Anonymous wrote:The question to the lawyer on GMA about the gun had an interesting response. He said "no adult" knows how he got it. Are they going to blame a teen relative, perhaps?
Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/10/richneck-elementary-shooting-mother-interview-adhd/
According to mom, ADHD made him do it. He said the "teacher wasn't listening to him..."
I taught lots of kids that had diagnosis of ADHD. Restless? Yes. Distracted? yes Violent? not beyond playing rough on the playground
Anonymous wrote:Here is the interview from twitter. I am speechless that: 1) they agreed to do this at all, 2) the denial the mother is in re her son’s violent behavior and 3) the stonewalling by the lawyer re how violent the kid was, blaming the school district and ignoring how he got the gun.
This is America.
https://twitter.com/gma/status/1656267326637891584?s=46&t=E8qDVnObwqD3VskYpcZ1Jg
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For whatever reasons, there is no question that the administrators of this school did not implement an appropriate IEP for this child. Totally unacceptable, and they should not be able to continue in their current positions or in another position within the school system.
There could be lots of reasons that the IEP didn’t work. But in the motion to dismiss her lawsuit, the defendants note that she, herself, advocated that the boy’s school day be extended because of his improvement.
I imagine this stage of the litigation will last for years. Negligence and even gross negligence don’t take cases out of the worker’s compensation system. In VA, pretty much the only two things that entitle an injured worker to sue are lack of insurance coverage and sexual assault, neither of which apply here. So the lower courts will likely feel bound to dismiss the suit. Either way though, there will be an appeal. To win, the courts will have to expand injured worker protections beyond the plain la gauge of the workers’ comp act, which is a tough sell in any state, especially a conservative one.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/district-dismiss-lawsuit-teacher-shot-6-year-covered/story?id=98921573
PP here. Thank you for this info. Very helpful and interesting. Regarding the IEP, I have participated in the development of many IEPs over the years (kindergarten thru high school for kids with significant emotional/behavioral concerns and neurodevelopmental issues. Never did we decide a child should be in a regular classroom setting with a parent all day. However, since that is what this administration deemed appropriate, then this child should not have been in that classroom for one minute without a parent.
No, sorry. Schools can't require parents to attend school with their child and it's completely inappropriate for that to be the plan. If this child needed a 1:1 with him, the school should have gotten him and aide. This alone tells me the school messed up badly --- and that's not even getting to the gun part.
This is definitely an issue that I wish were explained. But what I’ve learned from family and contacts relating to IEP and service/accommodation issues around the country is that there really isn’t a national standard. Different areas do different things. Regardless, according to news sources, the week before this incident, parental presence had been discontinued due to progress. And the teacher herself recommended increasing his time in school due to progress. So, if the news sources are accurate, parental presence wasn’t a factor at the time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For whatever reasons, there is no question that the administrators of this school did not implement an appropriate IEP for this child. Totally unacceptable, and they should not be able to continue in their current positions or in another position within the school system.
There could be lots of reasons that the IEP didn’t work. But in the motion to dismiss her lawsuit, the defendants note that she, herself, advocated that the boy’s school day be extended because of his improvement.
I imagine this stage of the litigation will last for years. Negligence and even gross negligence don’t take cases out of the worker’s compensation system. In VA, pretty much the only two things that entitle an injured worker to sue are lack of insurance coverage and sexual assault, neither of which apply here. So the lower courts will likely feel bound to dismiss the suit. Either way though, there will be an appeal. To win, the courts will have to expand injured worker protections beyond the plain la gauge of the workers’ comp act, which is a tough sell in any state, especially a conservative one.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/district-dismiss-lawsuit-teacher-shot-6-year-covered/story?id=98921573
PP here. Thank you for this info. Very helpful and interesting. Regarding the IEP, I have participated in the development of many IEPs over the years (kindergarten thru high school for kids with significant emotional/behavioral concerns and neurodevelopmental issues. Never did we decide a child should be in a regular classroom setting with a parent all day. However, since that is what this administration deemed appropriate, then this child should not have been in that classroom for one minute without a parent.
No, sorry. Schools can't require parents to attend school with their child and it's completely inappropriate for that to be the plan. If this child needed a 1:1 with him, the school should have gotten him and aide. This alone tells me the school messed up badly --- and that's not even getting to the gun part.
