Individual Educational Plans, or IEP's if you will, are sacrosanct. They are mandated by federal law and are legal documents. Sadly, too many manipulate IEP's for their own evil ways and parents are not aware of their rights and how much power they wield.

Several disturbing stories from sources deep within my now former school, PS 154 in the Bronx, have come to The Crack Team in recent weeks alleging monkey business with student's IEP's and services that are mandated to them.

The first allegation, and this was from several sources as well, was a veteran staff member with involved in the IEP's for the last several years at 154 decided that at the end of the 2013-14 school no longer wished to be involved in the IEP process anymore and decided to move on to a different path at PS 154.

A newbie teacher is now the one who make the decisions and she is one who only has an initial certificate. How could this happen?

The Crack Team was informed that upper echelon at PS 154 was allegedly exerting undue pressure of the veteran staff member to manipulate IEP's. This staff member has a conscience. This staff member could no longer deal with unethical requests.

Better yet to have a pliable newbie teacher for administration to work with, no?

The Crack Team has also come across something as equally disturbing.

Allegedly, paras, one to one paras, have been pulled from being with their students this year at PS 154 to give tutoring to students in Reading Rescue.

Allegedly, these tutoring sessions have been happening in the morning and while we here at SBSB applaud any and all methods to help our most troubled students get up to speed we do not believe it should be done at the expense of students whose federally mandated one to one paras are spending less time do what they should be doing by law. We are also troubled that the Cult of Calkins endorses Reading Rescue.

To get around such shenanigans either the IEP's are either being ignored or being changed.

If they are being ignored then that would be not only unethical but can appear to be stealing money. Funds are allocated for paras based on how much time they spend with a student. If said paras are only spending part of the day with the students they work with then the they are not full time paras and the monies for these paras should be cut.

On the other hand, and we have seen it before at PS 154, IEP's are being changed that a student needs his one to one para for only half the day. Of course this is easy to do in the South Bronx where parents are not fully aware of how much power the posses and not knowing the law. Even with this method monies are being spent for full day paras when they are in essence not full day paras.

We at SBSB are quite concerned with these allegations and wish to see a special blue ribbon panel put together by Chancellor Fariña post haste. The children of PS 154 deserve to be protected.

With all the talk of the lawsuit Campbell Brown and her lackies Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo have brought forth, the reason to explain tenure has never been more important than ever.

This story came into the DTOE newsroom a few weeks ago., and posted on DTOE this past Tuesday. This is one of the most heinous examples of teacher abuse and abuse of power The Crack Team has heard of. In fact, Crack Team member Moose was so upset he was crying like a baby while sucking his thumb and calling for his mother.

This story, told from the teacher involved, has all the markings of what  the problem really lies in education. Not the teachers, but the ones in charge, the ones making the decisions.

The letter to follow (In it's entirety) was originally sent to High Schools Superintendent Donald Conyers. Donald was at the forefront of damage to this teacher (here and here).

Coincidentally, Conyers worked closely with DR Mychael Willon. He of the false PhD and the arrest for sexual deviancy in Wichita KS.

This teacher was a first year teacher, a Fellow and a cancer survivor. If she had tenure, would she, could she, have been discontinued?

Another story is coming soon, even more egregious.

Read on;

Several names have been redacted.
—————-
Donald Conyers
Superintendent
Brooklyn and Queens High School
6565 Flatlands Avenue, Room 104C
Brooklyn, New York 11236

Dear Mr. Conyers:

I am saddened that our first communication is under the given circumstances. However, I am elated by the fact that you have given me an opportunity to express my concerns to you at this time.  This year has been in fact quite challenging but has left me with the knowledge that there is no other field in which I would wish to find myself.  I never would have imagined how much I would have learned while teaching and I am grateful for each moment.

