Teacher shot at Newport News elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

We expect all teachers and administrators to teach, to be miracle therapists and social workers, and also to be better security guards than trained police. And then we are horrified and furious when they do not succeed.

These administrators were not admirable - but the situation with the 6 year old was beyond anything they should have had to handle.

Did you actually read the report? All of it? Because these admins had plenty of opportunity, basically over an 18 month period preceding the shooting, to appropriately deal with the student. These people knew this student was "beyond anything they should have had to handle"; however these trained educational professional administrators, including the assistant principal who has her doctorate, actively, willingly and purposefully let that boy continue in the school in 1st grade, made unconscionable accommodations to keep him there. This wasn't a one, two or three times off. So just stop. They knew they couldn't handle him and that the school wasn't appropriate. But yet they refused to transfer him or find an acceptable solution for him and the rest of students and teachers.

WITW is wrong with you?

FAPE, LRE, etc. As well as statistics re URMs, and budget issues. Do you know what those are?

Do you want every 5 year old who is a handful to be excluded or written off permanently? Or only some of them? This child is worse than others, yes, but still one of many trouble kids, some of whom need a different setting and some of whom will grow out of it.

Jesus, describing this kid as merely a “handful” is the understatement of the century. And yes, he absolutely should have been excluded from mainstream education settings given the level of violent behavior he exhibited. Let’s also call a spade a spade here, this administrator ignored the warning signs that day because she thought Abby Zwerner was just a white lady constantly overreacting to the behavior of a young black child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

They also left the injured teacher who had a bullet hole in her chest, laying in the hall outside their door, bleeding on the floor. They opened the door, saw her there, shut and locked the door. They didn't try to bring her in to safety, nothing.

Also the janitor let the police in by physically opening the door. Not the admin.

I would assume that all schools have lock down drills, training on what to do in these situations. I am more than appalled at what happened here.

I think the report mentioned that there was no evidence that the school had been practicing lockdown drills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

We expect all teachers and administrators to teach, to be miracle therapists and social workers, and also to be better security guards than trained police. And then we are horrified and furious when they do not succeed.

These administrators were not admirable - but the situation with the 6 year old was beyond anything they should have had to handle.

Did you actually read the report? All of it? Because these admins had plenty of opportunity, basically over an 18 month period preceding the shooting, to appropriately deal with the student. These people knew this student was "beyond anything they should have had to handle"; however these trained educational professional administrators, including the assistant principal who has her doctorate, actively, willingly and purposefully let that boy continue in the school in 1st grade, made unconscionable accommodations to keep him there. This wasn't a one, two or three times off. So just stop. They knew they couldn't handle him and that the school wasn't appropriate. But yet they refused to transfer him or find an acceptable solution for him and the rest of students and teachers.

WITW is wrong with you?

FAPE, LRE, etc. As well as statistics re URMs, and budget issues. Do you know what those are?

Do you want every 5 year old who is a handful to be excluded or written off permanently? Or only some of them? This child is worse than others, yes, but still one of many trouble kids, some of whom need a different setting and some of whom will grow out of it.

So you didn't read the full report. This child continued to suffer and was not being supported because the administration didn't do THEIR JOB for 18 months by finding the appropriate classroom solution. It was clear, by September on his K year, that he had such high needs that a regular classroom wasn't appropriate. It wasn't a budget issue or a statistical issue, it was an apathetic admin issue. If those people, who have the educational background, training and expertise, really wanted to help this very young, lower income AA boy not become an actual statistic when he got older, they would have found the intervention for him before it was too late. They swept it under the rug, allowed him to punch multiple teachers in the face, allowed him to choke his teacher, allowed him to stand on a chair and throw his teacher's phone, allowed him to attack students, allowed him say "FU, I'm never coming to your classroom again", "You're a beyothc!" and "FU, I shot my teacher", all in front of all the other kids there, just to name a few. If he was allowed to continue, what do you think he would do when he a teen? What kind of statistic is he then? Isn't early intervention the solution? I can't even with you nonsense.

