child at the start of the school year. Parents are
asked to sign a form confirming that they explained the do's and don't's,
Martin said.
A teacher who saw the incident reported it to the principal, who decided
the first-grader should be punished.
"This makes children wonder, Should I hug somebody?", Prevette said.
"It's no wonder we have all these people with behavior problems."
-- end AP report --
Reuel Nash
Grinch wrote:
>
> Associated Press, 9/25/96
>
> LEXINGTON, N.C. --
>
> These days a kiss isn't just a kiss -- not even in the first grade.
>
> A 6-year old boy who kissed a girl on the cheek was suspended from his
> public school last week for committing sexual harassment.
>
> Jackie Prevette said the school overreacted to an innocent peck on the
> cheek when it banished her son, Jonathan. Jonathan said that the girl
> had asked him to kiss her and that he was expressing friendship,
so was the girl punished? Around here, the *approach* is considered
sexual harassment, too.
Was there ever an attempt to validate Jonathan's story of the girl
asking him to kiss her?
IMHO, this whole thing was mishandled. A simple "don't
do that again, kids" probably would have done.
--
Reuel Nash
re...@sgi.com
Linda E Lombardo
I agree. We're getting completely out of hand.
My son (six years old!) brought an obviously
rubber play knife to school and was brought to
the office and suspended for the day. I suppose
I should be glad he wasn't suspended for a year.
To be fair, he did know the rules and he was
specifically told by me not to bring the knife
to school. But I think I could have handled the
problem myself. I think it was blown out of all
proportion. (And no, I did not buy it for him.
It was a gift. I don't believe in knives and guns
as toys.)
---
*****************************************************
"Math and Science may earn you a living, but
Art is what we're living for"
*****************************************************
AMHERST, VIRGINIA
Grinch
It's great to see the public sector setting priorities.
In New York the courts just ruled that the public schools could *not*
suspend a student for bringing a *loaded gun* to school. School
officials testified that they had seen the outline of the gun under the
jacket of the student, who was a known troublemaker. But a trial court
ruled that this did *not* give them "reasonable cause" to search the
student, concluded that his Constitutional rights against unreasonable
search-and-seizure had been violated, and ruled the suspension illegal.
The NYC Board of Ed appealed but the state appeals court unanimously
upheld the decision, holding that the public schools can not search or
suspend students in similar cases.
As this decision comes from an appeals court, it has general application
throughout NY State. And as it is based on federal law and the U.S.
Constitution, you can expect the same sort of thing to arise in *your*
state (if it hasn't already -- this is not the first ruling of its
kind).
So here's where we're heading: Students who bring loaded guns to school
get "due process" , Constitutional protection, and a trial before
suspension, while 6-year-olds who kiss each other as a sign of
friendship get summary suspension.
We are left to conclude that a politically incorrect act (by a
6-year-old) deserves a tougher response than a felony, which is what
possession of an unlicensed gun is in NY.
Private schools, anyone?
Jim G.
NY Daily News, 10/2/96, p.5:
-quote-
7-YR OLD SUSPENDED FOR KISSING CLASSMATE
A second grader at a Queens public school got a five-day suspension for
sexual harassment after he kissed a little girl and ripped a button off her
skirt.
De'Andre Dearinge's mom, Erica White, said yesterday she was "disgusted"
by school officials' response to the classroom incident. "Sexual harassment
by a 7-year-old second grader? That's crazy", she snapped.
De'Andre's banishment this week from P.S.104 in Far Rockaway came days
after school officials in North Carolina sparked national incredulity by
suspending a 6-year-old boy accused of kissing a girl.
De'Andre readily admitted last night that he had kissed his classmate,
"Because I like her", he said. As for the button, De'Andre said his
favorite book was "Corduroy", which is about a bear with a missing button.
Asked what "sex" means, De'Andre said he didn't know. A student must
know what sex is to be guilty of sexual harassment.
White learned her son was in trouble when he brought home a note on
Friday. "He said, 'Mom, I was good all day today, I have a happy note for
you", White said. But when she opened the terse letter from Acting
Principal Gerri Perriott, she got a shock.
"I regret to inform you that it is necessary to suspend you child,"
Perriott wrote. Reason for suspension: sexual harassment.