On July 5, 2014 I received a letter from your office stating that I was being reviewed for potential discontinuance. Frankly, given the year that I have faced I was not entirely surprised.  I offer you a chronology of the events in my year so that you can understand my perspective as best as possible.
I am licensed under the Transitional B Certification through the alternative program known as the New York City Teaching Fellows for Special Education for grades 7 through 12.  I was placed at the School for International Studies (i.e. 15k497) for my summer assignment.  During this time I sought employment while teaching summer school to a mixed group of middle school students.  Throughout the subsequent weeks, I made many connections with the students and built rapport.  By the second week I was being asked by the students to seek employment at the school.  In August, I was called in for an interview with the principal, Jillian Juman, and the head of the Special Education Department and Lead Teacher, Nicole Lanzillotto.  When offered the position I excitedly accepted and prepared for the upcoming school year.

On September 3, 2013 I received my rosters, classroom locations, and schedule.  I was told that I would be teaching 7^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 8^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 7^th grade ICT Humanities, and Self-Contained English Language Arts/ Humanities.  When reviewing the rosters for my classes I found that my middle school self-contained class had fifteen students without a classroom paraprofessional (See Exhibit A).  Under the Special Education laws of New York State the class size should be of the following ratio: 12:1:1.  Of my fifteen students included on the roster, three of them were classified as alternate assessment (See Exhibit B) and the class was a conglomerate of sixth, seventh, and eighth graders of varying levels.  Further, I was placed in an AP Statistics classroom in the high school wing to teach self-contained, middle school English.
In October, I found myself struggling to direct the classroom and sought help from my Chapter Leader, Ms. R.  Upon explaining the dynamics of the classroom she informed me that the class should be no more than 12 unless a waiver was filed by the school for 13 and that that was the absolute maximum.  The following day, on my way to sign out, I was approached by both Ms. Juman and Ms. Lanzillotto who said to me, “Ms. R says you are unhappy”.  I explained to them that it was not that I was unhappy but that I felt that the students were not benefitting from the dynamics of the setting and that it was not conducive to a learning environment.  Further, it was illegal and violated Special Education regulations. Ms. Lanzillotto chimed in to state that the classroom dynamic was not in violation of Special Education regulations, despite my research having stated otherwise. Ms. Juman then informed me that she would be “fixing” the situation in time for the new semester when we would be facing program changes as an entire school.  She then asked if I would write a letter stating that I was comfortable with the arrangement of the roster as it stood and in good faith knew that it would only last until January.

Immediately after having completed the aforementioned conversation I sought the advice of Ms. R, who informed me that the conversation and request were inappropriate. After speaking to my mentor, Mr.  P, he reiterated the same sentiments as Ms. R and advised me against writing the letter.
When I realized the roster would not be changing to suit the needs of the students or the classroom environment I sought the help of Ms. Lanzillotto and asked her to visit my classroom.  On October 9, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto sat in my classroom for about ten minutes prior to pulling out a student of mine, Student A.  On October 10, 2013 I received an email from Ms. Lanzillotto stating that Student A’s schedule would be changed effective immediately and that she had undergone a re-evaluation (See Exhibit C).  In this email exchange you will notice that the school’s Speech Language Pathologist questions when the re-evaluation had taken place, which was a question the rest of the department had, as well.  Student A was then placed into my ICT English Language Arts class, and she immediately began expressing her discomfort with the material that was being presented in the ICT setting.  She then asked to meet with me and expressed a request to be returned to a self-contained setting.  I advised her to speak to Ms. Lanzillotto regarding her concerns and encouraged her to advocate for herself.  By October 21, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto informed the staff via email that Student A would in fact remain in Self-Contained Language Arts stating, “[This] is what Student A thinks is good for her right now”.

After I spoke to Ms. R about my concerns for Student A and other students, she approached Ms. Juman and asked why a more seasoned teacher had not been placed in the self-contained setting so that I may learn from my ICT partnerships.  Ms. Juman responded by saying, “[Ms. S] is sickly and cannot handle the pressures of a self-contained setting.” Ms. R then said that I also have health concerns which include Thyroid Cancer which required two surgeries and radiation and Lupus to which Ms. Juman responded, “yes, but, she’s younger”.  Therefore, it was simply assumed that because of my age I was better fit for the task instead of the veteran teacher with 24 years of teaching experience.

