Teacher shot at Newport News elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

The bolded is a reminder that most people have no idea what an IEP is. Including you, PP. It's not a pass on behavior. Nothing in an IEP indicates that a child is allowed to harm other kids. And the majority of violent, disruptive bullies aren't on IEPs. The problem has never been children on IEPs, as much as you don't like them. It's money. There are simply not enough resources available to give each child the education and support they need and everyone suffers. The federal government isn't funding its share of special education. There aren't enough teachers, and can you blame them? There isn't enough training or support. And for the children with the greatest needs, there aren't enough spaces in specialized schools. You get what you pay for in public education.

I call bs.

The kid has an acute disability and was allowed half day classes with a parent shadowing the entire time. That is most definitely a sign of an IEP.

And your experience might be different but based on my teacher friends, it’s not. It’s getting worse and parents aren’t teaching their kids how to behave or medicating their kids so that their brains normalize.

And no- not every IEP allows for violent behavior. The IEPs allows for “bandaids” to deal with the aggressive behavior vs actually medication or therapy.

And this kid: had a lot of bandaids before he shot a teacher.

Absolutely not. If anything , the allowances for this child show he did NOT and could not have had an IEP. Nothing about this setup was legal per an IEP which is a LEGAL document. Acute disability is not a category under IDEA. You do not get an IEP for “acute disability,” that is a made up lawyer and family term. Secondly, it is not legal per an IEP for parents to serve as a 1:1 aide as they are not sped certified. There was no IEP. There was a deal between the family and admin to keep him mainstream at risk to all.

THANK YOU. I’m 17:03 above but you said it way better than I did.

[Anonymous]

This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

Here is another one from The Atlantic. I read it when it was published and it stuck out to me at the time. Over my years in special education I’ve met 2-3 kids who I think met this profile.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a harrowing account of the day in today's WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/10/richneck-elementary-school-shooting-timeline-warnings/

How could that school admin not take this seriously given the child's history?

It gives me a lot of concern because my DC's school had an incident this week with one child choking another on the playground, then destroying the classroom he was put into to calm down. Next day, the kid was back at school like nothing ever happened. I'm sure there is much, much more to this story than I'm aware (my DC is not in that grade), but it frankly terrifies me something like this could be his next move.

From the article:

"James Ellenson, an attorney for the family of the 6-year-old boy, declined to comment directly on the new reporting but said in a statement that Newport News schools “had a duty to protect all the parties involved, especially the child who needed to be protected from himself.”"

Uh, no, the district did NOT have a responsibility to protect the boy from himself. That's on THE RECKLESS PARENTS. Jesus.

Seriously, right? That made me so angry. Article after article about what the school did wrong (which they undoubtedly did) and not a word about the parents or the unsecured gun.
The kid took off his belt and started chasing kids on the playground trying to whip them? He said something about wanting to shoot a teacher and watch her die? He tried to strangle another one? Where does a 6-year old learn to do this? How do they have any concept that a belt can be taken off to whip someone? What is going on in that family? How is it that the parents haven't been charged yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a harrowing account of the day in today's WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/10/richneck-elementary-school-shooting-timeline-warnings/

How could that school admin not take this seriously given the child's history?

It gives me a lot of concern because my DC's school had an incident this week with one child choking another on the playground, then destroying the classroom he was put into to calm down. Next day, the kid was back at school like nothing ever happened. I'm sure there is much, much more to this story than I'm aware (my DC is not in that grade), but it frankly terrifies me something like this could be his next move.

From the article:

"James Ellenson, an attorney for the family of the 6-year-old boy, declined to comment directly on the new reporting but said in a statement that Newport News schools “had a duty to protect all the parties involved, especially the child who needed to be protected from himself.”"

Uh, no, the district did NOT have a responsibility to protect the boy from himself. That's on THE RECKLESS PARENTS. Jesus.

Seriously, right? That made me so angry. Article after article about what the school did wrong (which they undoubtedly did) and not a word about the parents or the unsecured gun.
The kid took off his belt and started chasing kids on the playground trying to whip them? He said something about wanting to shoot a teacher and watch her die? He tried to strangle another one? Where does a 6-year old learn to do this? How do they have any concept that a belt can be taken off to whip someone? What is going on in that family? How is it that the parents haven't been charged yet?

