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.

Wow! I would be asking the Headteacher to remove himself from the gutter after applying a sexual overtone to something a young child had said innocently.

But this is a child who has no history of that, and who was in the middle of describing his IT problems. Surely any teacher with any sense stops to have a bit of a think about that, and maybe do a bit of research, before running to the headteacher.

Quite possibly. I didn’t say their interpretation was all fine and dandy, I said I don’t think it is entirely implausible. Perhaps the teacher and HT aren’t very bright I simply know nothing about 8 bit games, or perhaps the comment was passed on to the HT out of context and she jumped the gun a bit. I don’t know, I haven’t seen the whole chat.

I think “Dodgy ground” is something wretched and therefore rude of you to use it toward a child.

Pardon?

@AStudyinPink

You made an unqualified statement that a child using similes about a teacher is on very dodgy ground. You didn't say it was sometimes on very dodgy ground, or might be on dodgy ground. You really can't start justifying a statement like this by claiming it doesn't mean what it says.

I’m not sure you know what dodgy ground means.

Yes, when you say a certain practice means you are on dodgy ground, it means that you are always on dodgy ground when following that practice. In this context it means that, no matter what simile you use, you are on dodgy ground, because otherwise you would use something like "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "may be".. The entire concept that, when you use a simile, you risk being rude - not matter what the simile is - is in itself bizarre in the extreme.

Child explained comment to TA in chat.

Chat has been deleted.

HT had ample opportunity not to jump the gun.

LolaSmiles

No, Lola; there are lots of people here suggesting it’s actually a safeguarding concern for the teachers to be concerned and that they have dirty minds, when it was a shame they interpreted the comment wrongly, but having done so, they had a duty to explore it, and did so.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting that narrative in any way, tbh. You know this sort of thing happens.

Anyway, over and out.

It's really quite bizarre that the head is seeking to justify this by reference to the school's safeguarding responsibilities. If she genuinely thought it was a safeguarding issue, she would have reported it to the appropriate authorities, she wouldn't have called you to tell you off - not least because, if there was a safeguarding problem, all she would achieve would be warning you that you should educate your child to keep quiet about it.

Arobase

That just makes me even more confident that you don’t know what it means.

I haven't heart of an 8 bit game. They are maybe being a bit over sensitive but hell, it's nearly the end of term and everyone probably needs to cut each other some slack. I expect they can barely see straight by now.

I'm just here with vodka and popcorn now. Watched everything on Netflix.

@Handsoffstrikesagain

This thread has taken a turn way past Crazytown and is now hurtling quickly towards La La Land, no one is going to let the argument drop are they 🤦🏽‍♀️😂

Another forum I post on has a function where you can 'ignore' certain posters. So you don't have to see any of their posts.

This thread is the first one on MN that I've read while really wishing I could put someone on ignore.

@AStudyinPink

Child wasn't actually rude, but PP feels they were according to their standards, therefore child is rude.

Do you think this is funny and/or clever?

I found this both funny and clever.

Can't believe you are still here, arguing the same point, and even claiming that you don't care what pps think. Why in the name of bejeezus are you posting if you don't care that you think your point is true and the pps points are not?

MistressoftheDarkSide
The whole situation is a mess and reflects poorly on the school.

I have no idea why anyone is defending the school or clutching at straws to justify their actions.

Taking some of the fair, and less fair, interpretations, the school has behaved poorly:

1. If, like a PP fairly suggested, the remark could have broken their online learning policy/behaviour policy and the school have a zero tolerance approach to then the phone call would have been "OP, we're calling because we felt your DC was being silly when he had technical issues". They didn't do this, which suggests they weren't calling due to a behaviour policy being ignored.
2. If we want to excuse the teacher because she might not have known what an 8 bit game is then why on earth didn't they spend 30 seconds checking before going to the head?
3. As with 2, when a child has been asked and has explained, why on earth didn't the teacher do a quick Google to establish the child was correct?
4. If they thought there was a safeguarding concern then why on earth did they delete the chat?
5. If the teacher felt the child was making rude and personal attacks about her appearance, then the phone call would surely have been "hi OP, your child said I looked like an 8 bit game and I find this rude. Please can you encourage him to use online manners". They didn't have thay call, which suggests the teacher doesn't consider it to be a rude personal attack.
6. When the child had already clarified what they said, and OP explained as well and STILL the head was continuing to argue 'but we don't know what they have seen online', they are making themselves look very foolish indeed.