The writing was on the wall back in K. The admin lied for this kid, repeatedly, lied for his parents. Some stole his disciplinary file and destroyed evidence. WHY? Why not help him at the beginning? It is beyond suspect the bending over and twisting into knots for this one individual little kid to keep him in an environment that clearly isn't working.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes there isn’t anything to be done.
No amount of intervention can help.
There are people who are anti social and criminal. That’s just the way it is.

[Anonymous]

trying to catch up here, can someone link to the report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

We expect all teachers and administrators to teach, to be miracle therapists and social workers, and also to be better security guards than trained police. And then we are horrified and furious when they do not succeed.

These administrators were not admirable - but the situation with the 6 year old was beyond anything they should have had to handle.

Did you actually read the report? All of it? Because these admins had plenty of opportunity, basically over an 18 month period preceding the shooting, to appropriately deal with the student. These people knew this student was "beyond anything they should have had to handle"; however these trained educational professional administrators, including the assistant principal who has her doctorate, actively, willingly and purposefully let that boy continue in the school in 1st grade, made unconscionable accommodations to keep him there. This wasn't a one, two or three times off. So just stop. They knew they couldn't handle him and that the school wasn't appropriate. But yet they refused to transfer him or find an acceptable solution for him and the rest of students and teachers.

WITW is wrong with you?

FAPE, LRE, etc. As well as statistics re URMs, and budget issues. Do you know what those are?

Do you want every 5 year old who is a handful to be excluded or written off permanently? Or only some of them? This child is worse than others, yes, but still one of many trouble kids, some of whom need a different setting and some of whom will grow out of it.

So you didn't read the full report. This child continued to suffer and was not being supported because the administration didn't do THEIR JOB for 18 months by finding the appropriate classroom solution. It was clear, by September on his K year, that he had such high needs that a regular classroom wasn't appropriate. It wasn't a budget issue or a statistical issue, it was an apathetic admin issue. If those people, who have the educational background, training and expertise, really wanted to help this very young, lower income AA boy not become an actual statistic when he got older, they would have found the intervention for him before it was too late. They swept it under the rug, allowed him to punch multiple teachers in the face, allowed him to choke his teacher, allowed him to stand on a chair and throw his teacher's phone, allowed him to attack students, allowed him say "FU, I'm never coming to your classroom again", "You're a beyothc!" and "FU, I shot my teacher", all in front of all the other kids there, just to name a few. If he was allowed to continue, what do you think he would do when he a teen? What kind of statistic is he then? Isn't early intervention the solution? I can't even with you nonsense.

The writing was on the wall back in K. The admin lied for this kid, repeatedly, lied for his parents. Some stole his disciplinary file and destroyed evidence. WHY? Why not help him at the beginning? It is beyond suspect the bending over and twisting into knots for this one individual little kid to keep him in an environment that clearly isn't working.

The process takes months, often years. It may be clear to you in month 1 that he should be moved - are you an administrator? How long does it usually take to move a child?

BTW, early intervention is for babies and toddlers. Not for kindergartners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

We expect all teachers and administrators to teach, to be miracle therapists and social workers, and also to be better security guards than trained police. And then we are horrified and furious when they do not succeed.

These administrators were not admirable - but the situation with the 6 year old was beyond anything they should have had to handle.

Did you actually read the report? All of it? Because these admins had plenty of opportunity, basically over an 18 month period preceding the shooting, to appropriately deal with the student. These people knew this student was "beyond anything they should have had to handle"; however these trained educational professional administrators, including the assistant principal who has her doctorate, actively, willingly and purposefully let that boy continue in the school in 1st grade, made unconscionable accommodations to keep him there. This wasn't a one, two or three times off. So just stop. They knew they couldn't handle him and that the school wasn't appropriate. But yet they refused to transfer him or find an acceptable solution for him and the rest of students and teachers.