Shortly after the incident involving Student A, Ms. R began following up with Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman about the class size.  At this time they told her that they actually obtained a waiver for 13 students.  Ms. R asked to see this waiver and was given an application rather than a waiver which had not been granted. Ms. R reiterated that even with a waiver, 15 students was outside the regulations.  Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman then began asking me daily for my thoughts on which students were ready to be moved into the ICT setting.  Given the students’ reading, writing, and intellectual levels I disagreed that any of the students were ready for the change in setting.  A second concern regarding class size came to light when my roster for 9^th period Intervention was released.

According to Special Education Law my roster size should have consisted of five students. Rather, I was given ten (See Exhibit D). On November 13, 2013 I sent an email to my mentor, Mr. P informing him of this placement being against regulation, to which he did not respond.  That same day I received an email from Mrs. Assante, the principal’s secretary asking that a weekly meeting be set with her (See Exhibit E).  I approached Mrs. Assante and she stated the nature of the meetings were to discuss my lesson plans and for Ms. Juman to collect the week’s worth each Monday.  Around this time I was observed twice a week and had met the minimum of six by November’s end, by January of 2014 I had reached a count of approximately 19.  After consulting with Ms. R she stated that ritualized collection of lesson plans was a violation of our contractual rights and advised me to send an email asking about the nature of these meetings.

My email of November 13, 2013 was ignored and the following day I received another email from Mrs. Assante dated November 14, 2013 requesting that I schedule the time for the meetings (See Exhibit E).  I responded by reiterating my initial concerns.  Later that day I was approached by Ms. Juman who stated to me, “Stacey thinks you are scared to meet with me”.  I explained to her that my feelings should never be inferred and that I merely wanted in writing the nature of these appointments especially given that they were recurring.  The following day I received a schedule for these meetings which would last from November until January.  In January I was told that my lesson plans finally reached the principal’s level of satisfaction (See Exhibit F) and she began to decrease the meetings and collection of lesson plans.  In the end I can say that forcing me to complete these lessons so far in advance and in such detail served to benefit my classroom in that I was planning ahead, however given the varying levels of advancement of the students made it useless and I felt uncomfortable with the manner in which it was done.

I was granted the day off for December 2, 2013 for a doctor appointment (See Exhibit G).  On this same date the Special Education Department met as a whole to discuss which students could potentially be moved out without consulting me.  I was emailed that day by Ms. Lanzillotto (See Exhibit G) asking for my input.  Given the inappropriate nature of this request I did not respond.  When I arrived at work the following day, December 3, 2013 a student, Student B, greeted me in the ICT setting.  Prior to Student B having been moved out of the self-contained setting Student C, a second candidate had been moved out, as well.  The program switch for Student C was in fact based on my recommendation since based on her IEP and according to her mother, she was placed in self-contained based on her emotional disturbance and not based on her intellectual ability.  Upon meeting Student C who came into our school for eighth grade, I determined that the curricula of my Self-Contained Language Arts and Humanities were causing her harm, that it was not challenging enough.  As of December 3, 2013 I had thirteen students on the roster.

Looking at Exhibit H, you will note that my seventh period Self-Contained Language Art’s roster was set at 13 and that by eighth period two students were sent to have Physical Education for the second time in the day so that my class size was at 11 for the end of the day. The executive decisions made by my Administration were not out of the best interest of the students and were in fear that I would file a grievance.  Given the constant observations, ritualized collection of my lesson plans, and lack of tenure I refrained from filing a grievance. Frankly, I was more concerned with meeting my students’ needs more than my own. The above mentioned lack of action on my part was also in good faith that the situation would be rectified.

