We’ve all heard stories about bullying at school: Kids gang up on other kids to make them feel less-than, taunting and teasing them until they’re upset. For many children, the affects of that kind of relentless bullying can last a lifetime. That’s why one dad in Alabama took it very seriously when he thought his kid was being bullied — but this time, instead of being bullied by his fellow students, dad felt his son was being bullied by the school itself. It’s almost hard to believe, but the problem started when the school used an unconventional approach to let parents know that their child’s lunch account was running low. Find out what they did — and ultimately, dad’s strong reaction — below, and decide for yourself: Is this a case of school-on-student bullying, or a sensitive parent who simply doesn’t agree with the school’s methods of communication. Do you agree with this parent’s outcry?It’s where a man named Jon Bivens sends his son to school.
The lunches are “bought” using a refillable card, and parents put money in the card’s account for the month.
However, he still has a card because every once in awhile he uses the money to buy ice cream or snacks.
He said that during his son’s last week of third grade, the boy decided to buy some ice cream, which brought his balance down to $1.38.
Bivens said he was horrified by the way the school chose to inform him that his child was out of lunch money.
The stamp reads “I need lunch money.”
“When you start stamping a message on a child’s body instead of calling … it’s not OK,” he said. “It’s a form of bullying and shaming the kids.”
He doesn’t think the school should have made such an obvious move to alert him (and everyone else) that the account was low.
However, she says that the school often uses different methods of alerting parents of their child’s balance, including emails, notes, stickers and stamps.
Apparently, the school first sends emails when a child’s account balance is low, and if parents do not respond, they use stamps or stickers.
“We want to communicate in a way that our parents are happy with,” she said. “That’s a part of our jobs.”
He feels that the entire situation is totally unreasonable.
For Bivens, there was simply no reason to “brand” his son in the way the school chose to.
He took his son out of school for the remainder of the calendar year, and contacted the newspaper — that’s how this story got out.
Do you think the school’s methods are reasonable, or do Jon Bivens’ arguments make sense?