WITW is wrong with you?

FAPE, LRE, etc. As well as statistics re URMs, and budget issues. Do you know what those are?

Do you want every 5 year old who is a handful to be excluded or written off permanently? Or only some of them? This child is worse than others, yes, but still one of many trouble kids, some of whom need a different setting and some of whom will grow out of it.

So you didn't read the full report. This child continued to suffer and was not being supported because the administration didn't do THEIR JOB for 18 months by finding the appropriate classroom solution. It was clear, by September on his K year, that he had such high needs that a regular classroom wasn't appropriate. It wasn't a budget issue or a statistical issue, it was an apathetic admin issue. If those people, who have the educational background, training and expertise, really wanted to help this very young, lower income AA boy not become an actual statistic when he got older, they would have found the intervention for him before it was too late. They swept it under the rug, allowed him to punch multiple teachers in the face, allowed him to choke his teacher, allowed him to stand on a chair and throw his teacher's phone, allowed him to attack students, allowed him say "FU, I'm never coming to your classroom again", "You're a beyothc!" and "FU, I shot my teacher", all in front of all the other kids there, just to name a few. If he was allowed to continue, what do you think he would do when he a teen? What kind of statistic is he then? Isn't early intervention the solution? I can't even with you nonsense.

The writing was on the wall back in K. The admin lied for this kid, repeatedly, lied for his parents. Some stole his disciplinary file and destroyed evidence. WHY? Why not help him at the beginning? It is beyond suspect the bending over and twisting into knots for this one individual little kid to keep him in an environment that clearly isn't working.

The process takes months, often years. It may be clear to you in month 1 that he should be moved - are you an administrator? How long does it usually take to move a child?

BTW, early intervention is for babies and toddlers. Not for kindergartners.

People like you are why this happened. He had 8 bullets btw and kept trying to shoot but the gun jammed. This could have been a mass event. But yeah, since he wasn't a baby or toddler there should have been no intervention. Huh? Read the report. And please get help, for your sake and for society's sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:trying to catch up here, can someone link to the report?

can be found here: https://nncwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Full-Report-2024-opt.pdf

[Anonymous]

thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much of the report is horrible and incomprehensible, but I can’t get the imagine of the grandma and little boy who was waiting in the office out of my mind.
The principal and vice principal thought they could have an active shooter at the school and they literally just let a young student fend for himself rather than quickly grabbing the kid and pulling him into the office.
It’s horrifying.

We expect all teachers and administrators to teach, to be miracle therapists and social workers, and also to be better security guards than trained police. And then we are horrified and furious when they do not succeed.

These administrators were not admirable - but the situation with the 6 year old was beyond anything they should have had to handle.

Did you actually read the report? All of it? Because these admins had plenty of opportunity, basically over an 18 month period preceding the shooting, to appropriately deal with the student. These people knew this student was "beyond anything they should have had to handle"; however these trained educational professional administrators, including the assistant principal who has her doctorate, actively, willingly and purposefully let that boy continue in the school in 1st grade, made unconscionable accommodations to keep him there. This wasn't a one, two or three times off. So just stop. They knew they couldn't handle him and that the school wasn't appropriate. But yet they refused to transfer him or find an acceptable solution for him and the rest of students and teachers.

WITW is wrong with you?

FAPE, LRE, etc. As well as statistics re URMs, and budget issues. Do you know what those are?

Do you want every 5 year old who is a handful to be excluded or written off permanently? Or only some of them? This child is worse than others, yes, but still one of many trouble kids, some of whom need a different setting and some of whom will grow out of it.

