I see my husband has been here before me. Ours is a long, narrow house and he's been online in the kitchen while he ate his breakfast... he saw me posting here and suggested I check what he said before I send this.
Great minds...
Shari, I get the feeling that you have had past BIG problems here, but this year things have been so much better and they really seem to be trying to help, that you don't want to antagonise them. A sort of "don't rock the boat too hard" feeling.
I've been there - because we LIVE in the same very small village with the local school, we also live with the teachers in the same street, we're all neighbours and see each other every day year round - I have had to walk VERY carefully when it comes to nagging them to do things the right way.
What I have learned - yes, you can still nag (politely) and remain on good terms with these people. There are ways of being persistent and requiring them to do things correctly.
What used to work for me - I would maintain the attitude of, "We are all trying to work out the best way to help this child. We all are trying to do the right thing but sometimes we make mistakes. He should not be disadvantaged when the adults in his life (teachers and/or parents) get it wrong. We are a team. I am also loyal to the school. But where the loyalties have to split, loyalty to my child will come first and I WILL tell you when I feel you have made a wrong decision. I WILL do my utmost to ensure that my child's needs are met, I will not compromise on this. In all else, I will support the school and fight for the school with the same zeal I use for my child."
It sends a subtle under-message, not openly stated - "I could be the school's best friend or its worst enemy. Your choice."
There is a big difference between being polite and cooperative, and a doormat. You are at the moment at a crossroads, you are being pushed into doormat role by the salami tactics of this principal.
Look at it this way - if the full suspension (ten days) is followed, then you can immediately petition for the next stage of services. This actually puts more egg on the school's face so the principal choosing to "be nice" and cut it to five days - it's no favour at all, to you or wee. It's an attempt (it seems to me) to SEEM to be acknowledging that wee was not at fault; but if he REALLY was not at fault, there should be NO punishment.
The school board's mandate - WHY did they do anything at all? How did they even know about it? WHO told them? And when the school board was told, WHAT were they told?
Visualise a hypothetical scenario. Kids playing on the playground. Running around, having fun. Principal walks round the corner of the building just as running kid barrels into him. Is the running kid at fault? Maybe, if he wasn't looking where he was going. Is the principal at fault? Not really, although during play time it does help to go carefully around corners. But is it an assault? It really depends on who the teacher is who got run into, and who the kid is who did the running. If the running kid is the school's football champion and also all A student, nothing more would be said about it. But if the kid running into the teacher happens to be a known troublemaker, you can bet that this incident will be logged as something more than an accident.
It is ALWAYS subjective.
Wee has form, on file. A lot of that form is all the same sort of stuff - a kid with serious impulse control problems and anxiety issues, whose IEP is either not set up properly, or is not being followed, or both. This is plainly NOT following the spirit of the rules. If wee were a naughty kid who was choosing to cause trouble in order to be disruptive and thereby get out of work, then yes, he would deserve a stronger response and some level of punishment. But tat is NOT what happened here.
The school KNOWS that this kid needs a high level of support form specific staff. If those staff are not present, wee needs a viable alternative in place. That alternative is not in place - therefore, when things go wrong, and they WILL, it is NOT his fault, it is the school's. Not just the principal, either. The system has let this child down.
But were the board told this? And do the board realise that this is not the right way (morally certainly, probably not right legally, either) to handle the situation.
It IS possible to handle this without losing the relationship you are trying to develop with this new principal. But you are going to have to continually make difficult choices - get on well with the school, or challenge their choices to favour your child. When I look back at how I handled things, I gave the school the benefit of the doubt where I was unsure, but where I KNEW a situation was wrong, I stuck by my child. Politely, but firmly.
Result - they may not like me (they probably wouldn't have anyway) but I do get on with these people well, to this day. Teachers who I would not consider hiring if I were on an interview panel, people who I know were horrible to difficult child 3, are still coming up to speak to him or to me in the street to ask how he is getting on. I ask them about their children and grandchildren, we talk about the weather and the high price of real estate in the village - we get on well even though I have no respect for some of them professionally. others whose professionalism I have rated highly - I talk to them the same way. And I know they value me because they are the ones who quietly come to me for advice off the record about this new student, or that.
It came down to a choice between a good relationship with a school staff member, or my son.
No contest.
Marg