I have repeatedly told you what “my” definition of bullying is. Again, and pay attention this time, it’s the one you’d find in the dictionary, if you knew how to use one.
And again, and try to pay attention this time, my “argument” has nothing to do with your understanding or lack of understanding the definition of bullying. It’s about the treatment of an innocent child.
Now, I’ve grown weary trying to explain simple truth to someone whose goal in life seems to be avoidance of truth. It is wrong for a teacher (yes, even your wife) to bully a student. I realize you’re never going to be able to grasp that concept. That’s okay. Everyone can serve a purpose in life, even if it’s just to serve as a warning to others.
Have a nice day.
Thank you, finally you have actually staked your position, so let's go to the dictionary as you suggest.
Dictionary.com
Bully - a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.
Bullying - to act the bully toward; intimidate; domineer; to be loudly arrogant and overbearing.
In this case the Rule is created by management of the institution with the intent of maintaining order and discipline in an educational environment. I have trouble believing the rule is intended to be badgering, intimidating, arrogant, domineering or overbearing. The school is correct in believing that students should be in the class room ready to begin glass on time. The Tardy bell is hardly a new or unique device. The school is a legitimate authority, so they are not domineering when establishing and enforcing rules, they are carryout assigned responsibilities
The consequences are established, generally known and I would expect applied evenly for each occurrence. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise, do you?.
The consequences as intended create embarrassment for unacceptable behaviour, no different then being sent to the office, having to sit in the corner, changing your behaviour card from green to yellow or red, or making the child apologize for unacceptable behaviour. As a consequence, it, like all of the others is not physically harmful, dangerous or damaging. It does not threaten the security or safety of the child. It does not fall outside the very restrictive limits placed on schools for applying discipline.
It’s about the treatment of an innocent child.
You keep ascerting that the child is innocent. On what evidence are you basing that claim. I have read 4 different articles related to this situation and in none of them did I see any evidence that indicated the child was not a contributing factor in the tardiness. Quite the contrary, as no mention is made of the child's contribution or lack there of to the event. Not surprising since schools for legal reasons cannot provide such information to the public. They are effectively gagged while any Tom, Dick or Harriet can scream bloody murder whether they are involved and knowledgeable or not.
When the child grows up and has a job, if the bus is behind schedule and results in being late for work and this happens on a repetitive basis, should the employer just accept the behaviour or punish the bus company. That is the message you are promoting. Of course not. If there is a problem with getting to work on time, the employer is fully correct in expecting the employee to remedy the problem. The employer or the school is totally correct in expecting an employee or a student to be on time.
Let's consider the case that the parent was totally responsible for the tardiness and the child was totally innocent. As a result of their failure to carryout their responsibility, their child is placed in an uncomfortable situation. Instead of taking responsibility for their failure and correcting their behaviour, they find fault with the school and expect the school to change their behaviour. That is a wonderful message to send to the child. What better way to raise a child to be a responsible adult?