S/O Silver Creek letter announcing new AP who was placed on leave after ESS police incident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The police officers yelled repeatedly at the 5 year old when they found him, told him his mother should spank him and briefly handcuffed him.

This is not Ms. Pfeiffer's responsibility at all!!! She is responsible for the security lapse when the student left the school grounds. Not the same thing, and unfortunately this occurs in every school, all over the world.

I would definitely give this principal the benefit of the doubt here... but not the police officers who abused that poor kid.

I think the letter, with its vagueness, throws the newly appointed assistant principal under the bus. Parents are going to imagine all kinds of horrors if they don't know the facts.

I don't know Ms. Pfeiffer but I'm sure she wishes she had stood up to the mom and to the cops. A lot of us wish we'd done things differently in our lives and in our jobs. But the specific dynamics here seem genuinely fraught. The principal was off campus, the mother was urging the cops to handcuff the child, and there were of course the natural deference that a lot of us have been conditioned to show to police officers. I take heart in the fact that MCPS seems to have used this incident as an impetus to train school administrators on what rights the police do and don't have inside a school, and maybe some interrupter/bystander trainings as well.

As for the police officers, I notice folks aren't giving us a play-by-play of their careers over the past five years. For some reason their culpability seems to be brushed away and I genuinely cannot figure out why.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but are any of us really saying that we would be in a room with a 5 year old being treated like that and not try to do something? Huge judgement lapse from this AP. Terrifying. SCMS has major discipline issues to begin with - this is not a place for someone "starting fresh".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but are any of us really saying that we would be in a room with a 5 year old being treated like that and not try to do something? Huge judgement lapse from this AP. Terrifying. SCMS has major discipline issues to begin with - this is not a place for someone "starting fresh".

Everyone thinks they would have hidden Jews in their attic, and everyone thinks they would have stood up to a Black mom telling Black cops to please go ahead and continue yelling at her son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry, but are any of us really saying that we would be in a room with a 5 year old being treated like that and not try to do something? Huge judgement lapse from this AP. Terrifying. SCMS has major discipline issues to begin with - this is not a place for someone "starting fresh".

Everyone thinks they would have hidden Jews in their attic, and everyone thinks they would have stood up to a Black mom telling Black cops to please go ahead and continue yelling at her son.

+1

That Ms. Pfeiffer has been candid and transparent about how this incident has changed her is more than most of us are willing and/or able to do. These experiences are very difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of posting a letter from the school?

The point is to apply pressure to get rid of the incoming AP to get the community riled against her and make CO do something else with her besides placing her at Silver Creek.

That's how principals get rid of employees - apply pressure.

[Anonymous]

Are there any non-white pupils at that school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any non-white pupils at that school?

About half the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The police officers yelled repeatedly at the 5 year old when they found him, told him his mother should spank him and briefly handcuffed him.

This is not Ms. Pfeiffer's responsibility at all!!! She is responsible for the security lapse when the student left the school grounds. Not the same thing, and unfortunately this occurs in every school, all over the world.

I would definitely give this principal the benefit of the doubt here... but not the police officers who abused that poor kid.

I think the letter, with its vagueness, throws the newly appointed assistant principal under the bus. Parents are going to imagine all kinds of horrors if they don't know the facts.

Agreed with poster 09:56

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outgoing SCMS AP is going to Wootton HS as an AP, the same HS from where current SCMS Principal came from. Moving people around. Is Nelson still Principal at Wootton?

Awkard left Wootton in 2020. Nelson started there in 2022. Not sure why you're trying to suggest something inappropriate. It's normal for APs to move around every year.

Who is suggesting something inappropriate? Please do state what you think is being suggested so we too can understand what you are thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of posting a letter from the school?

The point is to apply pressure to get rid of the incoming AP to get the community riled against her and make CO do something else with her besides placing her at Silver Creek.

That's how principals get rid of employees - apply pressure.

Are you suggesting someone at CO is trying to cause a headache for this school's Principal and now Principal is trying to rally parents to stop this AP from joining SCMS?What's going on between CO-Chia-SCMS Principal-Justine-O'Shell-Nelson-Townsend et al?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of posting a letter from the school?

The point is to apply pressure to get rid of the incoming AP to get the community riled against her and make CO do something else with her besides placing her at Silver Creek.

That's how principals get rid of employees - apply pressure.

z

Oh, I don't think that's it at all. I think this is coming from a small group of (white) social justice moms who have been tracking the AP's career and bumping threads on DCUM. It also explains why they are focused on Ms. Pfeiffer rather than the police officers, because their DEI books tell them that white folks can only "call in" other white folks.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of posting a letter from the school?

The point is to apply pressure to get rid of the incoming AP to get the community riled against her and make CO do something else with her besides placing her at Silver Creek.

That's how principals get rid of employees - apply pressure.

z

Oh, I don't think that's it at all. I think this is coming from a small group of (white) social justice moms who have been tracking the AP's career and bumping threads on DCUM. It also explains why they are focused on Ms. Pfeiffer rather than the police officers, because their DEI books tell them that white folks can only "call in" other white folks.

They are focused on the AP because their kids go to the school and will interact with her. Their kids are unlikely to have interactions with the officers involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point of posting a letter from the school?

The point is to apply pressure to get rid of the incoming AP to get the community riled against her and make CO do something else with her besides placing her at Silver Creek.

That's how principals get rid of employees - apply pressure.

z

Oh, I don't think that's it at all. I think this is coming from a small group of (white) social justice moms who have been tracking the AP's career and bumping threads on DCUM. It also explains why they are focused on Ms. Pfeiffer rather than the police officers, because their DEI books tell them that white folks can only "call in" other white folks.

The white social justice moms I know who are discussing this pretty much universally think she has put in "the work" and are ok with her going back to a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the letter is the problem. It makes clear what is happening and that the principal doesn’t want it. The problem is central office is putting her in a role where she interacts with children again. She should stay in a role in central office where that won’t happen.

This is an effort to gut out CO?? Ha!