Maybe they adopted a boy who learned it elsewhere? Maybe abused elsewhere? Brain injury? Drugs? We don't know anything yet about his background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

Here is another one from The Atlantic. I read it when it was published and it stuck out to me at the time. Over my years in special education I’ve met 2-3 kids who I think met this profile.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

PP, what became of the 2 or 3 kids you knew who met that profile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

Here is another one from The Atlantic. I read it when it was published and it stuck out to me at the time. Over my years in special education I’ve met 2-3 kids who I think met this profile.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

PP, what became of the 2 or 3 kids you knew who met that profile?

1 is in the interlude program in APS, the other two were out of state and I’ve lost track of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

Here is another one from The Atlantic. I read it when it was published and it stuck out to me at the time. Over my years in special education I’ve met 2-3 kids who I think met this profile.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

And while adult psychopaths constitute only a tiny fraction of the general population, studies suggest that they commit half of all violent crimes. Ignore the problem, says Adrian Raine, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, “and it could be argued we have blood on our hands.”

I wonder if he could have ever helped this six year old.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if he could have ever helped this six year old.

Good question. But, it apparently had been a problem for at least a year or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the archived page of a NYT magazine article from a decade ago, about sociopathy in the very young. It’s terrifying and it’s real.

https://archive.ph/4OuwU

I read this article and basically I came away with this:

1) sociopathy is strongly genetic. The dad had it.
2) born sociopaths have a 50% chance of remaining sociopathic externally.
3) the mom and dad of the 6 year old are going through their own personal hell right now.
4) if your child is like even a tiny bit like this, you really shouldn’t have a gun in your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

The bolded is a reminder that most people have no idea what an IEP is. Including you, PP. It's not a pass on behavior. Nothing in an IEP indicates that a child is allowed to harm other kids. And the majority of violent, disruptive bullies aren't on IEPs. The problem has never been children on IEPs, as much as you don't like them. It's money. There are simply not enough resources available to give each child the education and support they need and everyone suffers. The federal government isn't funding its share of special education. There aren't enough teachers, and can you blame them? There isn't enough training or support. And for the children with the greatest needs, there aren't enough spaces in specialized schools. You get what you pay for in public education.

I call bs.

The kid has an acute disability and was allowed half day classes with a parent shadowing the entire time. That is most definitely a sign of an IEP.

And your experience might be different but based on my teacher friends, it’s not. It’s getting worse and parents aren’t teaching their kids how to behave or medicating their kids so that their brains normalize.

And no- not every IEP allows for violent behavior. The IEPs allows for “bandaids” to deal with the aggressive behavior vs actually medication or therapy.

And this kid: had a lot of bandaids before he shot a teacher.

Absolutely not. If anything , the allowances for this child show he did NOT and could not have had an IEP. Nothing about this setup was legal per an IEP which is a LEGAL document. Acute disability is not a category under IDEA. You do not get an IEP for “acute disability,” that is a made up lawyer and family term. Secondly, it is not legal per an IEP for parents to serve as a 1:1 aide as they are not sped certified. There was no IEP. There was a deal between the family and admin to keep him mainstream at risk to all.

The kid had an actual IEP, per the family's lawyer. He is quoted at the end of the article. https://apnews.com/article/education-virginia-newport-news-children-33ed30539f279405f696ad10d4ff46a1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

That's the problem. We pretend that all kids are fixable. Sadly, some aren't through no fault of theirs or their parents. What are we going to about them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

The bolded is a reminder that most people have no idea what an IEP is. Including you, PP. It's not a pass on behavior. Nothing in an IEP indicates that a child is allowed to harm other kids. And the majority of violent, disruptive bullies aren't on IEPs. The problem has never been children on IEPs, as much as you don't like them. It's money. There are simply not enough resources available to give each child the education and support they need and everyone suffers. The federal government isn't funding its share of special education. There aren't enough teachers, and can you blame them? There isn't enough training or support. And for the children with the greatest needs, there aren't enough spaces in specialized schools. You get what you pay for in public education.

I call bs.

The kid has an acute disability and was allowed half day classes with a parent shadowing the entire time. That is most definitely a sign of an IEP.

And your experience might be different but based on my teacher friends, it’s not. It’s getting worse and parents aren’t teaching their kids how to behave or medicating their kids so that their brains normalize.

And no- not every IEP allows for violent behavior. The IEPs allows for “bandaids” to deal with the aggressive behavior vs actually medication or therapy.