So you didn't read the full report. This child continued to suffer and was not being supported because the administration didn't do THEIR JOB for 18 months by finding the appropriate classroom solution. It was clear, by September on his K year, that he had such high needs that a regular classroom wasn't appropriate. It wasn't a budget issue or a statistical issue, it was an apathetic admin issue. If those people, who have the educational background, training and expertise, really wanted to help this very young, lower income AA boy not become an actual statistic when he got older, they would have found the intervention for him before it was too late. They swept it under the rug, allowed him to punch multiple teachers in the face, allowed him to choke his teacher, allowed him to stand on a chair and throw his teacher's phone, allowed him to attack students, allowed him say "FU, I'm never coming to your classroom again", "You're a beyothc!" and "FU, I shot my teacher", all in front of all the other kids there, just to name a few. If he was allowed to continue, what do you think he would do when he a teen? What kind of statistic is he then? Isn't early intervention the solution? I can't even with you nonsense.

The writing was on the wall back in K. The admin lied for this kid, repeatedly, lied for his parents. Some stole his disciplinary file and destroyed evidence. WHY? Why not help him at the beginning? It is beyond suspect the bending over and twisting into knots for this one individual little kid to keep him in an environment that clearly isn't working.

The process takes months, often years. It may be clear to you in month 1 that he should be moved - are you an administrator? How long does it usually take to move a child?

BTW, early intervention is for babies and toddlers. Not for kindergartners.

Yes, "the process" does often take months or years. It shouldn't. Not when safety is concerned. These admins should have been pressing for an emergency outplacement back in K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am going to speculate as a school psychologist why the teachers didn't search his backpack.

It is clear the assistant principal and principal are not at all supportive and downright callous as evidenced through out the grand jury report.

When he was in kindergarten, the student choked a teacher in September. After getting choked by the student the school counselor who had witnessed the incident took the child to the office and a couple of hours later the student was sent back to her class because allegedly no administrator was there to deal with it. That kindergarten teacher left her class with an aide, went to the office filled out an incident report AND kept a copy for herself (smart teacher!), then went to talk to both the principal and the vice-principal. After that incident there was a plan the student would no longer be in her class she saw the student eating breakfast with her class. So that K teacher confronted the Vice-Principal and said either she would leave or the student would leave but that they were NOT going to be in the same class together. Teachers who are able to assert their rights tend to be financially secure enough to quit, and/or savvy enough to go get medical treatment for their injury and go on leave and/or friends with the principal. It also could be the teacher is an amazing well-liked teacher and knows the principal will stick up for her. This situation of a teacher saying "it is me or the student, pick which one you want at school" is NOT common. A teacher can be reprimanded, written up and even fired for insubordination and not be willing to teach the class.

Most teachers need the paycheck, they teach because they want to be helpful, and aren't confrontational with callous administrators. So when there was a report of a gun on the child or in the backpack, logically you would think a 1st grade teacher would search the child's backpack and pockets. But when you have a really, really reactive student who can be very aggressive it isn't so easy. The first grade teacher needs to think of the whole class and keep the whole class safe. By searching his backpack, the student would most likely become really upset and aggressive. The teacher was not being supported at all by the administrators so if she called the office for help, it would be doubtful anyone would have come. And if the vice-principal would have come the teacher most likely would have been reprimanded for setting off the student. Many administrators put all the blame on teachers and their first question after a teacher has been hit, scratched, kicked, spat upon, bites, etc. is to ask what the TEACHER did to set off the student. So it is a catch-22 situation where a teacher can't win.

So if the teachers were really afraid to search the student, what the teacher needed is for someone to be more helpful and lure the student out of the classroom saying they had a prize for him for something in the office or the counselor office or wanted to show him something outside of the classroom and hope he left his backpack in the room. Same thing for searching pockets, you offer the kid something that is small enough that they can fit it in their pocket but large enough that you can usually tell if they have anything else in their pocket. Or you put on music and have a movement activity and see if the kid participates so it is easier to tell if something is in the pocket. If that doesn't work, if you are working with truly awful administrators who will go off the deep end if you search the backpack or student then for the good of the class you have to flat out lie and say you think saw something shiny and metallic (not a gun, but a description that could be something benign but could be a weapon) in the student's backpack or pocket and then email the admin so it is in writing then call the office. It is so tiring playing games with administrators who are lazy and only look out for themselves.

