Stokes sued for barring parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sign of aggression from the child. You can’t hear the conversation but my guess is that the staff was likely lecturing the child or maybe telling her she should not do something. The child started to get up, and the staff clearly and forcefully pushed her back on the couch. No doubt about it. It was quick and forceful. Did not give the child any time to react or even resist.

I’d be mad as heck if I was the mom.

And honestly even though I doubt being shoved back on a couch will traumatize her for life, banning the mom is a huge trauma.

Im glad she’s suing.

It was not an isolated incident. Apparently there were multiple aggressive incidents and probably why she put herself out there and informed the school community. It was a pattern.

[Anonymous]

The kid shouldn't have been pushed (though IMHO it barely looks like a push). THe mother seems like a nut job that as making the situation worse in every way, including for her own kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow-- a five year ban seems awfully long.

Former charter school administrator (not Stokes) here: 5 years is what is on the MPD template. In most cases, schools re-evaluate the barring after a shorter amount of time and consulting with the parent. I generally held a conference 30 - 60 days after the barring and if the parent was willing to modify the problematic behavior, we'd lift it. (Link to MPD circular with template: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/CIR_16_04.pdf)

It is still a functional permanent ban, even if it is in the template. Parents don't know that you might lift it. It is designed to make them leave. Knowing it is in the template makes me even more cynical about charters pushing difficult families out.

You can also cross out the time limit on the template and write-in another number.

Still, why does the template have 5 years? For some schools that is longer than any child attends! And what is a single parent to do if that happens? It is an obvious attempt to get them to leave.

It’s not just a template for schools, that’s the generic barring notice for all of DC. It’s the same one I used to use as a bartender. I think they should make you fill in the time up you want, up to 5 years. You can cross it out, but I don’t know how many people know that. I do because I used to fill out a lot of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow-- a five year ban seems awfully long.

Former charter school administrator (not Stokes) here: 5 years is what is on the MPD template. In most cases, schools re-evaluate the barring after a shorter amount of time and consulting with the parent. I generally held a conference 30 - 60 days after the barring and if the parent was willing to modify the problematic behavior, we'd lift it. (Link to MPD circular with template: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/CIR_16_04.pdf)

It is still a functional permanent ban, even if it is in the template. Parents don't know that you might lift it. It is designed to make them leave. Knowing it is in the template makes me even more cynical about charters pushing difficult families out.

You can also cross out the time limit on the template and write-in another number.

Still, why does the template have 5 years? For some schools that is longer than any child attends! And what is a single parent to do if that happens? It is an obvious attempt to get them to leave.

It’s not just a template for schools, that’s the generic barring notice for all of DC. It’s the same one I used to use as a bartender. I think they should make you fill in the time up you want, up to 5 years. You can cross it out, but I don’t know how many people know that. I do because I used to fill out a lot of them.

Interesting. The form my school uses has a blank field where the period of the barring is completed. It can be completed with things like "barred for the period of today until a meeting with the principal" or "period of October 1 to November 1." Most are for a few days to a couple of months. I've only seen one that was for a year and that was for a parent who was threatening and abusive on school property and was arrested by the police. Our form also has fields for how school home communication will be handled and drop off and pick up.

5 years is a long time to bar a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow-- a five year ban seems awfully long.

Former charter school administrator (not Stokes) here: 5 years is what is on the MPD template. In most cases, schools re-evaluate the barring after a shorter amount of time and consulting with the parent. I generally held a conference 30 - 60 days after the barring and if the parent was willing to modify the problematic behavior, we'd lift it. (Link to MPD circular with template: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/CIR_16_04.pdf)

It is still a functional permanent ban, even if it is in the template. Parents don't know that you might lift it. It is designed to make them leave. Knowing it is in the template makes me even more cynical about charters pushing difficult families out.

You can also cross out the time limit on the template and write-in another number.

Still, why does the template have 5 years? For some schools that is longer than any child attends! And what is a single parent to do if that happens? It is an obvious attempt to get them to leave.

It’s not just a template for schools, that’s the generic barring notice for all of DC. It’s the same one I used to use as a bartender. I think they should make you fill in the time up you want, up to 5 years. You can cross it out, but I don’t know how many people know that. I do because I used to fill out a lot of them.

Interesting. The form my school uses has a blank field where the period of the barring is completed. It can be completed with things like "barred for the period of today until a meeting with the principal" or "period of October 1 to November 1." Most are for a few days to a couple of months. I've only seen one that was for a year and that was for a parent who was threatening and abusive on school property and was arrested by the police. Our form also has fields for how school home communication will be handled and drop off and pick up.

5 years is a long time to bar a parent.

That is because the obvious intent was to force the family to leave the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow-- a five year ban seems awfully long.

Former charter school administrator (not Stokes) here: 5 years is what is on the MPD template. In most cases, schools re-evaluate the barring after a shorter amount of time and consulting with the parent. I generally held a conference 30 - 60 days after the barring and if the parent was willing to modify the problematic behavior, we'd lift it. (Link to MPD circular with template: https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/CIR_16_04.pdf)

It is still a functional permanent ban, even if it is in the template. Parents don't know that you might lift it. It is designed to make them leave. Knowing it is in the template makes me even more cynical about charters pushing difficult families out.