Perriott would not discuss the case, saying administrators must act if a
student charges harassment. "If a child comes to us and says so-and-so did
such-and-such, we listen and investigate", she said. "We were given
guidelines as to why we suspend children. We followed the guidelines."
Board of Education spokeswoman Chiara Coletti late yesterday said that
De'Andre, his mother, teachers and school administrators would meet to
discuss the charges. "The school is going to bring everyone involved in
this matter into the school as soon as possible to be sure this particular
situation is treated sensitively", she said.
Other parents were furious that the shy quiet youngster was slammed with
a charge that will remain on his record for 10 years. "They make to much of
this", said PS 104 parent Xenia Walford Berry, "kids are going to be kids".
District officials said they follow guidelines, set up by central board,
which define sexual harassment as sexually suggestive comments, innuendoes
or propositions; inappropriate physical contact of a sexual nature, such as
touching, patting or pinching. They recommend penalties ranging from a
reprimand to a 30-day suspension and set no minimum age.
White said she feared that De'Andre -- who is clearly nervous and
confused by the controversy -- would be scarred.
"I hope it doesn't have any long-term effect," she said.
- end quote -
Grinch
qas...@ix.netcom.com (Matthew T. Ficcaglia) wrote:
>llom...@pen.k12.va.us (Linda E Lombardo) wrote:
>
>>My son (six years old!) brought an obviously
>>rubber play knife to school and was brought to
>>the office and suspended for the day.
>
contain not *one word* considering the 6-year-old's welfare, view, or
feelings; nor any consideration *at all* of effective and appropriate
ways for a teacher to address a 6-year-old's behavior.
Indeed, we get so much venom against the parent that I wonder if this
isn't a troll. Perhaps Chris Whittle posts to misc.education posing as a
public school teacher? :)
>This doesn't strike me as being even *remotely* similar to the
>incident which started this thread.
>
>a) Who can blame school for being vigilant about the presence of toy
>weapons? From a short distance, even "obviously" fake weapons can
>look very real. It's perfectly reasonable for a school to want to
>eliminate the confusion--and increased risk--that toy weapons would
>introduce.
>
We start with patent nonsense.
From a short distance(!), how does an "obviously" fake anything look very
real? Sort of contradicts the meaning of the word "obviously", doesn't
it?
And what's the "increased risk" being eliminated here -- that of an
obviously fake stab wound?
>b) Even if your child's knife looked *extremely* fake, his classmate's
>might not, and then we're left trying to set standards for how real a
>knife has to look in order to be banned. That's ludicrous.
>
Now we get a rewrite of the facts. A classmate's got a real-looking
knife. Maybe a lot of classmates do. Hey! Where did they come from?
Or is this just a bogus argument that there is *no alternative* to
summarily suspending a kindergartner or first-grader for bringing a toy
to school, other than letting everyone else in school bring in everything
they want? Now that *is* ludicrous!
>>I suppose I should be glad he wasn't suspended for a year.
>
>Wow. I hope your kid hasn't inherited your gift for sarcasm, or your
>disdain for legitimate and reponsibly-exercised authority.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ha!
I taught in a public school in the South Bronx where *real* problems with
kids who brought in *real* knives and guns occurred all the time. And
even there, even a minimally capable teacher with any empathy at all for
6-year-old students in his or her charge would handle a case like this
simply by taking the child aside and saying: "Please don't bring any toy
knives or guns to school anymore, OK?" Then...
* If the child agrees, end of story. The child learns something, the
problem is resolved, and there's no trauma for anybody. Know what? --
It's even easier for the school than suspending the kid.
* If the child doesn't agree, or again brings the toy to school, then
the teacher would talk to the parent. And if that didn't solve the
problem, *then* formal discipline would occur.
This is known as treating the child as an individual ... or graduated
discipline ... or dealing with the facts of the particular situation,
rather than blindly applying bureaucratic sanctions with no sense of
perspective. It's what "responsibly exercised authority" really looks
like.
>One more thing for his poor teachers to put up with.
>
>Do you seriously mean to suggest that a *one day* suspension is
>extreme or draconian? If so, I'm glad the school didn't leave it to
>you to "handle." (My *guess* is that part of the reason your kid
>breaks clear and important rules is precisely this--that your idea of
>appropriate consequences is so lax.)