Both parents had been in the classroom with the student and I also wonder what the relationship between the teacher, the admin, and the parents was. Were the teachers afraid the parents would be upset if the student went home and complained he was searched? I can't imagine a teacher would want his parents in her classroom for a couple of hours every day.

The poster who said that perhaps he wasn't tested for special education because he is African-American has a point. Districts can get in trouble from the federal education department and state if they qualify too many students of any one race in a special education eligibility category compared to students from another race. There has been an over identification when you look at number of African-American students and the eligibility category of Emotionally Disturbed. What doesn't make sense is that the student began taking medication for ADHD, so they could have qualified him under Other Health Impaired due to ADHD. He really needed to be assessed at that point and I can picture a special education attorney reaching out to the parents to sue under Child Find. What also isn't clear is where he was after September of his kindergarten. The principal said Chicago, but that seems unlikely. The worse thing for the kid was to spend more time at home with family members who thought him being a tough guy was cute.

The district is completely at fault and I really hope the teacher gets millions.

Thank you and the other PPs who provided some context for why the teachers handled this as they did. This makes a lot of sense. What a mess. This all makes me wonder how many other kids are falling through the cracks like this kid, but fly under the radar because they are not violent.

The grand jury did an amazing job explaining what went wrong here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many lives were put at risk and any genuine attempt at intervention was further delayed, I just don't understand WHY?

There are a lot of admins who would rather lose a good teacher than kick out a violent student. Churn and burn through teachers who have to deal with the violent kid, but you can brag that you reduced suspensions by 95% when you apply for a job with the DOE.

I would love to see climate surveys of this school and the district before the shooting. I'd bet Parker and Parrott weren't well regarded by staff at any point in their careers.

Yup. 100 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am going to speculate as a school psychologist why the teachers didn't search his backpack.

It is clear the assistant principal and principal are not at all supportive and downright callous as evidenced through out the grand jury report.

When he was in kindergarten, the student choked a teacher in September. After getting choked by the student the school counselor who had witnessed the incident took the child to the office and a couple of hours later the student was sent back to her class because allegedly no administrator was there to deal with it. That kindergarten teacher left her class with an aide, went to the office filled out an incident report AND kept a copy for herself (smart teacher!), then went to talk to both the principal and the vice-principal. After that incident there was a plan the student would no longer be in her class she saw the student eating breakfast with her class. So that K teacher confronted the Vice-Principal and said either she would leave or the student would leave but that they were NOT going to be in the same class together. Teachers who are able to assert their rights tend to be financially secure enough to quit, and/or savvy enough to go get medical treatment for their injury and go on leave and/or friends with the principal. It also could be the teacher is an amazing well-liked teacher and knows the principal will stick up for her. This situation of a teacher saying "it is me or the student, pick which one you want at school" is NOT common. A teacher can be reprimanded, written up and even fired for insubordination and not be willing to teach the class.

Most teachers need the paycheck, they teach because they want to be helpful, and aren't confrontational with callous administrators. So when there was a report of a gun on the child or in the backpack, logically you would think a 1st grade teacher would search the child's backpack and pockets. But when you have a really, really reactive student who can be very aggressive it isn't so easy. The first grade teacher needs to think of the whole class and keep the whole class safe. By searching his backpack, the student would most likely become really upset and aggressive. The teacher was not being supported at all by the administrators so if she called the office for help, it would be doubtful anyone would have come. And if the vice-principal would have come the teacher most likely would have been reprimanded for setting off the student. Many administrators put all the blame on teachers and their first question after a teacher has been hit, scratched, kicked, spat upon, bites, etc. is to ask what the TEACHER did to set off the student. So it is a catch-22 situation where a teacher can't win.