An incident occurred on November 21, 2013 (See Exhibit I) in connection with my roster being too large in 9^th period Intervention.  Two students attempted to touch me inappropriately and a third student in an attempt to defend me, slammed into my face.  This occurred after I had asked that my class size be readjusted.  In response to this matter, the Assistant Principal, Renato DaSilva instructed me to fill out a written statement with the dean, a Victim’s Report through UFT, and to email the details of the incident to the appropriate staff members.  The principal, Ms. Juman was not in that day and requested a meeting with me the following school day.  Ms. DaSilva approached me on November 22, 2013 during fourth period and asked that I meet with both Administrators for an impromptu meeting.

During this meeting Ms. Juman stated to me that I should have reconsidered teaching given that I am “pretty” and that incidences like the above are bound to happen. She continued to say that I should possibly stop wearing makeup so that I am less attractive.  She also stated, “[you] give students the wrong impression when you close the door of your classroom”.  She then asked what I thought would be an appropriate punishment given that the infraction was “small”.  She then suggested that I meet with the two young men along with Mr. DaSilva to discuss boundaries and that that would be punishment enough.  She then scolded me for filing a report with the Victim’s Unit and asked me why I had done so.  At this point, I made eye contact with Mr. DaSilva and remained silent until he described the actions he had taken the day before.  I was then told to leave so that she could discuss with Mr. DaSilva where he had misled me.  The students were never reprimanded but were supposedly taken out of my intervention.

On December 13, 2013 I received an updated list of the roster for Intervention with no visible changes having been made (See Exhibit J).  I attempted questioning the decision via email as you may note on page two of the email labeled “MS Roster Updates for Enrichment – MS Enrichment ONLY!” (Exhibit I)  My requests were ignored and on December 2, 2013 I received an email labeled Student D (See Exhibit K) where it was stated that Student D, one of the students involved in the November 21, 2013 incident would be moved into my ICT despite the fact that he did not have an IEP.  When I expressed my concern, Mr. P, my mentorresponded as follows, “Unfortunately, this decision was made last week by Administration.  We need to keep Student E and Student D separated for both their successes”.  Although I applaud the fact that my Administration has taken steps towards putting the needs of the students at the forefront, I do question where the support for assaulted teachers comes into consideration. At the end of December I had a discussion with Ms. Juman during which I asked if I could be released should I find another school.  Ms. Juman responded that she was not willing to do so and that she hired me and therefore would help me and attempt to alleviate the burdens I was feeling.  I expressed that I did not feel my job was secure while at this school and she reiterated her stance of hiring me and building me up.

In January, before the program changes occurred, the Special Education Department sat together and members were paid per session to amend all IEPs so that they matched the programs we offered but, did not meet the needs of our students.  I was told I would not be invited to the paid sessions by Ms. Lanzillotto given that, “you haven’t learned how to amend IEPs”.  This contributed to the lowered roster where I found I had eleven students for the new semester and under the new program. In doing the above mentioned, the needs of our students were compromised and ignored in order to be in accordance with the laws governing classroom sizes.

In January of 2014 I was given a classroom to design myself and had 11 students on my roster.  I thought my relationship with the principal had improved and my evaluations increasingly improved, as well (See Exhibit L).  In terms of my pedagogy I was told I had shown the most improvement out of any first year she had witnessed.  To improve my classroom environment I took steps in using research based Positive Behavior Supports (See Exhibit M).  I sought the advice of my professor from St. John’s University and together devised two Positive Behavior Supports.  The first is known as “Secret Student”.  During this time I pull at random the name of a student and follow his or her behavior throughout the class.  At any given time I may say, “I’m looking for my secret student!  I wonder if s/he is on task” and with that the students would all return to task.  At the end, if the student had behaved, I would reward him or her with a homemade scratch off card and a certificate.  If the student did not perform well I would allow it to remain a secret.

