<p>^^</p>
<p>I agree that the principal is power-crazy, but isn’t bright enough to put energies into something meaningful. Deep-down, she likely knows that she’s really unqualified, so she flips-out when challenged. If she truly was a qualified principal, she wouldn’t be wasting time on such issues.</p>
<p>I would only go to the superintendent as a last resort. I just think the principal needs to understand this not worth going to war over. </p>
<p>I would arrange a meeting with the principal and the school psychologist and give them a chance to convince me that isolating my daughter with a group of boys at lunch is of educational value. They are the professionals. I would want evidence that mine was not the only child being singled out for “special” seating. I would want to observe lunchtime myself to confirm that there are lone boys at an all girls table, and so on.</p>
<p>If I were to remain unconvinced, I would give the principal the name of the child I would like mine to be seated with, and suggest she steer clear of my daughter as much as possible in the future.</p>
<p>I don’t find this surprising. Some principals feel very threatened by petitions. About a million years ago when I was in the 6th grade we submitted a petition to the principal when she forbade us from playing a game that involved tackling each other. Being the radicals that we were in Oakland, CA in the early 1970s, we refused to create a hierarchical organization to make our demands. We did, however, require someone to actually transcribe the petition, and that lucky soul was yours truly. When the principal dismissed our demands, I explained that this would not be the end of the issue. Though I meant that she could expect our parents to join us in our revolutionary struggle, the principal suspended me for threatening her.</p>
<p>OP</p>
<p>I have an 11 year old girl. She is physically developed for her age. This situation would destroy my daughter.</p>
<p>Does the school of a psychologist or counselor on staff? </p>
<p>If yes, can the homeroom teacher recommend a session? I think being able to express her feelings to someone at school may be healing.</p>
<p>The seating arrangement is NOT the issue; the 11 year old’s reaction is the issue. And clearly she is uncomfortable and upset. </p>
<p>I applaud you for actively seeking methods to help your sister.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The principal’s behavior may be unfair, vindictive, perhaps unethical, but how are anyone’s constitutional rights being denied?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By punishing her…especially in a disproportionate manner for exercising her first amendment rights to present a petition to a government official(the principal) for starters. </p>
<p>That and due process for punishing her without providing any transparent justification for it or a chance to appeal.</p>
<p>^^^Has it been established absolutely that she is being punished or is this the child’s and sister’s impression? I haven’t read the whole thread unfortunately and don’t have time to, but I do know that people often throw the word “unconstitutional” around freely when it doesn’t really apply.</p>
<p>OK, so I dealt with almost exactly the situation in middle school with my son. We had an EXCELLENT principal. And we had many discussions about assigned seating during lunch at the PTA meetings. Particuarly why, and how it was being implemented. Assigned seating was never a policy at this school prior to this principal. </p>
<p>I am NOT defending this practice, but I will give you some of this principals rationale, and how he ultimately compromised. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>This middle school was huge. Lunches had something like 500-600 kids per lunch period</p></li>
<li><p>This was around the time that all schools were really ramping up their emergency procedure practices, and evacuation during lunch was one of the things being addresed.</p></li>
<li><p>To him, it was a safety issue. He was holding teachers responsible for knowing where the kids were at all times, and that included during the lunch period. If you have 600 kids milling around, there was no way to know who may be missing if no way to track them. </p></li>
<li><p>In the event of an emergency, he wanted teachers to be able to direct their group of students that they are assigned to. If they were spread out all over the place, that would be impossible. </p></li>
<li><p>He did not realize that the students viewed this as a group punishment, and admitted that he could see where it may be mistakenly taken that way (there were a few kids that cause some issues, and this plan came shortly after those incidents). </p></li>
<li><p>he had a few other reasons too, but I can’t remember them all. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>How he ultimately compromised: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Each teacher/lunch monitor had a group of tables. The students for that group of tables could sit anywhere they wanted to in that group of tables. </p></li>
<li><p>if a student really wanted to sit with a friend in another group, he would allow that on a permentant basis. Meaning, that would be their new assigned group. They could not change to a new group each day. </p></li>
<li><p>He would accept recommendations from the teachers/monitors after 3-6 months on any changes that they recommended. If the students had ideas or recommendations, they should approach them. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>After about 6 months, they used the divider in the cafeteria, and allowed the students to sit where they wanted in their divided area (I can’t remember if they 1/2’ed the cafeteria, or if they 1/4’ed it). This was what the recommendation was from the teachers/monitors. </p>
<p>So, this principal may have flippantly said “I will not have another Sandyhook on my hands”, but it may not have been what she/he really meant. They may have a broader concern about safety.</p>
<p>I see no problem with asking groups of students to sit as a group of table, but assignment at a specific table is a bit much, particularly if nobody is allowed any input in how those tables are arranged. </p>