@LolaSmiles

Yep, am utterly with you.

Why in the name of bejeezus are you posting if you don't care that you think your point is true and the pps points are not?

Does this even make sense?

@Eckhart

Does anything make sense any more, in fact, why are we here? What IS the meaning of life?

Oh yeah, 42. I momentarily forgot....

No, Lola; there are lots of people here suggesting it’s actually a safeguarding concern for the teachers to be concerned and that they have dirty minds, when it was a shame they interpreted the comment wrongly, but having done so, they had a duty to explore it, and did so.
Whilst I wouldn't go as far to say it's a safeguarding concern, I would certainly question the professional judgement of someone who saw a child talking about their technical difficulties and chose to argue they were sexually rating their teacher.
Context, as ever, is key.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting that narrative in any way, tbh. You know this sort of thing happens
Supporting what narrative?
That genuine safeguarding concerns should be handled appropriately and staff should not try to attribute sexual undertones where there aren't any?

I don't understand your logic. Not agreeing with you on 'the rules' is me apparently 'pretending', you've accused others of being faux naive and are now going on saying 'you know this sort of thing happens'.

Just for total clarity before any more bizarre accusations get thrown:
A) Some students do make inappropriate sexual comments. They are a safeguarding concern and they should be dealt with appropriately.
B) A child describing their display like a game being misinterpreted by a teacher who didn't bother to check the meaning of the words uttered by a child (especially after a child clarified what they meant!) is not a safeguarding concern.

Supporting what narrative?
That genuine safeguarding concerns should be handled appropriately and staff should not try to attribute sexual undertones where there aren't any?

No, the narrative that they were doing something outrageous - and potentially “worrying” - by adopting a very cautious approach, even when they were wrong.

Anyway, I think a few people here are out for more of an argument than I am, so I’ll leave it.

@AStudyinPink you don’t make any sense and did not from the start.
You select a position based on your own lack of understanding of what the child wrote. Then you ground down in the position now that you know exactly what the child meant. A person is not rude for using words you don’t readily understand to describe a technical problem in an effort to get their problem resolved.

I don’t think you actually even believe what you are saying.

Reminds me of an anecdote that was circulated about an employee being reprimanded for using the word pedagogue, because the manager didn’t know what it meant and thought it was therefore related to abuse of children. Upon being presented with the dictionary, the manager and HR put out a notice saying no one was allowed to use words that couldn’t be found “On the front page of a newspaper.” Cue employee resigning with a letter pasted together out of words cut from the newspaper.

Are you in HR?

Sorry but I have to bite.

Ringing a parent and telling them off because they refused to accept a child's explanation of a descriptive comment in context of demonstrable tech issues (until they deleted chat with evidence supporting child version, including explanation) is by no stretch taking a cautious approach.

It's like invading another country but saying it's ok because they drove slowly in their tanks and it was just in case they declared hostilities.

No, the narrative that they were doing something outrageous - and potentially “worrying” - by adopting a very cautious approach, even when they were wrong
They've not adopted a cautious approach. They are being bloody minded and have undermined their credibility.

This is my point, let's say you are right (we ignore the fact that a quick google would have confirmed the child's explanation before it began).

1. A child makes a statement that the teacher interprets as sexual because they don't know what the child is talking about.
2. Member of staff asks the child what they meant.
3. The child explains what they meant.

At this point a member of staff could easily verify whether the child's explanation is true by searching the phrase. That would confirm the child's explanation. The member of staff might be cautious and complete a safeguarding report but the report would state that they checked out what the child said and that's all ok.

What's not a cautious approach is:

1. Going to the head, who also doesn't bother to check the meaning of the phrase, or consider the child's explanation
2. Calling a parent, accusing the child of making sexually inappropriate comments
3. Deleting the chat records
4. When the parent also gives an explanation

that highlights staff didn't use common sense, doubling down by making claims about safeguarding.

1. When a parent with knowledge of safeguarding queries this, continue to deflect and say 'yes but but we don't know they might have seen something'

Steps 1-3 would be cautious approach to safeguarding. Everything else that follows is a school who refuse to accept they've made a mistake.

@AStudyinPink

Why in the name of bejeezus are you posting if you don't care that you think your point is true and the pps points are not?

Does this even make sense?

Yes. I was asking why you continue to post when you've already said you don't care what people think. Why are you trying to prove a point to people whose opinions you aren't interested in?