The second Positive Behavior Support I utilized in my classroom was “Ca$h it in”, a ticket system.  For every twenty minutes I was able to get through my lesson without interruption I would award the class with twenty tickets that could be redeemed for a class prize.  Individually, students could also win tickets for the possibility of being “Most Valuable Student”.  The class received a pizza party on April 4, 2014.  The great aspect of this particular support was that it allowed me to build a behavioral contract with the students and there was student choice evident in the process and execution. My rapport with my students greatly improved and my overall reputation amongst students was that I was kind, caring, and fun.  I received apologetic letters from students who misbehaved and even notes and cards from grateful parents (See Exhibit N).

In March, I was shocked to have received three disciplinary letters in the same week and found that the allegations stemmed from students who had done poorly in my class.  The first letter stemmed from miscommunication between a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B, and the rest of the class.  On March 25, 2014 a Career Panel was held in the library.  I escorted my Self-Contained class to the library for third period.  At the sound of the bell they were dismissed for lunch and I remained in the library to have lunch with the panelists.  Before the bell was going to ring for the start of fifth period and when my Self-Contained class reconvenes I looked around the library and noted that all of the students had gone to the lunchroom previously.  Upon reaching my classroom I only had three students waiting for me including a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B.  I asked where the rest of the students had gone and Ms. B informed me that she misunderstood the directive and told them to go to the library after they lined up outside my classroom door (i.e. Room 130).

I returned to the library where the principal and the college advisor, Ms. M, were eating with three students.  In the disciplinary letter, the principal counts the three students, who are high school students as adults.  I found the rest of my students without a teacher in the library playing video games and talking in the back on the computers.  I asked them, “What are you guys doing?  Let’s go.”  The students immediately closed out their games, apologized to me and joined me in walking over to the classroom to begin class.  Shortly after, I received notice for a meeting during which the principal claimed I had not done my duty and that I had left the students unaccompanied in the library although they had come in towards the tail-end of lunch, which is also my duty-free lunch.  Once she realized that she had gotten the order of events chronologically wrong she then went on to talk to me about the tone I used.  Tone is subjective and further the feelings of the students should not have been inferred.  If anything, she should have taken statements from the students as well as the college adviser, Ms. Martinez.  Further, as the principal, upon seeing the students were in the library without a teacher she should have directed them to go to class and to close out the games. Shortly after a letter was added to my file for the above described incident Ms. Martinez volunteered to write a letter detailing her recollection of the events (See Exhibit Q). This meeting was immediately followed by a second meetingwhich I shall continue to detail below.

In November, shortly after the assault incident, Ms. Juman approached my student, Student C, who had defended me from the assault and asked her about my “mental stability”.  The following day Student C approached me to tell me about the exchange after the end of third period. I listened to Student C’s recollection of what had transpired.  When she had finished I thanked her for expressing her feelings to me and told her to go to lunch before she missed the deliverance of food.  I coincidentally had a meeting scheduled with Ms. Juman for fourth period during which I asked her about the exchange and she explained to me that she heard I cried after the assault and wanted to know if I were mentally strong enough for the job.  I explained to her that she crossed a boundary in doing so and that I found it completely unprofessional to have approached an emotionally disturbed student, or any student for that matter, to discuss the mental state of a teacher.  She then apologized for having potentially hurt my feelings and undermining me. She went on to say I must understand she was doing her due diligence to ensure that her students were safe.

In March, Student C began skipping my Intervention and when I approached her about the matter she stated she was better off going home early and that was what her parents preferred. I have included a look into Student C’s behavior as Exhibit O. I then advised Student C that she must bring a note from her parents stating what she had told me or that she attempt to make it to class.  After this incident she continued to skip the class and I ultimately failed her.  In my disciplinary meeting on March 27, 2014, Ms. Juman showed me a statement from Student C stating that I have “had it out for her” since [October] following the incident and that I threatened to tell Ms. Juman’s boss about the incident.  Ms. Juman reassured me that she remembered our discussion in November and that she simply was following protocol when a student requests to write a complaint.  In short, I was told that I was safe yet I received a letter with a consequence that did not match the initial allegation.

