Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tried to see the video but the link was unavailable, right?

I watched it last night. The child was sitting on a bench with an adult. Another adult was crouched in front of the child, speaking face to face, and when the child tried to stand up the crouching adult pushed the child back onto the bench. It was not a particularly hard or violent shove but I could see how a parent, especially one who is already fed up with the school and is mad that the school denied it ever happened, would react negatively to it.

What I saw was a teacher with no idea how to discipline a 6 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sad, I'm glad she has professional legal representation.

This is the dark under-belly of charter schools: they try to act like private schools and abdicate their responsibility to educate children with disabilities. I doubt Stokes is the first or the last.

And glad that WLC is taking a more aggressive approach. Five year ban, come on! I could understand even the remainder of the school year as a cooling-off period. But this is a naked attempt to get rid of people. Yes, at-risk families can be challenging. But charters need to do their share of the work. Not just send them back to their IB and carry on talking about how much DCPS sucks.

Dcps DOES IN FACT suck so there is that.

Sure it does, but it's galling how the charter sector loves to crap on DCPS while also sticking them with the hardest kids and parents.

I'm so sick of seeing this tired old line about charters crapping on DCPS. I've worked at a charter - at the school level we partnered with the nearby DCPS school for volunteers, parking, PD and events. We didn't think about DCPS too much day to day frankly and I don't think they thought much about us. People in schools are busy running schools. It's people outside of schools who want to make the comparisons. Something happens at one DCPS school and all of DCPS is bad. Something happens at one charter school and all charters are bad. This makes no sense.

Well after seeing that video I think we can at least agree that Stokes is bad.

NOT At All. It sounds to me that this kid was a problem from Day 1. The apple doesn’t fall to far from the tree! Some people say “an involved parent” , I say an “opportunist” for sure!

Signed,

From the Waitlist

The child had documented concerns and they were in the process of evaluating and getting an IEP. After seeing that, why on earth would you be ok with your child there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tried to see the video but the link was unavailable, right?

I watched it last night. The child was sitting on a bench with an adult. Another adult was crouched in front of the child, speaking face to face, and when the child tried to stand up the crouching adult pushed the child back onto the bench. It was not a particularly hard or violent shove but I could see how a parent, especially one who is already fed up with the school and is mad that the school denied it ever happened, would react negatively to it.

That was absolutely not ok without trying to talk to the child first or come up with a better solution. The child was not violent and cooperative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sad, I'm glad she has professional legal representation.

This is the dark under-belly of charter schools: they try to act like private schools and abdicate their responsibility to educate children with disabilities. I doubt Stokes is the first or the last.

And glad that WLC is taking a more aggressive approach. Five year ban, come on! I could understand even the remainder of the school year as a cooling-off period. But this is a naked attempt to get rid of people. Yes, at-risk families can be challenging. But charters need to do their share of the work. Not just send them back to their IB and carry on talking about how much DCPS sucks.

Dcps DOES IN FACT suck so there is that.

Sure it does, but it's galling how the charter sector loves to crap on DCPS while also sticking them with the hardest kids and parents.

I'm so sick of seeing this tired old line about charters crapping on DCPS. I've worked at a charter - at the school level we partnered with the nearby DCPS school for volunteers, parking, PD and events. We didn't think about DCPS too much day to day frankly and I don't think they thought much about us. People in schools are busy running schools. It's people outside of schools who want to make the comparisons. Something happens at one DCPS school and all of DCPS is bad. Something happens at one charter school and all charters are bad. This makes no sense.

Well after seeing that video I think we can at least agree that Stokes is bad.

NOT At All. It sounds to me that this kid was a problem from Day 1. The apple doesn’t fall to far from the tree! Some people say “an involved parent” , I say an “opportunist” for sure!

Signed,

From the Waitlist

Anonymous wrote:I tried to see the video but the link was unavailable, right?

I watched it last night. The child was sitting on a bench with an adult. Another adult was crouched in front of the child, speaking face to face, and when the child tried to stand up the crouching adult pushed the child back onto the bench. It was not a particularly hard or violent shove but I could see how a parent, especially one who is already fed up with the school and is mad that the school denied it ever happened, would react negatively to it.

I tried to see the video but the link was unavailable, right?