You can also cross out the time limit on the template and write-in another number.

Still, why does the template have 5 years? For some schools that is longer than any child attends! And what is a single parent to do if that happens? It is an obvious attempt to get them to leave.

It’s not just a template for schools, that’s the generic barring notice for all of DC. It’s the same one I used to use as a bartender. I think they should make you fill in the time up you want, up to 5 years. You can cross it out, but I don’t know how many people know that. I do because I used to fill out a lot of them.

Interesting. The form my school uses has a blank field where the period of the barring is completed. It can be completed with things like "barred for the period of today until a meeting with the principal" or "period of October 1 to November 1." Most are for a few days to a couple of months. I've only seen one that was for a year and that was for a parent who was threatening and abusive on school property and was arrested by the police. Our form also has fields for how school home communication will be handled and drop off and pick up.

5 years is a long time to bar a parent.

That is because the obvious intent was to force the family to leave the school.

Agree and Im glad she is suing the school.

[Anonymous]

I watched the video. If it were my kid, I wouldn't be upset by the teacher's action. Reading these posts, I pictured a kid standing up and being knocked over, like in a fight. That was not the case.

I would, however, be offended by a grown parent using inappropriate language on school grounds, stealing from the school, and disrupting class.

And then to drag this out into a lawsuit...wasteful.

[Anonymous]

I watched the video and think this was blown out of proportion. Some of the things I have witnessed at DCPS are WAY worse than this video. Was this ok - no but not worth suing over IMO

[Anonymous]

I find it incredible the precious 2 comments. This was NOT an isolated incident. It was a PATTERN, and they barred the parent from the school for FIVE years. Sure, you would not be upset if above did not apply to your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it incredible the precious 2 comments. This was NOT an isolated incident. It was a PATTERN, and they barred the parent from the school for FIVE years. Sure, you would not be upset if above did not apply to your child.

Previous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the video and think this was blown out of proportion. Some of the things I have witnessed at DCPS are WAY worse than this video. Was this ok - no but not worth suing over IMO

She's not suing over the shove. She's suing because when she went to talk to them about it, they lied and said it never happened, and then when the video proved it happened, instead of apologizing the school barred her from campus. This isn't rocket science. The school is in the wrong here.

And to everyone saying they can not imagine using foul language on school grounds or whatever other pearl clutching nonsense - I seriously doubt you'd be so bound by propriety if this was your kid.

I don't have a kid at this school, and I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the responses have been completely strange. There was a video on here a couple years ago of a teacher pushing an elementary student in the hallway of a school and DCUM was sharpening the guillotine. The teacher was convicted of assault, and that kid was older than this one, and wasn't pushed as hard as in this video. And the school didn't even try to lie and cover that one up. So I'm interested in how people have decided that the real problem in this situation is that this kid's mom was upset, not that her kid got shoved and the school lied to her, got caught on the lie, and then barred her from campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the video and think this was blown out of proportion. Some of the things I have witnessed at DCPS are WAY worse than this video. Was this ok - no but not worth suing over IMO

She's not suing over the shove. She's suing because when she went to talk to them about it, they lied and said it never happened, and then when the video proved it happened, instead of apologizing the school barred her from campus. This isn't rocket science. The school is in the wrong here.

And to everyone saying they can not imagine using foul language on school grounds or whatever other pearl clutching nonsense - I seriously doubt you'd be so bound by propriety if this was your kid.

I don't have a kid at this school, and I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the responses have been completely strange. There was a video on here a couple years ago of a teacher pushing an elementary student in the hallway of a school and DCUM was sharpening the guillotine. The teacher was convicted of assault, and that kid was older than this one, and wasn't pushed as hard as in this video. And the school didn't even try to lie and cover that one up. So I'm interested in how people have decided that the real problem in this situation is that this kid's mom was upset, not that her kid got shoved and the school lied to her, got caught on the lie, and then barred her from campus.

Totally agree.

I don’t have a child that goes there and no dog in this fight either. But it’s obvious that people saying these things are likely Stoke parents who can’t accept the reality that the school was way in the wrong and compounded the problem even more with their subsequent actions.

[Anonymous]

Hell yes, I would sue the school if they attempted to bar me for 5 years from dropping off and picking up my child, going to PT meetings, attending any events in the classroom or at school, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hell yes, I would sue the school if they attempted to bar me for 5 years from dropping off and picking up my child, going to PT meetings, attending any events in the classroom or at school, etc...

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the video. If it were my kid, I wouldn't be upset by the teacher's action. Reading these posts, I pictured a kid standing up and being knocked over, like in a fight. That was not the case.

I would, however, be offended by a grown parent using inappropriate language on school grounds, stealing from the school, and disrupting class.

And then to drag this out into a lawsuit...wasteful.

Do you work at Stokes? What kind of crazy world do you live in where you are perfectly fine that your kid is pushed, the school tells you your child is a liar, then video surveillance shows your child really was pushed, your preschooler with limited language goes missing, they won't evaluate him in order for him to get speech therapy, and you end up being banned for five years.

I don't know anybody who attends Stokes, I just read the classroom link to the complaint.