Further, if I were to have had a damaged relationship with Student C why would I have waited until March to affect her grades (See Exhibit P).  The initial accusation is that I bullied Student C for information but instead received a letter for professional misconduct for stating, “I’m going to tell Ms. Juman’s boss”.  Furthermore, the consensus that Ms. Juman reached on her own is based entirely on a statement written by Victoria, without consideration of what I had to say and did not rely on any other information to reach her conclusion.  There was no proof of Student C having been intimidated by me, because I didn’t, and is based on what is being collected four months after the alleged incident.  Lastly, she mentions that I have to set clear boundaries with students in the letter however, a clear boundary was crossed when she opened a discussion with a student about a teacher’s mental stability.

A few weeks following this meeting, Student C and I were on great terms, again.  Shortly after receiving her new marking period grades she was promptly switched out of my Intervention and the failing grade I had given her was expunged from her record (See Exhibit P).  She excitedly showed me her grades for she had been improving when I noticed the change in grade.  I did not comment on the change.

Shortly after, in April, I found out that I was being investigated for verbal abuse against another student, Student F. This accusation came shortly after I had called home to inform his father that he was misbehaving and that as a representative of all of his teachers this was a recurring theme across his classes.  The day of the meeting his father accused me of mistreating Student F.  After this meeting, Ms. Lanzillotto, a teacher, approached a paraprofessional to write a statement against me.  My understanding is that according to regulation, only a dean or an administrator has the right to request official statements.  According to a subsequent statement written by Ms. B, the paraprofessional, dated April 11, 2014 she was coerced into writing false allegations and was given a series of leading questions (See Exhibit Q).

After Student F made his allegations against me his behavior began to decline further and he was unable to perform the tasks necessary to pass my class.  I tried using Positive Behavior Supports with Student F including a school wide system known as “Jag Bucks” to reinforce adaptive behavior.  Student F was unfortunately unresponsive and ultimately the guidance counselor thought it best to remove him from the classroom.

On May 20, 2014  I received an email from Nicole Lanzillotto stating that a discussion revolving around Student F’s placement would be discussed after a couple of months of speculation that he would benefit from a different environment (See Exhibit R).  During the subsequent meeting it was introduced that he would have to be placed into the sixth grade ICT class.  Ms. S, the veteran Special Educator who co-taught said ICT, who was mentioned earlier in this letter stated, “Over my dead body, that boy will disrupt everything that I have done in that class”.  At this point, I asked for further support in terms of encouraging Student F to complete his work however, my pleas went unnoticed by the Administration and Nicole Lanzillotto, the head of the Special Education Department.
Afterwards, my entire Self-Contained Language Arts class was interrogated regarding my relationship with Student F. I have included my documentation of Student F’s behavior as Exhibit R. 

Student G, an alternate assessment student in my class approached me at the start of 9^th period Intervention stating that he was scared.  He then continued to describe that all of the students of my class had been interviewed by both Administrators and stated, “They asked me if you ever cursed out Student F and he’s trying to get you fired” in front of a room of several other students.  I immediately alerted Mr. DaSilva of this situation given that now the integrity of the investigation has been compromised.  A second accusation arose from this stating that I sent a student to attack Student F Valle.

During the subsequent meeting I was told by Mr. DaSilva that he had interviewed the student who allegedly bullied Student F, Student H.  I was told that Student H had stated he overheard from Student I about the investigation regarding Student F and on his own accord decided to confront Student F.  Mr. DaSilva reiterated that the allegation solely was about Student H and that I would not receive a letter for some other nuanced issue that may have arisen.  Needless to say, I received a fourth letter added to my file dated July 3, 2014 where that promise had not been kept.  Once again, I was, and am, concerned about the inappropriateness of interviewing students with emotional disturbances and with intellectual disabilities.  Further, why is it that I had to deal with the ramifications of the Administrators’ inability to run an investigation that is not compromised?  I had now become the scapegoat for their mismanagement of the investigation process.  In the letter dated July 3, 2014 I noticed quotes from statements that never been shown to me nor my Chapter Leader, Ms. R including, “Ms. V. came to the classroom and started talking about Student F and that he is a liar and that he is not a good kid.”