This is definitely an issue that I wish were explained. But what I’ve learned from family and contacts relating to IEP and service/accommodation issues around the country is that there really isn’t a national standard. Different areas do different things. Regardless, according to news sources, the week before this incident, parental presence had been discontinued due to progress. And the teacher herself recommended increasing his time in school due to progress. So, if the news sources are accurate, parental presence wasn’t a factor at the time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For whatever reasons, there is no question that the administrators of this school did not implement an appropriate IEP for this child. Totally unacceptable, and they should not be able to continue in their current positions or in another position within the school system.
There could be lots of reasons that the IEP didn’t work. But in the motion to dismiss her lawsuit, the defendants note that she, herself, advocated that the boy’s school day be extended because of his improvement.
I imagine this stage of the litigation will last for years. Negligence and even gross negligence don’t take cases out of the worker’s compensation system. In VA, pretty much the only two things that entitle an injured worker to sue are lack of insurance coverage and sexual assault, neither of which apply here. So the lower courts will likely feel bound to dismiss the suit. Either way though, there will be an appeal. To win, the courts will have to expand injured worker protections beyond the plain la gauge of the workers’ comp act, which is a tough sell in any state, especially a conservative one.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/district-dismiss-lawsuit-teacher-shot-6-year-covered/story?id=98921573
PP here. Thank you for this info. Very helpful and interesting. Regarding the IEP, I have participated in the development of many IEPs over the years (kindergarten thru high school for kids with significant emotional/behavioral concerns and neurodevelopmental issues. Never did we decide a child should be in a regular classroom setting with a parent all day. However, since that is what this administration deemed appropriate, then this child should not have been in that classroom for one minute without a parent.
No, sorry. Schools can't require parents to attend school with their child and it's completely inappropriate for that to be the plan. If this child needed a 1:1 with him, the school should have gotten him and aide. This alone tells me the school messed up badly --- and that's not even getting to the gun part.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For whatever reasons, there is no question that the administrators of this school did not implement an appropriate IEP for this child. Totally unacceptable, and they should not be able to continue in their current positions or in another position within the school system.
There could be lots of reasons that the IEP didn’t work. But in the motion to dismiss her lawsuit, the defendants note that she, herself, advocated that the boy’s school day be extended because of his improvement.
I imagine this stage of the litigation will last for years. Negligence and even gross negligence don’t take cases out of the worker’s compensation system. In VA, pretty much the only two things that entitle an injured worker to sue are lack of insurance coverage and sexual assault, neither of which apply here. So the lower courts will likely feel bound to dismiss the suit. Either way though, there will be an appeal. To win, the courts will have to expand injured worker protections beyond the plain la gauge of the workers’ comp act, which is a tough sell in any state, especially a conservative one.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/district-dismiss-lawsuit-teacher-shot-6-year-covered/story?id=98921573
PP here. Thank you for this info. Very helpful and interesting. Regarding the IEP, I have participated in the development of many IEPs over the years (kindergarten thru high school for kids with significant emotional/behavioral concerns and neurodevelopmental issues. Never did we decide a child should be in a regular classroom setting with a parent all day. However, since that is what this administration deemed appropriate, then this child should not have been in that classroom for one minute without a parent.
No, sorry. Schools can't require parents to attend school with their child and it's completely inappropriate for that to be the plan. If this child needed a 1:1 with him, the school should have gotten him and aide. This alone tells me the school messed up badly --- and that's not even getting to the gun part.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So true. How are those kids supposed to feel safe in schools for the rest of their lives? Even kids in nearby classrooms who heard the shot may have been traumatized.
This is a problem with all school shootings. Sadly, we should be getting good at developing immediate crisis response and long term trauma management in our country given how often we see school shootings.
Most school systems express some concerns about what happened and going forward. This school system? Silence.
You must not be reading the news. The school system made personnel changes. They installed metal detectors. They had a family day before reopening the school. They offered emotional support and meals for a period of time.
I read the news and am aware of what you've said. They haven't explained why the principal is still working in the school system, they haven't apologized publicly for what occurred (only a lawyer vetted statement), and they're trying to absolve themselves from financial obligation. It's all very controlled to limit a payout. Conflicting statements have been made as to why that child was allowed in that type of setting.
I was responding to your comment about radio silence, which isn’t the case. Now you’re faulting them for not responding publicly to prospective litigation. That would be foolish of any entity.