I did, but by that point, is the damage not done? The children have seen their words twisted and the Legos taken away, only to be brought back after blame has been laid.

These people talk about singling out done by children when in this very same article they have singled out two children making "assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive". That is a lot to lay at the feet of children over the misappropriation of Legos.

Do you not think this all could have been headed off before the banning of Legos with the same discussion tactics that happened post ban, post tantrum and pre-blog railing against the woes of a capitalist society as seen through the perversions of a small child?

Even accepting your claim that they were twisting the children's words, there's no indication they relayed any of that analysis back to the children. Then they did use legos in a teaching exercise (one that I bet will stick with them), then they brought them back in a healthier way.

It sounds like your real complaint is you don't agree with the lesson they taught, or maybe even just the language they used to describe it. If so you should say that, not pretend they didn't try.

The lesson is what it is, I am neither here nor there on that. I think you're placing a false morality on my motives about that.

I'm saying they used negative reinforcement as a knee-jerk reaction and then, as an afterthought, brought back the Legos instead of having a discussion first and taking action second. They learned that action and punishment comes first and the discussion and concession is an afterthought, a problem all too prevalent in modern society.