And this kid: had a lot of bandaids before he shot a teacher.

Absolutely not. If anything , the allowances for this child show he did NOT and could not have had an IEP. Nothing about this setup was legal per an IEP which is a LEGAL document. Acute disability is not a category under IDEA. You do not get an IEP for “acute disability,” that is a made up lawyer and family term. Secondly, it is not legal per an IEP for parents to serve as a 1:1 aide as they are not sped certified. There was no IEP. There was a deal between the family and admin to keep him mainstream at risk to all.

The kid had an actual IEP, per the family's lawyer. He is quoted at the end of the article. https://apnews.com/article/education-virginia-newport-news-children-33ed30539f279405f696ad10d4ff46a1

I still can’t tell if the lawyer is full of it because the level of noncompliance with an IEP and IDEA that this situation encompasses *if* there was an IEP would require the go along of so many people that it’s impossible for me to see it being likely. We are talking district sped coordinators, school psychologists, school diagnosticians, case managers, sped assistants and Gen Ed teachers an admin all going along with being out of compliance. It stretches the limits of credulity for me as an educator, as does his claim the child had “physical, mental, emotional disability” (he says “ all of it” ) yet that child is a) in a mainstream environment and b) placement was never changed and c) he also claims the kid had an IEP for “acute disability” which isn’t a category of IDEA. None of it adds up and it’s clear the family and lawyer are playing weasel CYA games with their statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

The bolded is a reminder that most people have no idea what an IEP is. Including you, PP. It's not a pass on behavior. Nothing in an IEP indicates that a child is allowed to harm other kids. And the majority of violent, disruptive bullies aren't on IEPs. The problem has never been children on IEPs, as much as you don't like them. It's money. There are simply not enough resources available to give each child the education and support they need and everyone suffers. The federal government isn't funding its share of special education. There aren't enough teachers, and can you blame them? There isn't enough training or support. And for the children with the greatest needs, there aren't enough spaces in specialized schools. You get what you pay for in public education.

I call bs.

The kid has an acute disability and was allowed half day classes with a parent shadowing the entire time. That is most definitely a sign of an IEP.

And your experience might be different but based on my teacher friends, it’s not. It’s getting worse and parents aren’t teaching their kids how to behave or medicating their kids so that their brains normalize.

And no- not every IEP allows for violent behavior. The IEPs allows for “bandaids” to deal with the aggressive behavior vs actually medication or therapy.

And this kid: had a lot of bandaids before he shot a teacher.

Absolutely not. If anything , the allowances for this child show he did NOT and could not have had an IEP. Nothing about this setup was legal per an IEP which is a LEGAL document. Acute disability is not a category under IDEA. You do not get an IEP for “acute disability,” that is a made up lawyer and family term. Secondly, it is not legal per an IEP for parents to serve as a 1:1 aide as they are not sped certified. There was no IEP. There was a deal between the family and admin to keep him mainstream at risk to all.

The kid had an actual IEP, per the family's lawyer. He is quoted at the end of the article. https://apnews.com/article/education-virginia-newport-news-children-33ed30539f279405f696ad10d4ff46a1

I still can’t tell if the lawyer is full of it because the level of noncompliance with an IEP and IDEA that this situation encompasses *if* there was an IEP would require the go along of so many people that it’s impossible for me to see it being likely. We are talking district sped coordinators, school psychologists, school diagnosticians, case managers, sped assistants and Gen Ed teachers an admin all going along with being out of compliance. It stretches the limits of credulity for me as an educator, as does his claim the child had “physical, mental, emotional disability” (he says “ all of it” ) yet that child is a) in a mainstream environment and b) placement was never changed and c) he also claims the kid had an IEP for “acute disability” which isn’t a category of IDEA. None of it adds up and it’s clear the family and lawyer are playing weasel CYA games with their statements.

*laughs in public schools.* You're hilarious. I have an easier time believing this kid had a batshit insane IEP labeling his aggression as a symptom of his disorder than I do believing any other part of this story. Hell, I can think of two different disabilities that protect violence as symptoms of disabilities off the top of my head. And if it is a symptom of a disability, that means any time it manifests, to address it, you must call a meeting of the IEP, come up with a (positive!) behavior modification plan, and then it's four weeks of collecting data! Then another meeting to reassess, modify the plan, four more weeks of data collection-- at no point do they really ever discuss removing children from mainstream classes. But that's fair-- a kid without an IEP would just get consequences. We gotta treat the special kids special, even when they are violent and destructive! After all, they are the only one's entitled to FAPE. Screw those neurotypical kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school had no doors and there were no lock down drills. And he was only there for a half a day.

