Mcps Rara educator KICKED AUTISTIC elementary student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

[Anonymous]

Did they dismiss her or did she continue working at that elementary school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

I didn’t realize you knew me. I am a teacher. Schools like Candlewood also happen to have a discrete program such as Extensions which is a program for children with autism and/or other disabilities who also happen to have challenging behaviors. While I am fully aware children with autism may be mainstreamed, this is likely not the case here.

Maybe next time, ask questions before telling someone that they have no experience or understanding of MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

I didn’t realize you knew me. I am a teacher. Schools like Candlewood also happen to have a discrete program such as Extensions which is a program for children with autism and/or other disabilities who also happen to have challenging behaviors. While I am fully aware children with autism may be mainstreamed, this is likely not the case here.

Maybe next time, ask questions before telling someone that they have no experience or understanding of MCPS.

Do you get this triggered on the job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

I didn’t realize you knew me. I am a teacher. Schools like Candlewood also happen to have a discrete program such as Extensions which is a program for children with autism and/or other disabilities who also happen to have challenging behaviors. While I am fully aware children with autism may be mainstreamed, this is likely not the case here.

Maybe next time, ask questions before telling someone that they have no experience or understanding of MCPS.

Do you get this triggered on the job?

lol. I’ll leave you with this and then I won’t engage with you further because you continue to stray away from the point of this article.

I stated “it’s likely” not that it’s a rule. It would be best practice for teachers not to have items that could be triggering. I don’t understand why this teacher would pull out her whole meal (as stated in the document she had food and drink AND students gathered around to inspect it- thereby disrupting them). When I teach I may have a water bottle or a drink nearby, but if something happens to it or I know a child may grab it or knock it over, I won’t kick them over it. I simply would know not to bring it around or put it somewhere they can’t access it or better yet, consume it elsewhere.

Candlewood is one of the schools listed here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/extensions-services-ext/

From that MCPS website:

Extensions services are designed for students in kindergarten through 21 with significant cognitive disabilities, multiple disabilities, and/or Autism who demonstrate self-injurious and/or disruptive behaviors and are in need of specially designed instruction in the areas of communication and social skills, while accessing instruction aligned with the Maryland Alternate Achievement Standards.

Given there is no additional information about the student, it is a big guess that they may be in this program. Although you are correct, they could have been mainstreamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

DP. Soda isn’t poison.

Unfortunately, paras are regularly denied their contractual breaks during the day. Her problem was drinking and eating unhealthy snacks in the same room
As kids. It’s kicking a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

I didn’t realize you knew me. I am a teacher. Schools like Candlewood also happen to have a discrete program such as Extensions which is a program for children with autism and/or other disabilities who also happen to have challenging behaviors. While I am fully aware children with autism may be mainstreamed, this is likely not the case here.

Maybe next time, ask questions before telling someone that they have no experience or understanding of MCPS.

Do you get this triggered on the job?

lol. I’ll leave you with this and then I won’t engage with you further because you continue to stray away from the point of this article.

I stated “it’s likely” not that it’s a rule. It would be best practice for teachers not to have items that could be triggering. I don’t understand why this teacher would pull out her whole meal (as stated in the document she had food and drink AND students gathered around to inspect it- thereby disrupting them). When I teach I may have a water bottle or a drink nearby, but if something happens to it or I know a child may grab it or knock it over, I won’t kick them over it. I simply would know not to bring it around or put it somewhere they can’t access it or better yet, consume it elsewhere.

Candlewood is one of the schools listed here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/extensions-services-ext/

From that MCPS website:

Extensions services are designed for students in kindergarten through 21 with significant cognitive disabilities, multiple disabilities, and/or Autism who demonstrate self-injurious and/or disruptive behaviors and are in need of specially designed instruction in the areas of communication and social skills, while accessing instruction aligned with the Maryland Alternate Achievement Standards.

