A harsh punishment or fair enough?

gravitytolls

Auntie-Dolly wrote: »

I guess it would depend what the intention was. Child B might have thought it was a fun gesture. Would child A have realised it wasn't 'official'? I'm guessing they would.

Age 9? I would imagine most 9 yr olds would be so delighted by such an invitation, that the concept of it being aprank wouldn't enter their heads.

Much like when they come running to say 'mummy we've won something online' cos the 'you are the zillionth person....' pop ups has, well, popped up.

Kids believe stuff, unless they're liars themselves, or are used to being lied to.

Spendless

Tropez wrote: »

Apologies if I missed it but what is this traffic lights system as that to me is the real indicator of whether there has been an overreaction? What implications are there in being moved down a light? They're 9 years old so I cannot imagine they're anything particularly severe.

All children start the day on green, if they mis-behave they go down to amber, if they continue they go to red. If they go to red they miss some golden time on friday. If they stop the whole day on green they aceive a merit point. They can also get merit points for other things such as good work or helpfulness. There are rewards for the child/house team with the most merit points.

gravitytolls

peachyprice wrote: »

It depends whether this was done out of malice or whether child B thought child A would see through it within a short time if child C hadn't interfered. Was it a joke gone wrong or was it a purely cruel, spiteful act?

It also would have been obvious to child A's mother that this wasn't for real so the teachers response of 'what would have happened if child A had turned up' is an over-reaction, it wasn't going to happen was it, she's 9, she's not going to take herself off to meet this minor celebrity.


Edit:
OP, I see you've asnwered while I was typing. In which case the teacher was OTT.

I'm suprised at the number of posters who immediately jumped on the child B being nasty bandwagon without even asking for more details TBH, that's very sad that within a few lines of text you could determine that she'd purposely set out to hurt child A.

Lol, but we don't have bright lights and water boarding equipment readily to hand, so we just take it at face value.

peachyprice

Spendless wrote: »

I'm not. I am the mother of Child A and when told the story by my DD, I actually felt sorry for Child B with the punishment given. DD didn't go to teacher upset, she'd recognised it wasn't official from the spelling mistakes. It was child c that told . Teacher didn't ask my DD about it, she just punished child B. I can sort of see why, there's previous history between them as I detailed earlier. The reason I didn't give more detail is I wanted a balanced view and that's hard to do if you give information that is only known to yourself ie 1 side of the story.

Sorry, but the teacher has done your child no favours whatsoever. The other children will now see her as a child who can't take a joke and won't want to interact with her for fear of getting in trouble. The worst part of it is, it wasn't even your child who told the teacher but she's the one who's going to suffer for it.

Tropez

Spendless wrote: »

All children start the day on green, if they mis-behave they go down to amber, if they continue they go to red. If they go to red they miss some golden time on friday. If they stop the whole day on green they aceive a merit point. They can also get merit points for other things such as good work or helpfulness. There are rewards for the child/house team with the most merit points.

So Child B dropped down to amber light and doesn't actually lose anything but misses the opportunity to gain some achievement points?

To be honest, that doesn't sound like a big deal to me. The teacher felt that for whatever reason the child broke some rule and gave them the non-punishment of forfeiting a potential merit point but not a punishment where they actually lose something. Child B has the opportunity to make back the merit point somehow if they choose to do so.

londonsurrey

Spendless wrote: »

Aplologies but this is a fast moving thread and in the time it takes me to type an answer to something I've seen there's been loads more replies. I have answered this above I think.

No, I am trying to establish what it is about this happy playing that made Child C think it was worthy as reporting to the teacher.

If you are saying that you have categorically established that
- Child A wasn't upset at all (e.g. was she asked "You weren't really upset, were you?" or asked "How did you feel when you realised it wasn't real"?)
- Child B had no malicious intent

Then yes, it was blown out of all proportion, and the merry band can all skip off into the sunset together happily.

However, there is a discrepancy that is odd here. The children play for tens of accumulated hours. What about this particular exchange made Child C think it was noteworthy?

balletshoes

sassyblue wrote: »

Apologies spendless, but you're being very generous towards child B. It could have been upsetting and given the history l still think the teacher was right.

I agree, this is pretty much how I feel. Spendless I probably would have felt sorry for Child B too when your child told you about it, but there has been history, Child B was involved then and was involved this time, and I think thats probably why the teacher felt it was appropriate to talk to Child B about it and punish them.

gravitytolls

lovinituk wrote: »

I completely agree with your point of view and applaud you for being so reasonable over it. It is most certainly the teacher I would be unhappy about.

As the parent of two children who've suffered bullying, I applaud the teacher for reacting swiftly. I've lost count of the times I've been in and out of school about bullying, only to be told 'no one saw it, can't do anything, they say something different, it wasn't like that....' We ended up changing schools.

Bravo a teacher that values the self esteem of all children,and equally values teaching children that self esteem doesn't come with humiliating others.

sassyblue

londonsurrey wrote: »

However, there is a discrepancy that is odd here. The children play for tens of accumulated hours. What about this particular exchange made Child C think it was noteworthy?

She could have simply been a tell tale, or thought child B's plans were malicious. :cool:

peachyprice

londonsurrey wrote: »

However, there is a discrepancy that is odd here. The children play for tens of accumulated hours. What about this particular exchange made Child C think it was noteworthy?

I think Spendless has answered that here:

Spendless wrote: »

Child C has flitted between the group of girls being nasty to my DD and playing with her.

Perhaps she was less than happy that child A and B were playing happily, which sounds like the normal 9yo girl power struggle between three girls.