Have you considered, economically, that it’s not viable, likely, nor perhaps even ethical for the school system to devote such a significant amount of resources to one “problem child”? While you insist that other students besides your son “Sam” are having issues similar to the ones that he’s facing, it is clear that either those children are not having problems as severe, or that their parents are simply not as proactive as you are.
Assuming, though, that a significant number of children are in a similar position as “Sam”, it seems likely that at least one of them would be as outspoken as you. Considering that you’ve given us no indication that this is the case, we’re led to believe that you and Sam are likely the only parent-child combination to be having issues of this magnitude, and that your delusions of commiseration are simply that: delusions.
While, on the surface, you’ve seemingly received quite a bit of “support” from the parents you’ve spoken to, it seems likely that they are merely expressing their support out of social obligation rather than out of actual unwavering commitment. Further, even if they are vaguely supportive of your ideas, it seems improbable that they will be as devoted as you are to an initiative that primarily benefits your child only.
Essentially, I would ask you this question: why is it the duty of the school, and of the taxpayers at large that fund it, including the parents you’ve attempted to “rally”, to devote so much time, effort, energy, money, and resources to such a small proportion of the population served by it (your son is only one child, after all)? The world doesn’t revolve around anybody in particular.
While individuality is a right, it comes, like all rights, with corresponding responsibilities. One of those corresponding responsibilities is to accept the consequences of your individuality, that others have their own individual natures that may come into conflict with yours.
There won’t always be a “mommy” or an institution to come to your son’s rescue, and it’s about time he realized it. Instead of attempting to corral an undeserved army to defend your son, why don’t you cut the cord and realize he needs to defend himself? If he doesn’t learn to fend off “bullying” (although I’d more accurately term it “a series of interpersonal disputes” in this case) now, when will he? Will you accompany him to college, the office, and the retirement home, too?
Sometimes people conflict, and there are no institutional policies that can ever solve this. People who don’t like your son for whatever reason will never like him, regardless of whatever policies you draft or punishments you dish out. In light of this, your son has really two options:
1. He can grow a thicker skin, a quicker tongue, and faster fists, learning to advocate for himself instead of having mommy fight his battles.
2. He can stop acting so femininely, lose weight, be less conspicuous about his illnesses, and learn who is actually interested in hearing about his obscure hobbies.
This is a dog eat dog world, where you either learn to blend in or, if you must stand out, stand out on your own two feet, not being propped up by the rudimentary defenses of an overprotective mother. The method that you’re working at will only waste your time, and make you look asinine and obstructionist to society at large. The response you’re choosing to your son’s “bullying” is an instinctual one, understandable, but not logical. As much as we’d like to, we can’t bulldoze down everything about the world that we don’t like.
Now, I hope you don’t take this as a personal attack. As an unconventional man myself (a pariah in the violent world of economics, no less), this is advice that I deliver from experience, not condescension. Your son sounds like a perfectly lovely boy, who I’d have no qualm about associating with, but, even still, he is, like everyone, bound to have his detractors, detractors who you, try as you might, will never be able to shield him from.
Thus, it is better for you to instead endow him with the personal, unbreakable shield of a good self-esteem, which comes not from having the world molded to your preference by an external force, but rather by having the power to mold the world yourself. Consider it.
“Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you will feed him for life.”
P.S.: I, myself, have used the “Atkins diet” to much success. I recommend it. While you have suggested variously throughout this blog that diets are mostly ineffective, and often damaging to one’s self-esteem, I found the situation to be the exact opposite. Overcoming one’s natural inclination to overeat is liberating and esteem boosting, and the physical effects were demonstrable.
Point is, you may wish to consider that “Sam”‘s weight issues are health issues, not just social ones. Being “the fat kid” is easily preventable with a little bit of self-control, diet, and exercise.
Have “Sam” put down the video games and go for a jog, perhaps? I know it doesn’t seem that easy, but as someone who has struggled with weight issues, it truly is usually just a lack of willpower that keeps the pounds from flying off. You have to take control at some point, so why not today?