Mass. 2nd grader sent home for crucifix drawing

[del]

I've read about them defending their actions and speaking about the picture that was released to the press, then a little while later I read that they denied that it was the picture that was released by the press that was at issue, and now they're saying there wasn't any issue at all. So, who knows?

Maybe it's the media that's at fault here, which wouldn't surprise me in the least. And there's a poor boy that is stuck in the middle of it all, that's the real shame.

where are they saying it wasn't an issue? i suppose it wouldn't be if the kid's father wasn't a moneygrubbing yahoo, but that's beside the point. the school has consistently said that the picture the father released to the press wasn't the picture in question.

WBZ-TV Video Archive - wbztv.com

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

the educational consultant who was working for the family said the teacher became alarmed by the x's; the teacher hasn't spoken at all. it all came from the father who went to the media.

 

[Newby]

where are they saying it wasn't an issue? i suppose it wouldn't be if the kid's father wasn't a moneygrubbing yahoo, but that's beside the point. the school has consistently said that the picture the father released to the press wasn't the picture in question.

WBZ-TV Video Archive - wbztv.com

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

the educational consultant who was working for the family said the teacher became alarmed by the x's; the teacher hasn't spoken at all. it all came from the father who went to the media.

So, you're saying that the educational consultant was lying in regards to what the teacher said then?

 

[del]

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

the educational consultant who was working for the family said the teacher became alarmed by the x's; the teacher hasn't spoken at all. it all came from the father who went to the media.

So, you're saying that the educational consultant was lying in regards to what the teacher said then?

i'm saying that the educational consultant was repeating what was told to her by the father. i believe the father is lying, but that doesn't make the consultant one.

 

[Newby]

the educational consultant who was working for the family said the teacher became alarmed by the x's; the teacher hasn't spoken at all. it all came from the father who went to the media.

So, you're saying that the educational consultant was lying in regards to what the teacher said then?

i'm saying that the educational consultant was repeating what was told to her by the father. i believe the father is lying, but that doesn't make the consultant one.

I see where you're coming from now, it's possible. You would think the educational consultant, if acting as a liason between the parent and the school, would have verified what the father said before making comments to the press. That's what I mean tho, there's not enough accurate information to make any determination, which is why I wouldn't completely believe that the school is completely in the clear either.

 

[paperview]

I've read about them defending their actions and speaking about the picture that was released to the press, then a little while later I read that they denied that it was the picture that was released by the press that was at issue, and now they're saying there wasn't any issue at all. So, who knows?

Maybe it's the media that's at fault here, which wouldn't surprise me in the least. And there's a poor boy that is stuck in the middle of it all, that's the real shame.

where are they saying it wasn't an issue? i suppose it wouldn't be if the kid's father wasn't a moneygrubbing yahoo, but that's beside the point. the school has consistently said that the picture the father released to the press wasn't the picture in question.

WBZ-TV Video Archive - wbztv.com

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

The Taunton School District then released a written statement saying that:

• The drawing circulated to reporters by the boy's father is not the same one that was discovered by the teacher and
• The boy and his classmates had not been assigned to draw something that reminded them of Christmas or any other religious holiday.

I'll bet you the dad had his kid draw another picture...or he did it himself.

 

[Emma]

Isn't that convenient for them?

The law?

Yes. To me it is more convenient for this foul mouthed father to do and say as he pleases while the school is restricted by what they can say.

This guy is a scammer and is using religion and race to bring poor victimized lil conservatives to his side and cheer him on. You're doing a good job of that.

Why has the school changed their version of the story numerous times now? I'm not cheering anyone on, since no one really knows what happened on either side here. Why are you cheering the school on after they've changed their tune three times now?

The only version from the school district is that the pic shown by the father is NOT the one that triggered action from the school, and that the father's story is inaccurate.

 

[Emma]

I've read about them defending their actions and speaking about the picture that was released to the press, then a little while later I read that they denied that it was the picture that was released by the press that was at issue, and now they're saying there wasn't any issue at all. So, who knows?

Maybe it's the media that's at fault here, which wouldn't surprise me in the least. And there's a poor boy that is stuck in the middle of it all, that's the real shame.

where are they saying it wasn't an issue? i suppose it wouldn't be if the kid's father wasn't a moneygrubbing yahoo, but that's beside the point. the school has consistently said that the picture the father released to the press wasn't the picture in question.