>
>>To be fair, he did know the rules and he was
>>specifically told by me not to bring the knife
>>to school.
>
>a) If your child knew the rules, he should be prepared to abide by
>them--which includes accepting the consequences for breaking them--and
>so should you.
>
>b) If you knew the rule ahead of time, why are you only complaining
>about it now? If you didn't know the rule ahead of time, you should
>have. Most schools I'm familiar with publish a handbook which
>explains these sorts of things quite clearly. It's your resposibility
>to read it, and if you have objections, to raise them immediately; if
>you wait until your kid has been caught, you have virtually *no*
>credibility. Even if you do object from the start, if your efforts to
>get a rule changed are unsuccessful, you're still back to (a). That's
>one of the sacrifices you make to live in a civilized society.
Blind bureaucratic rule pushing now is equated with "civilized society".
How can someone who has The Brothers Karamozov on his web page as
recommended reading come up with tripe like this?
>
>>But I think I could have handled the problem myself.
>
>You're *completely* missing the point! This is not just about
>disciplining your child. While the students are there, your child's
>school is *responsible* for them and their safety. This means that
>they are not only entitled, but obligated, to make reasonable rules,
>to establish appropriate sanctions, and to *enforce* them with
>certainty and consistency.
And to leave judgment and common sense outside the school door, I
suppose.
As far as the schools' safety obligations are concerned -- oh, if only
they lived up to them. NYC has high schools where more students have been
murdered in the school than graduated doing 12th-grade work. But that's
another story.
What you've got *here* is an arbitrary exercise of power where there was
no harm or risk of harm to anyone. The bureaucrat's creed: Abandon all
judgment and look for a rule to apply -- preferably against someone who
can't fight back.
Imagine, a 6-year-old brought a TOY to school!
>The fact that you see this as an issue
>involving only you and your kid makes me suspicious of your whole
>sense of social responsibility.
>
>>I think it was blown out of all proportion.
>
>By you, perhaps.
>
>>(And no, I did not buy it for him. It was a gift.
>>I don't believe in knives and guns as toys.)
>
>Let me see-is this supposed to increase your ethical appeal?
All this snipe, snipe, snipe at the parent makes me suspect you *are* a
teacher yourself. Maybe not. Either way, why the chip on your shoulder?
>
>"Hey, he broke the rule, but I don't approve of that sort of thing, so
>let's not get all upset about it?"
>
> or
>
>"Look at what an enlightened and moral person I am--surely I'm in the
>right!"
>
>Whatever.
>
>My question is, if you "don't believe in knives and guns as
>toys," then:
>
>a) *Why* are you upset with the school for reinforcing your own
>standards and expectations?
>
>and
>
>b) Because your child receives something as a gift, it's no longer
>subject to your approval or disapproval? What if I gave him a loaded
>gun, or a box of gunpowder, or a subscription to Penthouse? Would you
>feel compelled to let him *keep* them? It sounds to me like, if you
>really do have the convictions you suggest, you're either pretty soft
>about maintaining them in general, or you're willing to compromise
>them when they might cause a fuss (like the one your kid would make if
>you said, "Sorry, you can't keep the toy knife.") In either case,
>your boy is learning some important thing about rules and convictions
>alike; it's no wonder he's willing to disregard them when it suits
>him.
>
This nasty, idiotic paragraph alone is 30% longer than Ms. Lombardo's
entire original post!
>Finally, I really hope that you haven't expressed your differences
>with the school in front of your child.
Dear God! DON'T CRITICIZE THE SCHOOL!!!
>If you have, I imagine he's
>well on his way to becoming the sort of rebellious, disrespectful, and
>inconsiderate individual that already threatens not only the smooth
>functioning of our educational system, but our society as a whole.
>Today you side with him against the school, tomorrow it'll be the
>cops.
>
Too late. You criticized a public school. Your kid's life is ruined. Here
come the cops.
>The opening of your message makes a fitting closing for mine, I think:
>
>>I agree. We're getting completely out of hand.
>
>(Yes you are.)
>*******************************************************************
> Matthew T. Ficcaglia || "The Narcissus Project"
>
If this post wasn't a troll or put up by Whittle's PR department, and in
fact came from a public school teacher, then it's the best advertisement
for voucher schools I've seen in a long time.