Given there is no additional information about the student, it is a big guess that they may be in this program. Although you are correct, they could have been mainstreamed.

Not a teacher. A para. If you were really a teacher, you would know the difference.

[Anonymous]

Teachers or other supporting staff*

Apologies. You must be a joy to work with. Good night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

Are teachers prohibited from having soda?

You’re straying from the point and it’s gross. A special needs/vulnerable child was hurt by a trusted person. It’s likely the staff members need to keep their food and drink in a separate space in order to avoid triggering students who are already identified as having behaviors.

Students with autism are fully mainstreamed in MCPS schools like Candlewood. I don’t know where you’re getting this but there is no rule against staff having soda or any other allegedly triggering item. You are not familiar with working in MCPS schools.

I didn’t realize you knew me. I am a teacher. Schools like Candlewood also happen to have a discrete program such as Extensions which is a program for children with autism and/or other disabilities who also happen to have challenging behaviors. While I am fully aware children with autism may be mainstreamed, this is likely not the case here.

Maybe next time, ask questions before telling someone that they have no experience or understanding of MCPS.

Do you get this triggered on the job?

lol. I’ll leave you with this and then I won’t engage with you further because you continue to stray away from the point of this article.

I stated “it’s likely” not that it’s a rule. It would be best practice for teachers not to have items that could be triggering. I don’t understand why this teacher would pull out her whole meal (as stated in the document she had food and drink AND students gathered around to inspect it- thereby disrupting them). When I teach I may have a water bottle or a drink nearby, but if something happens to it or I know a child may grab it or knock it over, I won’t kick them over it. I simply would know not to bring it around or put it somewhere they can’t access it or better yet, consume it elsewhere.

Candlewood is one of the schools listed here: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/special-education/extensions-services-ext/

From that MCPS website:

Extensions services are designed for students in kindergarten through 21 with significant cognitive disabilities, multiple disabilities, and/or Autism who demonstrate self-injurious and/or disruptive behaviors and are in need of specially designed instruction in the areas of communication and social skills, while accessing instruction aligned with the Maryland Alternate Achievement Standards.

Given there is no additional information about the student, it is a big guess that they may be in this program. Although you are correct, they could have been mainstreamed.

No clue what you’re blabbering on about now. You’ve mistaken me for someone else that clearly triggers you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teachers or other supporting staff*

Apologies. You must be a joy to work with. Good night!

Dp. Youre triggered because shes correct and makes logical points. Go kick rocks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's absolutely disgusting. Meleni Hoffman should be ashamed of herself and her trashy behavior toward an autistic student. Why hasn't she been arrested?

Do you think she's going to be running around town, taunting children with sodas and then kicking them, while awaiting trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just curious why does it point out that she has not been arrested? What is the difference between not being arrested and being arrested? Shouldn't a felony abuse charge involve jail time?

What not deport her to Uganda?

Arrest is for booking a suspect who is a flight risk.

Jail is for people considered flight risks before arraignment or trial, or people who are considered a danger to the community so severe that it overrides the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that sounds pretty bad.

When first seeing the title, I was willing to get the paraeducator the benefit of the doubt. Where something might've been incidental contact and blown out of proportion. And not to offend anyone but being identified as Special Ed can be a very wide spectrum and for a variety of reasons.

But to be actually be able to kick a kid in the chest seems to be pretty deliberate.

No injury reported.

My guess is the para was sitting in a chair and she pushed the kid away with her foot when he grabbed her drink (which she absolutely should not have had in the classroom).

This is why you shouldn't bring in minimum wage untrained people off the street to care for disabled students.

Why not?

It was soda.

DP. Soda isn’t poison.

Unfortunately, paras are regularly denied their contractual breaks during the day. Her problem was drinking and eating unhealthy snacks in the same room
As kids. It’s kicking a child.

It was disruptive classroom behind. If you are taking a snack break, you leave the room. Kicking a child is worse than leaving the room.