So if the teachers were really afraid to search the student, what the teacher needed is for someone to be more helpful and lure the student out of the classroom saying they had a prize for him for something in the office or the counselor office or wanted to show him something outside of the classroom and hope he left his backpack in the room. Same thing for searching pockets, you offer the kid something that is small enough that they can fit it in their pocket but large enough that you can usually tell if they have anything else in their pocket. Or you put on music and have a movement activity and see if the kid participates so it is easier to tell if something is in the pocket. If that doesn't work, if you are working with truly awful administrators who will go off the deep end if you search the backpack or student then for the good of the class you have to flat out lie and say you think saw something shiny and metallic (not a gun, but a description that could be something benign but could be a weapon) in the student's backpack or pocket and then email the admin so it is in writing then call the office. It is so tiring playing games with administrators who are lazy and only look out for themselves.

Both parents had been in the classroom with the student and I also wonder what the relationship between the teacher, the admin, and the parents was. Were the teachers afraid the parents would be upset if the student went home and complained he was searched? I can't imagine a teacher would want his parents in her classroom for a couple of hours every day.

The poster who said that perhaps he wasn't tested for special education because he is African-American has a point. Districts can get in trouble from the federal education department and state if they qualify too many students of any one race in a special education eligibility category compared to students from another race. There has been an over identification when you look at number of African-American students and the eligibility category of Emotionally Disturbed. What doesn't make sense is that the student began taking medication for ADHD, so they could have qualified him under Other Health Impaired due to ADHD. He really needed to be assessed at that point and I can picture a special education attorney reaching out to the parents to sue under Child Find. What also isn't clear is where he was after September of his kindergarten. The principal said Chicago, but that seems unlikely. The worse thing for the kid was to spend more time at home with family members who thought him being a tough guy was cute.

The district is completely at fault and I really hope the teacher gets millions.

Thank you and the other PPs who provided some context for why the teachers handled this as they did. This makes a lot of sense. What a mess. This all makes me wonder how many other kids are falling through the cracks like this kid, but fly under the radar because they are not violent.

The grand jury did an amazing job explaining what went wrong here.

Thank you, school psychologist PP, for taking the time to write this out and explain. Well done.
- teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am going to speculate as a school psychologist why the teachers didn't search his backpack.

It is clear the assistant principal and principal are not at all supportive and downright callous as evidenced through out the grand jury report.

When he was in kindergarten, the student choked a teacher in September. After getting choked by the student the school counselor who had witnessed the incident took the child to the office and a couple of hours later the student was sent back to her class because allegedly no administrator was there to deal with it. That kindergarten teacher left her class with an aide, went to the office filled out an incident report AND kept a copy for herself (smart teacher!), then went to talk to both the principal and the vice-principal. After that incident there was a plan the student would no longer be in her class she saw the student eating breakfast with her class. So that K teacher confronted the Vice-Principal and said either she would leave or the student would leave but that they were NOT going to be in the same class together. Teachers who are able to assert their rights tend to be financially secure enough to quit, and/or savvy enough to go get medical treatment for their injury and go on leave and/or friends with the principal. It also could be the teacher is an amazing well-liked teacher and knows the principal will stick up for her. This situation of a teacher saying "it is me or the student, pick which one you want at school" is NOT common. A teacher can be reprimanded, written up and even fired for insubordination and not be willing to teach the class.

Most teachers need the paycheck, they teach because they want to be helpful, and aren't confrontational with callous administrators. So when there was a report of a gun on the child or in the backpack, logically you would think a 1st grade teacher would search the child's backpack and pockets. But when you have a really, really reactive student who can be very aggressive it isn't so easy. The first grade teacher needs to think of the whole class and keep the whole class safe. By searching his backpack, the student would most likely become really upset and aggressive. The teacher was not being supported at all by the administrators so if she called the office for help, it would be doubtful anyone would have come. And if the vice-principal would have come the teacher most likely would have been reprimanded for setting off the student. Many administrators put all the blame on teachers and their first question after a teacher has been hit, scratched, kicked, spat upon, bites, etc. is to ask what the TEACHER did to set off the student. So it is a catch-22 situation where a teacher can't win.