WBZ-TV Video Archive - wbztv.com

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

There have been no comments by the teacher. What you're reading is what the FATHER claimed the teacher said. The school's message has been consistent.

 

[saveliberty]

The up side:

a. Only one kid is screwed up in the class.
b. Art in schools is not dead yet.
c. del is gracing us with the funny bird avatar.
d. The teacher followed procedure.
e. We got to discuss a different topic.

 

[Emma]

Any bets that this "story" (although clearly false) will reappear yearly in The War On Christmas™ ?

 

[Emma]

The up side:

a. Only one kid is screwed up in the class.
b. Art in schools is not dead yet.
c. del is gracing us with the funny bird avatar.
d. The teacher followed procedure.
e. We got to discuss a different topic.

That's a bird?

 

[Newby]

Any bets that this "story" (although clearly false) will reappear yearly in The War On Christmas™ ?

Only if it's put there by you since you seem to be the one with an obsession with it relating to Christmas somehow.

 

[ba1614]

Any bets that this "story" (although clearly false) will reappear yearly in The War On Christmas™ ?

I don't think so. I think this poor kids father is going to end up looking like a douche, and that'll be the end of it.

 

[Newby]

where are they saying it wasn't an issue? i suppose it wouldn't be if the kid's father wasn't a moneygrubbing yahoo, but that's beside the point. the school has consistently said that the picture the father released to the press wasn't the picture in question.

WBZ-TV Video Archive - wbztv.com

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

There have been no comments by the teacher. What you're reading is what the FATHER claimed the teacher said. The school's message has been consistent.

The school's message has been 'no comment', we will never know if they did anything wrong or not.

 

[del]

The up side:

a. Only one kid is screwed up in the class.
b. Art in schools is not dead yet.
c. del is gracing us with the funny bird avatar.
d. The teacher followed procedure.
e. We got to discuss a different topic.

That's a bird?

Emu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Newby]

The law?

Yes. To me it is more convenient for this foul mouthed father to do and say as he pleases while the school is restricted by what they can say.

This guy is a scammer and is using religion and race to bring poor victimized lil conservatives to his side and cheer him on. You're doing a good job of that.

Why has the school changed their version of the story numerous times now? I'm not cheering anyone on, since no one really knows what happened on either side here. Why are you cheering the school on after they've changed their tune three times now?

The only version from the school district is that the pic shown by the father is NOT the one that triggered action from the school, and that the father's story is inaccurate.

So, your theory is that a guy who worked as a part time janitor at the school district came up with an entirely concocted plan to try to win a lawsuit against a school by having his son draw a religious picture and then accuse the school of discrimination based on his child falsely being punished for said picture? There's nothing to his side of the story at all?

 

[Newby]

The up side:

a. Only one kid is screwed up in the class.
b. Art in schools is not dead yet.
c. del is gracing us with the funny bird avatar.
d. The teacher followed procedure.
e. We got to discuss a different topic.

That's a bird?

Emu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I always thought is was an ostrich....

 

[saveliberty]

The up side:

a. Only one kid is screwed up in the class.
b. Art in schools is not dead yet.
c. del is gracing us with the funny bird avatar.
d. The teacher followed procedure.
e. We got to discuss a different topic.

That's a bird?

Emu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have them on two farms here in the county. A few peacocks and ostriches too. Sort of screws up a summer afternoon at my dad's house when you hear an ostrich call right after a sandhill crane.

 

[paperview]

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

There have been no comments by the teacher. What you're reading is what the FATHER claimed the teacher said. The school's message has been consistent.

The school's message has been 'no comment', we will never know if they did anything wrong or not.

The Taunton School District released a written statement.

You can read that here: Taunton School Department Statement | ABC6 | Providence/New Bedford News, Weather and Sports | Web Extra

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Does emu taste good?

 

[Emma]

Well, that's not what I saw the day the story first broke, why all of the teacher's comments about that particular picture then? All you have to do is go back through this thread where comments were made in regard to the teacher saying that the boy told her it was him on the cross, that she was disturbed that the boy put in an 'X' for the eyes, etc.. Where did all of that come from then, if that was not the picture in question?

There have been no comments by the teacher. What you're reading is what the FATHER claimed the teacher said. The school's message has been consistent.

The school's message has been 'no comment', we will never know if they did anything wrong or not.

Bullshit.

It's been posted at least twice on this thread.