It veritably caricatures the worst faults that the critics of the public
school system *try* to impute to it -- including a much higher regard for
bonehead rules and procedures than for the children whose lives are
affected by them, and enmity and contempt for parents who dare question
or inconvenience the system.
Imagine - - saying a mother should *not* support her 6-year-old
child who's been hurt by a bad teacher or dumb bureaucrat, because doing
so ....
> ... threatens not only the smooth
>functioning of our educational system, but our society as a whole.
>Today you side with him against the school, tomorrow it'll be the
>cops."
Now that is self-importance! "Narcissus" doesn't begin to cover it.
The *dream* of Chris Whittle and the voucher advocates is that more
public school supporters with attitudes like this will stand up tall and
speak out loud.
Grinch
New York Times, 10/3/96, Page One:
-- quoted extracts from a longish article --
HARASSMENT IN 2ND GRADE?
QUEENS KISSER IS PARDONED
A 7-year-old Queens boy who kissed a classmate and tore a button from her
skirt was suspended from school for sexual harassment, then reinstated,
as chagrined school officials weathered a storm of criticism ...
The second-grade boy, De'Andre Dearinge, missed three days of classes at
P.S. 104 in Far Rockaway but was permitted to return yesterday ...
Few voices had been raised to defend the initial decision to suspend
De'Andre, with everyone from Mayor Rudolph Guiliani to experts on sexual
harassment saying that school officials had overreacted. But the
incident, and the storm that followed, gave a hint of how sensitive the
issue of sexual harassment has become, with business executives,
educators, and others fearful of liability if employees, students or
others even contend they have been harassed.
Still, with companies and educators finding it necessary to conduct
seminars to explain what constitutes sexual harassment, parents, city
officials and experts said a 7-year-old was unlikely to understand the
concept.
"Clearly, Title IX doesn't reach a little boy kissing a girl", said Verna
Williams, a lawyer at the National Women's Law Center, referring to the
Federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in schools. "That's not
pervasive harassment, it's not a pattern, and it's not severe. Sometimes
a kiss is just a kiss."
The Board of Education said yesterday it would reconsider its sexual
harassment guidelines ...
School officials would not discuss the details of the incident involving
De'Andre ... [But the boy's mother] after speaking to her son and school
officials, said that as DeAndre was sitting next to a girl during
Friday's lunch break, he kissed her....
Outside P.S. 104 after the meeting yesterday, De'Andre, surrounded by a
throng of reporters, explained that he had torn the button from the
girl's skirt because a character in his favorite book, a bear, had done
so when in a similar predicament. Asked to name the book, the boy said
softly, "Corduroy". Asked what the bear was missing, the boy answered "A
button", then ran away from the media crush....
They boy's family said their main concern was that a charge of sexual
harassment would stay on their son's record for 10 years. "Your talking
about ruining a child's future because of an adult's misconception said
[the boy's uncle]. [The mother] said, "It's going to be off his record
now. That's all I wanted."...
Board of Education spokeswoman Chiara Coletti said principals at all
schools hold frequent meetings to discuss sexual harassment and receive
training on how to handle the problem.
She added that De'Andre had no previous record of trouble or suspensions,
and no history or trying to kiss other girls. ...
-- end quoted extracts --
Bertel Lund Hansen
Grinch <Ol'Na...@Seus.com> wrote:
>In response to Ms. Lombardo's short post, we get 70 lines of vitriol ...
In all fairness I think yours is worse - and just as long.
Basically I agree completely with M.T.F's point of view. I
am BTW a teacher in a public school (in Denmark). Does that
disqualify my oppinion?
Regards, Bertel
Sharon D. O'Toole
My understanding is that this has not been an isolated incident. The boys have
been doing this to the girls who complained to the teacher and school officials.
The boys were warned to stop - they chose not to.
Sharon
Jim Lyons
The problem is not the child was punished for inappropriate behavior,
but that a thoroughly inappropriate label was put on it: sexual
harassment. It's absurd to accuse a child so young of that and it
discounts serious charges of sexual harassment by older girls and
women.
--
Jim Lyons | Operating Systems Specialist
Computation Center | 512-475-9331
University of Texas at Austin | j.l...@cc.utexas.edu
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~koala