To have initially been mortified but now a bit annoyed by call from school?

[8bitgame]

I've named changed for this as it will be outing.

DS is 9. He is home schooling with lessons over Zoom.

This morning he had connection issues with Zoom - getting kicked out, camera freezing etc. I had to sign him back in a few times and he showed me that the video feed of his teacher kept freezing up and going very blocky. He commented that she looked like an 8 bit game - as in an old computer game where the graphics were pixel blocks.

About 30 minutes after his morning Zoom finished I get a call from the Head Teacher at the school. She is far from happy and it transpires that unbeknown to me DS had repeated his comment in the class discussion chat channel. He was saying he was having connection problems and then wrote "Miss X looks like an 8 bit game".

The teacher and then the Head have read this as him saying that Miss X looks like and 8 out of 10 and looks "a bit game".

I was mortified and explained this is of course not what he meant and that he was referring to the connection problems and the video feed being blocky and pixelated - like the graphics on an 8 bit game. Head was slightly mollified but still very stern and angry and I got a bit of a telling off. I apologised profusely and then had a chat with DS about not commenting on people's appearance and only using the group chat for stuff about work.

But now I've reflected I feel a bit put out as he hadn't really done anything wrong, he was commenting about his connection issues which were preventing him seeing the lesson and he's bloody 9 years old so who would read that in the way the school did??

AIBU to think it's a bit of a strange way to read that in that way and once they had the explanation maybe the tone could have changed a bit as he really hasn't done anything wrong?

I appreciate he could have found a better way to explain the connection issues and they might not be au fait with retro gaming but the only comms channel open to him was the chat feed he used and he's 9 so not always the best at explaining things.

When I told the Head he was having connection issues as were a lot of the class she said she didn't believe anyone else was (implying he was messing about and didn't have problems) WIBU to send a screenshot of the class discussion where several children were saying it had frozen and / or they had been kicked out and AIBU to think they've jumped to a bit of a conclusion here and gone a bit OTT especially by not backing down or changing the tone once it had been explained?

It feels like he's in a lot of trouble for something that is largely a misunderstanding on their part.

They heard that this was a misunderstanding and therefore recognised that there was no safeguarding concern. Embarrassment all round but no harm done
All they have done is double down.
The teacher could have checked before going to the head. The OP says her son was also asked by the TA and he explained prior to the call home. The head also didn't bother to check because a quick Google would confirm what they child had said.
OP also confirmed what her son said

Yet now the chat has been deleted.

I'd say lots of harm has been done. The teacher has shown themeves to have no common sense, the head has shown they would rather double down than admit there's been a mistake, and now the school have shown that wh8a member of staff makes a mistake they would rather delete the evidence than acknowledge it. That is quite damaging in my opinion and would probably affect how parents view the teacher and the head for different reasons.

It is a safeguarding issue if a 9 year old wrote that their teacher was "a bit game." That's what the school were concerned about. So they called.

Except the OP's ds had already told the TA what it meant. It would have taken less than a minute to check that that was indeed the meaning. Their reaction was stupid and completely unnecessary. Anyone who dismissed the ds' explanation to the TA and decided instead that a 9yo would use a phrase like 'a bit game' in that way is frankly an idiot and unsuited to be dealing with serious things like safeguarding.

But as OP points out, her DS had already clarified to his teacher what he meant before the school contacted the OP

It was clearly not a safeguarding issue

As the computing lead I'd be pleased he knew about 8 bit games and a little about how pixels work, etc.

For a 9 year old there really not going to be getting this strict distinction between

'The screen picture looks an 8 bit game' and
'The picture of the teacher in screen looks like an 8 bit game' and
'The teacher looks like an 8 bit game'.

He quite clearly means the teacher's picture in the screen.
That's not having a laugh at the teacher.

I teach 7 years olds and they will often refer to what ever is in the screen as being glitchy. So yes, if it was a picture of a person they'd quite likely say 'that person is glitching' - clearly they'd mean the picture on the screen or the website, or the video chat screen or whatever.

But the semantics of it all is going to be a little off at 9.

The teacher and the head over reacted, they misread something, came to a totally different conclusion (though how they decided in their own version is strange) and haven't or won't accepted they were wrong.

@lazylinguist

As OP recognises, her child may not have been able to explain properly. Perhaps his explanation to the TA didn't allay the concerns.

Some 9 year olds do use explicit language and comments. Often because they are being exposed to sexual content. These things have to be taken seriously and investigated.

Obviously it is true that the head should have changed tone dramatically once OP had explained. But the teacher who flagged this as a potential safeguarding concern did the right thing and I find it scary how many people are saying that they didn't.

BTW OP, I just asked my DS who is 10 what he would think if I said that someone on a Zoom call looked like an 8 bit game and he replied that they looked like computer graphics from the olden days.

YANBU

My DS school called me in for a 'serious matter' where they told me they where worried about his exposure to extremist things because he was talking about 'building a bomb' so they seperated him from his friends for the rest of the day.

