Anonymous wrote:Why would you send him to that school even one more day? I would send him to an affordable Catholic school, other low cost private school, or homeschool him. I would call every charter school to see if there was room or rent a small apartment in another area temporarily to send my kid to any other school.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think discipline is the right word for a 4-year-old.

Anonymous wrote:^^^ The issue is endemic, as evidently with Tyler today. It could be Payne as well. L-T, Maury, Brent tomorrow. The culture needs to change on how DCPS deals with bullying. Victims have rights too, so do people who don't commit crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

What school did this all happen at?

It happened two years ago and none of the impacted people (teachers, students, admin, etc) are still there, so doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:PP, I don't know with whom I'm post back and forth, nor do I know an IRL. Are you a troll? Are you trying to intimidate by outing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

PP, spare me the lecture. My daughter was victimized physically and mentally too, but not to the degree as the other. My daughter learned to fight and defend herself by slashing at the face with her fingernails to ward off attackers. She would wake up at night balling inconsolably from what occurred during the day. When bureaucrats entrusted to protect your child lie to you and equivocate, they deserve to be sued. If you you think 4-year olds and especially girls need to learn how to fight to defend themselves, then you got a really hard shell. Spare me the lecture about a litigious society; I tell my daughter that her parents stood up for her and defended her - we didn't run and hide or pretend everything is OK. My daughter will likewise defend herself when she's older, especially against male aggressors. And she'll use her words -- not her hands, because we are supposed to be a civilized society. When you have incompetent, negligent or reckless bureaucrats who refuse to defend victims, fortunately you can turn to the Superior Court to get fairness, and you should do exactly that. To let my daughter stay in a classroom and continue to be victimized and traumatized would have been derelict.

Different poster here. I'm not criticizing, just trying to understand. Did you try anything else short of filing the lawsuit to get your child moved, or was the lawsuit the only way you felt you could do it? I thought there was a policy of allowing "safety transfers."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

PP, spare me the lecture. My daughter was victimized physically and mentally too, but not to the degree as the other. My daughter learned to fight and defend herself by slashing at the face with her fingernails to ward off attackers. She would wake up at night balling inconsolably from what occurred during the day. When bureaucrats entrusted to protect your child lie to you and equivocate, they deserve to be sued. If you you think 4-year olds and especially girls need to learn how to fight to defend themselves, then you got a really hard shell. Spare me the lecture about a litigious society; I tell my daughter that her parents stood up for her and defended her - we didn't run and hide or pretend everything is OK. My daughter will likewise defend herself when she's older, especially against male aggressors. And she'll use her words -- not her hands, because we are supposed to be a civilized society. When you have incompetent, negligent or reckless bureaucrats who refuse to defend victims, fortunately you can turn to the Superior Court to get fairness, and you should do exactly that. To let my daughter stay in a classroom and continue to be victimized and traumatized would have been derelict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

PP, spare me the lecture. My daughter was victimized physically and mentally too, but not to the degree as the other. My daughter learned to fight and defend herself by slashing at the face with her fingernails to ward off attackers. She would wake up at night balling inconsolably from what occurred during the day. When bureaucrats entrusted to protect your child lie to you and equivocate, they deserve to be sued. If you you think 4-year olds and especially girls need to learn how to fight to defend themselves, then you got a really hard shell. Spare me the lecture about a litigious society; I tell my daughter that her parents stood up for her and defended her - we didn't run and hide or pretend everything is OK. My daughter will likewise defend herself when she's older, especially against male aggressors. And she'll use her words -- not her hands, because we are supposed to be a civilized society. When you have incompetent, negligent or reckless bureaucrats who refuse to defend victims, fortunately you can turn to the Superior Court to get fairness, and you should do exactly that. To let my daughter stay in a classroom and continue to be victimized and traumatized would have been derelict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Obviously these beatings didn't happen just once but were repeated, traumatizing many students. The teacher's communications were parents were censored by the administration to the point where they weren't factually correct anymore, so she stopped sending emails. Yeah, DCPS just rocks.

The "bully" had special needs and obviously had rights under FERPA and IDEA not to have the teacher say whatever she wanted. So that was a correct response. Still, it sounds like DCPS eventually did the right thing by assigned a FT aid.

And the victim had privacy rights, as well.

Moreover, the fact that PP (a parent whose child was neither the direct victim nor the "bully") compiled every email and used them to literally sue DCPS is not exactly the kind of behavior that engenders a school system to report every incident and administration response in writing to parents. Not that PP was not entitled to her lawsuit--just that it's understandable why, in such a litigious environment, a principal would censor written communications to parents about violence impacting other kids.

What school did this all happen at?