What constitutes “playground talk” when words such as “gun” are uttered?

It is at the crux of one family’s argument school officials overreacted concerning law enforcement ultimately being called to a Manteca Unified elementary school campus to question a kindergartner.

From the perspective of the school district that has procedures in place to not arbitrarily dismiss a concern or jump to conclusions, making sure student safety is first and foremost assured is the top priority.

A parent of the kindergartener shared their concerns with how the school staff responded to the “playground talk” and that their child was traumatized by what they called “an overreaction” during the public comments of a recent Manteca Unified School District board meeting.

The comments drew no board or administrative feedback.

Assistant Superintendent Victoria Brunn noted state laws regarding student privacy prevents the district from discussing the incident and how it was addressed and resolved.

From information provided by the family;

*The kindergartner was told by another student that their father had a “tiger that would eat you.”

*That prompted the response, “well, my daddy has a gun” that the student’s parents note from their kindergartener’s perspective meant “my daddy can protect me.”

What happened after the conversation was reported to school staff eventually led to law enforcement being called to the campus as the result of district protocols.

But before such a call is made, MUSD Director of Student Services Hans Schmitz said school level staff made an assessment and involved district personnel in the process.

School personnel are mandated reporters under state law. That means they are required to respond to perceived threats and involve authorities whether such threats are made on campus or on social media.

The district’s process follows the parameter of the California Education Code.

It entails taking to all parties, including the students involved.

The bottom line of that process is to determine if the threat is credible.

To assure that those involved in the process err on the side of caution, California state law provides immunity for school personnel and law enforcement in such situations from being sued in civil courts for the steps they take.

The rationale behind such a provision in state law is to assure such student chatter isn’t outright dismissed.

After a safety assessment is made, school personnel take one of four courses of action:

*Drop the matter and do nothing.

*Take corrective action.

*Institute disciplinary measures.

*Contact law enforcement.

While district administrators declined under student privacy laws to say what happened in this case, Brunn noted if school personnel in making such an assessment aren’t 100 percent sure whether there is a possible student safety issue, then a school resource officer or other law enforcement is contacted.

The family has indicated law enforcement was called, the kindergartner was interviewed by an officer, the student’s mother was followed home to inspect the family’s gun safe, and an official police report issued.

The district policy balances zero tolerance with violence — or threats of it — with essentially “kids will be kids” to assure student safety in a day and age where a Virginia first grader shot his teacher after school administration were told by two students the boy had a gun in his book bag.

In that case, the school personnel searched the book bag while the boy was at recess and found nothing. A short time after returning from recess, the boy shot the teacher.

And while MUSD did not reference the Virginia incident, it underscores the potential pitfalls in not doing a full assessment of a perceived threat regardless of the age of the students involved.

“We take safety seriously,” said Brunn. “It’s not just a tag line.”

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com