The 'building a bomb' was entirely made up in their own head after they over heard him and his friend mention TNT at dinner time... they where talking about Minecraft (a game nearly every kid in the class plays) as they do every dinner time and TNT is part of Minecraft.

If they bothered listening to more than one word it would be rather obvious that they where talking about exploding creepers and that an 8 year old was not planning a terrorist attack - its really weird the conclusion some teacher jump to.

But the teacher who flagged this as a potential safeguarding concern did the right thing and I find it scary how many people are saying that they didn't.
When a child had already explained what they meant and a 10 second Google would have shown a comment about 8 bit gaming made perfect sense for a child saying they are having technical issues then I think the teacher did over-react.

If it was also a genuine safeguarding concern that needed logging and procedure following then why have the school deleted the class chat after the parent had explained yet again what could have been established with a quick google?

Hilarious! Thank you for posting!

If it was also a genuine safeguarding concern that needed logging and procedure following then why have the school deleted the class chat

A very valid question

@Solidaritea

the teacher who flagged this as a potential safeguarding concern did the right thing and I find it scary how many people are saying that they didn't

He used a term the teacher didn't understand to say that the image of her on his sceen was pixelated. Where is the safeguarding concern? It's in her misunderstanding, not in anything he did or said.

I bet they thought he meant "she's an 8, but game" Not that this makes much sense either but an adult who isnt into computers wouldnt get the "8 bit" part at all.

I'd send a rather stern email to the teacher, cc-ing in the head, explaining how disappointed you are that the teacher didn't approach DS or yourself to enquire about the issue, rather than expecting the head to call with a telling off AND that you are very disappointed that no apology is forthcoming in light of the fact that the teacher was utterly mistaken in her assumptions!

This isn't how you treat children OR parents.

Sorry but their misinterpretation has made me properly lol.

But if it were me I would be sending an email saying that on reflection you don't see that he has done anything wrong in commenting on the quality of his connection and whilst you are aware they acknowledged their mistake whilst on the phone to you you just wanted it recorded in writing to avoid any further unfair judgement of your son or the situation.

But then again I am an overly fierce lion where my kids being unfairly treated is concerned so the best advice on this thread is probably to just put it behind you and make a note of it for his wedding speeches!

8 bit game is nothing like rating teacher 8/10 for sexual desirability and being "a bit game" especially when it has been explained several times. I'm struggling to immediately rate it as sexually explicit in any way, even if I didn't immediately understand 8 bit games, especially coming from a 9 year old without any previous concerns.

[quote Eckhart]@Solidaritea

the teacher who flagged this as a potential safeguarding concern did the right thing and I find it scary how many people are saying that they didn't

He used a term the teacher didn't understand to say that the image of her on his sceen was pixelated. Where is the safeguarding concern? It's in her misunderstanding, not in anything he did or said.[/quote]
Yes, it's in her misunderstanding. Hence it's a potential safeguarding concern.

Yanbu- your Ds didn't do anything wrong imo unless he was chatting at the wrong time (while teacher was talking)

I have teenagers and they don't use expressions like "a bit game" so I have no clue why a teacher would assume that a 9yo would say such an old fashioned phrase. If she really thought that your son was going round rating adults I would expect a safeguarding meeting.

The Head is the one who should be mortified for thinking that a 9 year would would say "8, a bit game" rather than the perfectly mainstream phrase "8 bit game" I can't believe that you got lectured after correcting her mistake. I would be annoyed and surprised that neither had heard the phrase tbh.

🤣🤣🤣 I’m so sorry OP I shouldn’t laugh but what nonsense! What 9 year old would know the expression ‘She looks a bit game’

@Crackerofdoom

If it was also a genuine safeguarding concern that needed logging and procedure following then why have the school deleted the class chat

A very valid question

If it read to the teacher as concerning, they wouldn't want to leave it on public view. They should have taken screenshots of it.

@Laalaa78

I bet they thought he meant "she's an 8, but game" Not that this makes much sense either but an adult who isnt into computers wouldnt get the "8 bit" part at all.

Why would an experienced teacher think that a 9 year old would be using terms such as 'game'

Wouldn't they at least quickly google '8 bit game' if unsure what it might mean?

The teachers should be feeling red faced. How ridiculous.

@Solidaritea

She spoke to him afterwards and he explained what he meant. There was no ambiguity in what he said. The teacher cleared that up before reporting it.

But different to '8 and a bit game' to be honest.

But they didn't delete until after they had called the OP and she had clarified the context and apologised.

So either their safeguarding fears were allayed and they chose to delete it anyway, or they left it up until speaking to the parent, despite having safeguarding concerns.

Either way, it doesn't make sense.

The only "scary" part of this is that a minimum of 3 adults at the school lacked the general knowledge or common sense to get to the bottom of the comment without overreacting, assuming it was a safeguarding issue and thinking so poorly of the OPs son.