Boy taken to court for not inviting classmates to birthday party.

[slyc_willie]

As the kids would say, my bad.

2. The one being investigated is not the kid, but the school. And not the "invite all" rule per se. The kid was was ignorant of those or didn't care, whatever. What the ombudsman is looking into is whether the school had the right to confiscate his invitiations, or if private letters are private, even though they were delivered on school grounds. We Swedes can be pretty vigilant about private integrity sometimes.

I can see an argument harkening back to whether or not Mrs. Johnson had the right to take away Billy's 'secret note' to Suzie in fourth grade. At what point does a teacher have the right to stop and/or confiscate distributed material in a school environment?

A good point is made by questioning what, exactly, is in the material being handed out. It could have been anything from a birthday party invitation to anti-semitic literature (as just an example). The way in which it was distributed would determine how school authorties would react. Passed out en masse in the halls would be one thing, but in a single class room is another. That indicates a specific and narrowed intent, and not indicated for 'just anybody,' especially since the kid precluded two other boys from receiving invitations.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Wanna launch my rocket, Baby?

Not sure I agree with you, 3 . . .

..
What I get from this is an initial declaration of discrimination. Not about whether or not a child can distribute invitations, but to whom the child can hand them out.

AND whether it was appropriate to do so in school to begin with.... Trinigque was spot on about the Parent's apparent lack of foresight in not just mailing the damn things... Keep private things private...

Lord knows, as we have seen in many of the posts above, surviving the slings and arrows of childhood are hard enough..... And trying to teach a classroom full of the little darlings is enough of a challenge for the teachers.... Humiliating "non-invitee's" just makes it that much harder for all concerned...

We all, near as I can tell, suffered from peer treatment growing up. Learning to cope with it "the hard way" is just part of the deal... I also stuck my finger in a light socket, because... well... being told it was dangerous was somehow not enough for me. That too, is part of growing up.

My father was saddled with an extraordinarily unusual first name which led to a childhood of taunts. He reacted to it by being an overachiever, not an unusual reaction for a child. I reacted to it by being a conspicuous under-achiever.. another common reaction.

But in all cases, it helps make who we are, a dazzling spectrum of variations of personality, talents, ambitions, success and even failures. We hopefully learn to treasure our differences by the time we grow up, if we do.

As Parents, we cannot and probably should not, shield our children from the pain of growing up with others; we can only provide comfort and unqualified love to see them through it all.

And oh yeah, having Fathers who complain to the Ombudsman is another embarrassment we must survive as children. Despite his being a highly respected educator and Brigadier General in the Army Reserve, I was also mortified by my Father’s booming, off-key singing in church.

Now THAT scarred me for life!

-KC

 

[SlickTony]

He is entering public HS, but is in a special, like a magnet program. My older son went through this and excelled. It was a small group of kids, within the HS with dedicated teachers. I continue to have high hopes.

Ah, that's different. It sounds like an ideal scenario. He ought to do fine.

slyc, I hadn't known you were a Touretter. You've coped with it wonderfully. Like your new avatar.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think this is important. I don't mind that this thread has become a discussion about inviting all or none or invites at school--but you are all missing the point here. This was not about "You must invite all" or even "No invites at school" this was about handing out private letters. The school didn't know what was in those envelopes. The kid might say "Invites" but how is the school to know? And why take the kid's word for it? He could have been handing out hate mail, or threats; the "invites" could have been blackmail photos (pay up or this goes on the internet!) or test answers to help the class to cheat on a test.

THAT is what this is about. Did the school have a right to take those invites and look at them or not? They may well have returned them after opening them and allowed the kid to give them out. This has NOTHING to do with invites. Nothing at all with a kid who may or may not have wanted to invite everyone in his class to a party.

It only has to do with whether those letters are his private property (that he can hold onto and hand out or not at school) or whether they are the school's property while on school grounds.

In this country, statistically, the most likely thing they might have been is Valentines.

 

[3113]

Well, then, damn me for trusting the media.

At this point I'm not sure, given what Liar said, whether the report is accurate or not in regards to why the teacher confiscated the invites. As said, however, even if the teacher took them because the kid went against the invite rule, the issue is the ability of the school to confiscate any private piece of paper, not whether the rule that everyone gets an invite is a good/bad rule.

Personally, I agree that teachers have enough to do without having to deal with arguments, whispers, and the public humiliation of students by students over invites to a party. Humans being humans, there is no way for a school to ever avoid teaching kids life lessons, or having social interaction, but the teacher does have a right to minimize disruption of his/her class. So if the teacher can take away notes passed in class, they can take away the invites that, in excluding some, might also cause a disruption.

We will grant that kids are not in isolation chambers when they go to school. We will grant that a school can't protect them entirely from bad experiences. But let us also grant that a school is intended primarily to teach them history, math, science, etc. It may teach them about life and how to deal with other people as a by product--but that's not it's job, is it? And as that is not it's job, it has every right to minimize anything that will undermine it's job.

Finally, we will grant that Life isn't fair. But we bitch and complain, on the one hand, that kids shouldn't be protected from disappointment, etc, then turn around and bitch and complain that kids don't get taught how to be honorable and courteous. I think this invite rule is less about erasing competition and disappointment then it is about honor and courtesy. A situation where kids are all forced to be together, all forced to see what each is getting, and those who don't get something forced to suffer all day long for it isn't honorable or courteous. Not when it could be privately done.

That people are mean, rude, unfair and dishonorable is a real lesson, and everyone here is naive if you think that this one invite rules has somehow shielded those kids from learning that. They know it by now, and know it well. But that invite rule can teach them that meanness, rudeness, dishonorable conduct isn't tolerated. That people will be mean, rude and dishonorable is a given. Whether society will allow people to be mean, rude and dishonorable, even reward them for it, is not a given. Not allowing students to disrespect other students will not stop the disrespect--but it will teach students that society does not condone that behavior.

 

[OLDERNWISER]

.....