From the Washington Post:
KANSAS CITY, Kan. – Most of the time, 16-year-old Zach Rubio converses in clear, unaccented American teen-speak, a form of English in which the three most common words are “like,” “whatever” and “totally.” But Zach is also fluent in his dad’s native language, Spanish — and that’s what got him suspended from school.
“It was, like, totally not in the classroom,” the high school junior said, recalling the infraction. “We were in the, like, hall or whatever, on restroom break. This kid I know, he’s like, ‘Me prestas un dolar?’ [‘Will you lend me a dollar?’] Well, he asked in Spanish; it just seemed natural to answer that way. So I’m like, ‘No problema.’ “
But that conversation turned out to be a big problem for the staff at the Endeavor Alternative School, a small public high school in an ethnically mixed blue-collar neighborhood. A teacher who overheard the two boys sent Zach to the office, where Principal Jennifer Watts ordered him to call his father and leave the school.
Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can’t discuss the case. But in a written “discipline referral” explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: “This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school.”
###
[more]
Okay, so, I’m not going to pretend that I understand this completely. Am I supposed to be seeing the implication that this kid is/has been a troublemaker for the school, and that he’s used Spanish to further his schemes? The Post story goes on to indicate that the suspension has since been lifted and that “speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension.” But without more context, that’s exactly what the piece leads one to conclude.
Would sure put a damper on teaching of foreign language, I guess — so what could possibly be the policy rationalization? I summon the Lazyweb! Help me understand this!
