Posted on 12/15/2009 6:50:21 AM PST by Alistair Stratford IV
Taunton second-grader suspended over drawing of Jesus
Father angered by forced psychological evaluation of boy, 8
By Gerry Tuoti, Staff Writer GateHouse News Service Posted Dec 14, 2009 @ 10:20 PM
Taunton —
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.
He requested that his name and his son’s name be withheld from publication to protect the boy.
The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
“I think what happened is that because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent,” said Toni Saunders, an educational consultant with the Associated Advocacy Center.
Saunders is working with the boy’s parents after a mutual acquaintance referred them to her.
“When I got that call, I was so appalled that I had to do something,” Saunders said.
“They weren’t looking at the fact that this is an 8-year-old child with special needs,” she added. “They made him leave school, and they recommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation.”
The school, in fact, required the evaluation before the boy could return, the father said.
Maxham School principal Rebecca Couet referred all questions on the matter to the superintendent’s office.
Superintendent Julie Hackett said district policy prevents her from discussing a “confidential matter regarding a student.”
“Generally speaking, we have safety protocols in place,” Hackett said. “If a situation warrants it, we ask for outside safety evaluations if we have particular concerns about a child’s safety. We followed all the protocols in our system.”
Hackett refused to specifically discuss the student’s drawing or the school’s reaction to it.
The father was flabbergasted when he learned his son had to undergo an evaluation.
“When she told me he needed to be psychologically evaluated, I thought she was playing,” he said.
The man said his son, who gets specialized reading and speech instruction at school, has never shown any tendency toward violence.
“He’s never been suspended,” he said. “He’s 8 years old. They overreacted.”
The boy made the drawing and was sent home from school on Dec. 2. He went for the psychological evaluation — at his parents’ expense — the next day and was cleared to return to school the following Monday after the psychological evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.
The boy, however, was traumatized by the incident, which made going back to school very difficult, the father said. School administrators have approved the father’s request to have the boy transferred to another elementary school in the district.
This is not the first time in recent years that a Taunton student has been sent home over a drawing. In June 2008, fifth-grade student Cullen Smithson was suspended from Mulcahey Middle School for a day after creating a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.
The Mulcahey teacher also contacted the police to take out charges in the 2008 incident.
gtuoti@tauntongazette.com
As if it matters whether it's Taunton, Mass or Taunton, England? The fact remains that some pinhead teacher has misconstrued the phrase that the Constitution guarantees us "Freedom OF religion" as "Freedom FROM religion". And, technically, even that phrase isn't what's in the Constitution, but close enough for discussion purposes.
The one line that really put a kink in my colon was the "advocate" stating: "They weren’t looking at the fact that this is an 8-year-old child with special needs" as a reason for her involvement.
Is she inferring that if this was a "normal" 8-year-old from Bridgewater or North Easton (nice areas nearby), she wouldn't be involved??? If that's her position, I would tell the parents of this kid to tell HER to take her condescending attitude and jump in the Taunton River!
When society decided it was wrong for kids to play those games they took away a valuable learning experience from children. It is the same thing with competition on the playground (tag, kick ball, dodge ball, etc)
This is where we used to learn to deal with the hard knocks in life. Instead these kids are sent out into the world without the experience and the emotional maturity to deal with the hard lessons in life.
As to the drawing, I can understand why it drew the attention of the teacher. BUT, after talking with the parents who told of their visit to the La Salette Shrine it should have been the end of it.
Of course it goes without saying the teacher should have asked about it in a non-threatening way "That is interesting Johnny, how does that remind you of Christmas." She may have learned about the visit to the shrine herself.
Not to defend the actions of the school but the article says that the boy wrote his name above the cross.
If he wrote his name in the place that usually read “INRI” (and which, perhaps, has been blurred for the child’s privacy on the image we have of his drawing,) THAT might be cause for some concern.
If so, the school still overreacted and handled things horribly.
I think she may be inferring that as a special needs child, making changes in classes like a suspension and making requirements like an psychological evaluation are the types of interventions that cannot be done unilaterally.
These actions were a violation of the rights of this child under special education mandates so that he is not subject to discrimination (like what occurred here).
To change a special education child’s schedule and to require an evaluation without a formal meeting that requires adherence to specific steps designed to protect the child is a clear violation. Such a meeting done properly would include a team of parents, teachers, and special education folks done with certain mandated safeguards was a violation of this child’s rights.
Perhaps the school could make a case for suspension if it assumed the child was a danger but the evaluation requirement done apart from the normal process for a special ed kid is inexcusable.
Not to a Christian because we realize that our name is on that cross.
No wonder the kid drew a picture of him shooting the teacher. Someday the idiots who vote in these liberal states are going to realize that if they come after your neighbor’s child for something they don’t believe in, it’s just a matter of time before they come after everybody.
On the Jesus picture, the teacher was probably too damned dumb to know that Jesus actually DID die on the cross.
There, corrected your sentence. My point is, I don't give a rat's a$$ if the child is special needs or not. This is a clear cut case of religious discrimination, regardless of whether the student in question is a senior at Boston Latin or a 3rd grader in MLK Elementary School in the middle of Harlem!
safety protocols were violated. HUH?
how much is that superintendent paid, I wonder? probably sends her kids to a private school. she should be sacked along with what ever school officials who support this farce.
wouldn’t want them around ‘violent’ children, now would we?
I agree but it is far easier to use the stick of special education than Christian discrimination, especially when those you are up against think Christians are dangerous.
Yep, and lawsuits should be filed against everyone involved - teacher, principal, superintendent and school district. Until these creatures are targeted for their vicious abuses against children and have to pay for them personally, they won't stop.
And in addition to money, they all should have to undergo religious sensititivity training and psychological evaluations to determine if they have a specific hatred for Christians.
If freepers are going to discuss current events in the liberal world, perhaps we need a special page with links to maps of the east coast (and the pacific coast).
Yea, that Taunton is right across the border from Providence, RI.
it is 35 miles from Providence. So I need to refresh my SE MA geography, too.
Thank you, suh!
Transferring to another school is not the solution. Get your kids out of the school system altogether and sue the principal who required the evaluation. Even if you lose, it makes their lives expensive and painful.
The boy has learned NOT to draw Jesus. That’s exactly what the school wanted.
The school needs to “learn” not to behave like this. Only pain and money will do that.
Sorry, I disagree. If this was an eight-year-old child of the Negro race, should we use the race card instead of religious discrimination because it is "far easier"? Why do you insist on downplaying the true nature of the problem (i.e. anti-religion) for ancillary issues that do nothing but enhance the agenda of the secular progressives?
...and about 15 miles from my hometown of Brockton, which is a nice place to have come from, but not necessary to be in at this time!
They still play it...in my kids’ CATHOLIC school, LOL. I saw one of those crucifix thingies in the auditorium last night when I went to see my daughter in the choir’s presentation of ‘A Christmas Carol.’ I think I might require some intense therapy after being exposed to those things the last 36 years :P
The X’s part was speculation by Toni Saunders, a representative of the boy and his father, and not connected to the school system. So, we really don’t know why the drawing was considered violent. Crucifixion is a method of killing a person, and even in the process is quite violent. Saying that the X’s in the eyes was the problem would mean that a picture of a person pointing a gun at another person is not a problem until the drawing depicts the weapon having been discharged and the target killed. Since at the end of the article it mentions the boy who ran foul of the school system for a drawing of him pointing a gun at his teacher, the X’s and death reasoning falls apart rather quickly.
When it is my kid, I use whatever I can to set things straight. I’m not going to use my kid to make a statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.