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her suing, but why would she even consider keeping her kids there. If it were my kid they never would go back and I would have filed an abuse report asap.

I'm guessing there's more than one decent school in your ward.

I agree with her suing, but why would she even consider keeping her kids there. If it were my kid they never would go back and I would have filed an abuse report asap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sad, I'm glad she has professional legal representation.

This is the dark under-belly of charter schools: they try to act like private schools and abdicate their responsibility to educate children with disabilities. I doubt Stokes is the first or the last.

And glad that WLC is taking a more aggressive approach. Five year ban, come on! I could understand even the remainder of the school year as a cooling-off period. But this is a naked attempt to get rid of people. Yes, at-risk families can be challenging. But charters need to do their share of the work. Not just send them back to their IB and carry on talking about how much DCPS sucks.

Dcps DOES IN FACT suck so there is that.

Sure it does, but it's galling how the charter sector loves to crap on DCPS while also sticking them with the hardest kids and parents.

I'm so sick of seeing this tired old line about charters crapping on DCPS. I've worked at a charter - at the school level we partnered with the nearby DCPS school for volunteers, parking, PD and events. We didn't think about DCPS too much day to day frankly and I don't think they thought much about us. People in schools are busy running schools. It's people outside of schools who want to make the comparisons. Something happens at one DCPS school and all of DCPS is bad. Something happens at one charter school and all charters are bad. This makes no sense.

Well after seeing that video I think we can at least agree that Stokes is bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sad, I'm glad she has professional legal representation.

This is the dark under-belly of charter schools: they try to act like private schools and abdicate their responsibility to educate children with disabilities. I doubt Stokes is the first or the last.

And glad that WLC is taking a more aggressive approach. Five year ban, come on! I could understand even the remainder of the school year as a cooling-off period. But this is a naked attempt to get rid of people. Yes, at-risk families can be challenging. But charters need to do their share of the work. Not just send them back to their IB and carry on talking about how much DCPS sucks.

Dcps DOES IN FACT suck so there is that.

Sure it does, but it's galling how the charter sector loves to crap on DCPS while also sticking them with the hardest kids and parents.

I'm so sick of seeing this tired old line about charters crapping on DCPS. I've worked at a charter - at the school level we partnered with the nearby DCPS school for volunteers, parking, PD and events. We didn't think about DCPS too much day to day frankly and I don't think they thought much about us. People in schools are busy running schools. It's people outside of schools who want to make the comparisons. Something happens at one DCPS school and all of DCPS is bad. Something happens at one charter school and all charters are bad. This makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oyster tells kids to leave if parents ask for an evaluation?

Yes they do.

I have zero skin in this game. I don’t know anything about stokes. But dcps has dropped the ball many times for my sped kid and I’m happy we are in a charter.

Dropped it how? Not following a timeline? Dcps will evaluate your kid & if you don’t agree they will pay for your outside evaluation. We also have the shortest timelines/turn around as in the area. I’m no cheerleader for dcps sped, but always curious about what part of the system parents don’t agree with. The process of the end result- your kid possibly not qualifying?

Oh wow, the mom attended my Alma Mater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oyster tells kids to leave if parents ask for an evaluation?

Yes they do.

I have zero skin in this game. I don’t know anything about stokes. But dcps has dropped the ball many times for my sped kid and I’m happy we are in a charter.

Sadly Oyster is allowed to do this under the IDEA law. No student has the right to a specialized bilingual program; they do have the right to an appropriate education. Because they offer you an alternative placement (FS) they can in fact counsel out a student.

Stokes must educate every child who is accepted unless their needs are so great they need a highly restricted, private school setting.

Based on the filings, the parent WANTED the child evaluated for special services, which Stokes (and every DC school) is required to within 60 days from the initial request. So for those saying it takes a long time, or Stokes couldn't have moved faster... they seem to have dropped the ball on the timeline. Timeline violations are the easiest to prove (this part of the complaint is being handled by AJE and is separate from the dispute over the barring order).

I just have a hard time seeing the rationale for a five year ban. Even if the accusations are true, how can they know she will continue to behave so very badly for five years to come?

Sorry for multiple posts.

I just really hope these allegations are untrue. No kid deserves this. I also have heard only positives about stokes. I feel sad that this bad situation happened.