Since this pop-tart gun case is quickly becoming the "suing McDonalds because the coffee is too hot", I am going to need to give some back story on this to help stop this misinformation.
Sorry, but I need to give some facts about the original case so people at least understand how this suspension came about.
I'm from Maryland where the original "Pop Tart Gun" case originated. I also work in education so I have some experience in these matters.
“As much as the parents want this case to be about a ‘gun,’ it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior and for whom the school had attempted a list of other strategies and interventions before resorting to a suspension.”
This boy was not suspended because he made a Pop Tart shaped gun. He was suspended for repeated behavioral issues. The suspension was being used to help send a message to the student and his parents (which clearly fell on deaf ears). Before a student is suspended in elementary school, especially a 2nd grader, there is always going to use multiple behavior management tools before the decision to suspend a kid occurs. These behavior management tools can be very effective if the parents are involved in the process too.
The boy’s behavior in school is detailed in a 30-page document that shows a pattern of threatening other students and even throwing chairs at his classmates.
30 pages of behavioral documentation is a lot for a 7 year old to have. Part of this documentation was most likely documenting the various behavioral management techniques they tried to help him too.
In the findings of facts, Joshua is said to have punched a fellow student in the nose, which led to a one-day suspension
Again, this was not a first time incident and a 7 year demonstrating aggressive behavior clearly needs help, which is a part of the parents job to recognize and get.
Nussbaum (the hearing examiner overseeing the parents appeal of the suspension) said he was convinced that “had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making ‘meow’ cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same.”
I agree with Nussbaum's assessment that it didn't matter what the student created with the Pop Tart it was about the consistent behavioral issues.
It is also clear that these behavioral issues weren't being taken seriously at home.
The father said he was told the day that the boy was suspended that it was for playing as if he had a gun, not for ongoing problems.
Because the previous suspension wasn't alarming enough for the father? This is what I call a red flag for bad parenting.
Nussbaum also said he found it troubling that the family allowed news media to attend the student’s hearing
There is the nice cherry on top. The parents clearly realized that if the "play gun" argument they would get the fanatic gun advocates here to help create extra pressure on the school system. Please note: I have nothing against guns or gun owners. I own many, but I still recognize the lunatic fringe of gun culture and these parents were using the media to help stir the crazy pot to garner support.
So now we have other states passing laws against this to stop those damn "liberal commie socialist" teachers from stopping kids from having fun! What is really happening now is that politicians are now creating laws that will further undermine the autonomy schools and teachers should have when dealing with students.
(Here is my liberally biased opinion) I personally find it hilarious that states like Texas and Florida have passed laws against suspensions for "Pop Tart guns". These same states elect Republicans who blame minority parents, particularly ones who live in low socioeconomic areas, for their troubled kids. Yet they won't acknowledge that the parents, not the school, failed this child.
Now, are there incidences where schools may use conduct policies to go too far? Absolutely, but this was not one of the cases.
TL;DR: This issue was never about a "Pop Tart gun". This case was about bad parents who are unwilling to accept their son's problems and because of that they were (most likely) unwilling to help aid in behavioral management too.