<p>Whatever the reason for moving a single girl to a table with a group of only boys, the parents have met with the principal, and she is still sitting at that table. Yes, it is possible the younger sister misinterpreted what the Principal said when she met with her. Yes it is possible that moving her was not done in retaliation. But after the parents met with the Principal, I would expect the girl to have been moved, or the parents to have been given an adequate explanation as to why their daughter must sit with a group of boys. For the parents to be told “I don’t want another Sandy Hook” is completely inadequate. If this is about security, it should have been explained as such - what exactly about Sandy Hook is she trying to prevent? And how is making this girl sit with boys going to accomplish that?</p>
<p>As I said before, I would make another attempt to work this out with the Principal, but also cc: the Superintendent. If the Principal works with you to come up with a reasonable compromise, you then email the Principal to thank her for working with you, outline the compromise, and again cc: the Superintendent, so he knowns she did what was necessary. If she doesn’t, you’re not starting at step one with the Superintendent, instead he has seen your attempts at communication (and also knows you’re not fabricating emails that were never actually sent).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do see it as a serious problem if a given student is assigned to the only girl/boy at an almost all-boy/all-girl table, especially at that age(elementary school). That effectively serves to cut off and isolate the isolated gendered student. </p>
<p>Whether it’s retaliation or for her to serve as the “model student” to an unruly table, it’s wrong and the OP’s parents shouldn’t stand for it. </p>
<p>The former is wrong on its merits and the latter is derived from what IMHO is an idiotically conceived idea that would only cause grief for the “model student”…especially if he/she is the only one at the table.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read 4 pages waiting for someone to bring this up! Lol! </p>
<p>If the principal overheard the OPs sister use the R word toward another student, why didn’t she intervene and punish the girl at the time of the incident? There is no way, in my opinion (and I am an elementary school teacher) that a principal would let that slide and then bring it up at the meeting with the parents! She knows she is wrong and she is shifting the shame to the child. This principal is a whack job.</p>
<p>I do understand the importance to kids this age to sit with their friends at lunch , which can sometimes be the only free, social time of the school day.
In our elementary school , the students sit with their class , but can sit with the same sex…it seems odd that there would be a lunch table with all boys and then assign a girl to sit there with them …if it is this way , then the parents need to get on it right away. And don’t stop with a meeting. We had an issue with the principal of the primary school who wouldn’t allow us to pull our then first grader out of the class of a very mean, hateful teacher that has a long history of having parents try to remove their children from her class. It is way to long a story to get into , but the teacher was so mean and truly crushed the spirits of many little ones , including ours. It was an ugly experience and I have always felt it set the tone for our daughter’s school experiences as a whole
I hope your parents make some noise and garner support</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its beyond odd, almost abusive, at least in the eyes of this particular girl. Looking back, I dont think I would have a problem sitting in a table with all boys for a couple of weeks. The only problem I could think of is if I was two-timing a couple of boys and they both sat at the same table. Seriously though, Im sure I could find some topic to talk about with the boys but it’s clearly torture for this poor girl.</p>
<p>If getting assigned to sit at a table that is otherwise all-boy is the punishment for using the “r-word” – then I think I’d likely describe the principal with the “i-word”: idiot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OP’s sister was assigned to sit at an all-boy table not for using the r-word, but for exercising her first amendment right to present a petition voicing her disagreement with policy. </p>
<p>In my book, that’s worse because this principal is not only effectively punishing an act that should be considered praiseworthy for being the epitome of civic virtue in our ostensibly democratic society, but also acting eerily similar to highhanded arbitrary petty government officials in authoritarian societies like Mainland China.</p>
<p>Not only that, she is trying to humiliate the girl in front of her peers. Believe me, at that age, the other children know exactly what is going on and why that girl is at the table of boys. It’s the principal’s way of getting the message out to other potential dissenters.</p>
<p>This sort of thing makes me so angry. Adults in positions of responsibility harassing children because * they can*</p>
<p>Go to the PTA and see if there is additional history of this principal abusing her position, ( because I doubt this is isolated case) and get with those parents and ask the district ( there should be a director of that region or perhaps over elementary schools) for help with the principal.
Some districts may also have parents advocacy groups that have formed separate from the PTA and the distric.</p>
<p>OP, did anyone ask your sister if she had, in fact use the R word/ because I’m guessing that is fiction on the part of the Principal.</p>
<p>I have an 11 year old girl. She is physically developed for her age. This situation would destroy my daughter.</p>
<p>Well, maybe these parents need to fudge a bit and claim that their D is developing and the parents are concerned about inappropriate statements that might come from an all-boy table. As someone who developed early (10) even tho I was very slim, I still remember the boys’ comments and stares.</p>
<p>I hope we will hear from the OP soon. I’m eager to know how his sister is doing.</p>