So if the teachers were really afraid to search the student, what the teacher needed is for someone to be more helpful and lure the student out of the classroom saying they had a prize for him for something in the office or the counselor office or wanted to show him something outside of the classroom and hope he left his backpack in the room. Same thing for searching pockets, you offer the kid something that is small enough that they can fit it in their pocket but large enough that you can usually tell if they have anything else in their pocket. Or you put on music and have a movement activity and see if the kid participates so it is easier to tell if something is in the pocket. If that doesn't work, if you are working with truly awful administrators who will go off the deep end if you search the backpack or student then for the good of the class you have to flat out lie and say you think saw something shiny and metallic (not a gun, but a description that could be something benign but could be a weapon) in the student's backpack or pocket and then email the admin so it is in writing then call the office. It is so tiring playing games with administrators who are lazy and only look out for themselves.

Both parents had been in the classroom with the student and I also wonder what the relationship between the teacher, the admin, and the parents was. Were the teachers afraid the parents would be upset if the student went home and complained he was searched? I can't imagine a teacher would want his parents in her classroom for a couple of hours every day.

The poster who said that perhaps he wasn't tested for special education because he is African-American has a point. Districts can get in trouble from the federal education department and state if they qualify too many students of any one race in a special education eligibility category compared to students from another race. There has been an over identification when you look at number of African-American students and the eligibility category of Emotionally Disturbed. What doesn't make sense is that the student began taking medication for ADHD, so they could have qualified him under Other Health Impaired due to ADHD. He really needed to be assessed at that point and I can picture a special education attorney reaching out to the parents to sue under Child Find. What also isn't clear is where he was after September of his kindergarten. The principal said Chicago, but that seems unlikely. The worse thing for the kid was to spend more time at home with family members who thought him being a tough guy was cute.

The district is completely at fault and I really hope the teacher gets millions.

Thank you and the other PPs who provided some context for why the teachers handled this as they did. This makes a lot of sense. What a mess. This all makes me wonder how many other kids are falling through the cracks like this kid, but fly under the radar because they are not violent.

The grand jury did an amazing job explaining what went wrong here.

After he was pulled out of K I have read he attended a daycare program with a K component.

Wonder if those parents or caregivers were informed that he had tried to strangle an adult with a jump rope?

In 1st he also chased other kids with a belt on the playground and tried to touch the privates of a girl who had fallen on the playground whose dress rode up. Clearly he was exposed to and/or was a victim of violence and abuse. His father's socials were up for a very long time and it was clear the child was exposed to p*rn. One adult relative's social media showed him playing GTA on an iPad as a preschooler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was the motive of the administrators re: the whole situation, and the day of the shooting? As a parent, I don't understand.

They prioritized the "rights" of that severely disturbed, violent child over the rights of the innocent children and teachers in that school. And when the shit hit the fan, they scrambled to cover their own asses by hiding in their offices and making the child's disciplinary records disappear. Zero professionalism, zero ethics. Pure evil. They should never work in education again.

Destroying evidence is a crime. the administrator should be charged with obstruction of justice. To allow her to still have her job (she’s still posting in twitter) is wrong for so many reasons, the least of which is to be complicit in her criminal behavior.

When the investigators finally got the file back from Dr. Parrott, ALL parts of the disciplinary file were missing. All of it. This is a huge cover up. It cannot be allowed to stand.

If you think principals don't destroy student records...

This particular instance turned into a criminal case. Ordinarily, it's just a school record which will eventually be destroyed anyway.

I’ve seen them destroy evidence of their own wrongdoing