Wow.

I know that people are all like: parents should have a voice in their kids education. But it really sounds like the teachers should have a stronger voice. And I know that my IEP friends are going to be enraged about this: but if your kid is violent he really can’t be protected by an IEP anymore.

If your child was an adult, he would be tried for assault. If you think that your child’s aggressive behavior should be excused- you’re part of the problem.

And for goodness sake: teachers can’t hit a child back. They are not allowed because they can be sued for hitting a kid. Which is at this point a result of the parents being awful.

If your kid is strangling teachers or other kids: they should be suspended for a week and expelled with a second offense. I’m sorry: but if you can’t raise your kids to not be violent, then it isn’t the school systems responsibility to fix your kid. It’s yours.

The bolded is a reminder that most people have no idea what an IEP is. Including you, PP. It's not a pass on behavior. Nothing in an IEP indicates that a child is allowed to harm other kids. And the majority of violent, disruptive bullies aren't on IEPs. The problem has never been children on IEPs, as much as you don't like them. It's money. There are simply not enough resources available to give each child the education and support they need and everyone suffers. The federal government isn't funding its share of special education. There aren't enough teachers, and can you blame them? There isn't enough training or support. And for the children with the greatest needs, there aren't enough spaces in specialized schools. You get what you pay for in public education.

I call bs.

The kid has an acute disability and was allowed half day classes with a parent shadowing the entire time. That is most definitely a sign of an IEP.

And your experience might be different but based on my teacher friends, it’s not. It’s getting worse and parents aren’t teaching their kids how to behave or medicating their kids so that their brains normalize.

And no- not every IEP allows for violent behavior. The IEPs allows for “bandaids” to deal with the aggressive behavior vs actually medication or therapy.

And this kid: had a lot of bandaids before he shot a teacher.

Absolutely not. If anything , the allowances for this child show he did NOT and could not have had an IEP. Nothing about this setup was legal per an IEP which is a LEGAL document. Acute disability is not a category under IDEA. You do not get an IEP for “acute disability,” that is a made up lawyer and family term. Secondly, it is not legal per an IEP for parents to serve as a 1:1 aide as they are not sped certified. There was no IEP. There was a deal between the family and admin to keep him mainstream at risk to all.

The kid had an actual IEP, per the family's lawyer. He is quoted at the end of the article. https://apnews.com/article/education-virginia-newport-news-children-33ed30539f279405f696ad10d4ff46a1

I still can’t tell if the lawyer is full of it because the level of noncompliance with an IEP and IDEA that this situation encompasses *if* there was an IEP would require the go along of so many people that it’s impossible for me to see it being likely. We are talking district sped coordinators, school psychologists, school diagnosticians, case managers, sped assistants and Gen Ed teachers an admin all going along with being out of compliance. It stretches the limits of credulity for me as an educator, as does his claim the child had “physical, mental, emotional disability” (he says “ all of it” ) yet that child is a) in a mainstream environment and b) placement was never changed and c) he also claims the kid had an IEP for “acute disability” which isn’t a category of IDEA. None of it adds up and it’s clear the family and lawyer are playing weasel CYA games with their statements.

*laughs in public schools.* You're hilarious. I have an easier time believing this kid had a batshit insane IEP labeling his aggression as a symptom of his disorder than I do believing any other part of this story. Hell, I can think of two different disabilities that protect violence as symptoms of disabilities off the top of my head. And if it is a symptom of a disability, that means any time it manifests, to address it, you must call a meeting of the IEP, come up with a (positive!) behavior modification plan, and then it's four weeks of collecting data! Then another meeting to reassess, modify the plan, four more weeks of data collection-- at no point do they really ever discuss removing children from mainstream classes. But that's fair-- a kid without an IEP would just get consequences. We gotta treat the special kids special, even when they are violent and destructive! After all, they are the only one's entitled to FAPE. Screw those neurotypical kids.

You can thank the DOE Office of Civil Rights and its many attorneys for much of what happens in our public schools. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them post here.