During my Summative Meeting I requested Ms. R to join me as my chapter leader. Ms Juman spoke of my pedagogy highly and criticized my practices under Domain 4.  At this time she brought up my preference sheet (Exhibit S), which on the top includes my stance of “uncertain” in terms of returning to the school.  I explained that once again I felt that my career was in jeopardy especially given that I received three letters in the matter of a week.  She told me, in front of my union representation that the letters were simply for me to learn from and that, “no one is out to get you, I want you to stay here.  Please, keep me updated if you still decide to go elsewhere”.  Ms. R asked Mr. DaSilva why I had not received a counseling memo instead to which he responded, “The Network says we can no longer give those out.” My chapter leader then voiced that I would continue to search for employment.  After having left this meeting I felt alleviated and trusted Ms. Juman’s word.
Less than a week after I received the Letter of Possible Discontinuance I received an updated package, which now stated my license could possibly be terminated. Because I voiced concern for the needs of my students I am being dealt a difficult card and an ultimatum.  I am alarmed and concerned for my future as an educator.  As I mentioned earlier, this is where I see myself until retirement, in a classroom serving our students and showing them a love for learning.

Please note that as an educator my value was not questioned by the Administration.  I created well differentiated, well developed lesson plans.  The classroom environment was supportive of student learning and accommodating.  Please refer to Exhibit U where I have enclosed an image of my bulletin board with clearly tiered assignment and the outcome for one of my alternate assessment students, Student J. Student J had a very poor attendance rate and could not write a well-constructed paragraph, let alone an essay.  She presented difficulties when expressing the main idea and finding supporting details.  I found that she was highly interested in the topic of bullying and therefore assigned her the topic of bullying and suicide.  She created an argumentative essay based on the topic which I have enclosed (Exhibit T).

Refer to Exhibit N where I have enclosed a letter from a parent speaking of my impact on her son as well as notes from students.  My delivery of lessons allowed for open discussion and personal growth across my students.  Although the Principal had given me a 1 (i.e. ineffective) for Participating in the Community under Domain 4 I worked hard to support my community.  I ran study hall after school for several months.  I tutored students and aided them in completing projects even if they were for courses outside my own.

I also facilitated zero period credit recovery for high school students who were lacking credits.  In September after our staff retreat I aided in recreating the activities for those staff members who were unable to attend and facilitated the activities after school.  I volunteered in October to speak at a school recruitment fair, for which I received a letter dated October 18, 2013 (See Exhibit U).  In May I received a note from Ms. Juman thanking me for helping other staff members with their bulletin boards when I was given two days’ notice that I would be given one to complete (See Exhibit U).  On March 26, 2014 I also led a Special Education Department Meeting, see the attached agenda found in Exhibit U.  On most days I would be found leaving the school around seven after planning, preparing materials for my class, or helping students in study hall.  According to Danielson the above mentioned description of the duties I completed can be described as at least a 3 (effective).

Overall, I have inherited an experience I would not trade. However, I do believe that given my overall rating of Developing; my overall rapport with students; and my drive to come up with innovative methods to increase student engagement, that I should not have my license terminated.  This year has been a trying one but I believe that in the right environment, with the appropriate supports I can grow to become an even better educator.  I view myself as a lifelong learner and hope to grow in this field and master my trade. Throughout my year at School for International Studies I have been consistently given disciplinary notices instead of supports.  Is it not the onus of the Administration to ensure that I succeed? I would much prefer discontinuance rather than a termination of my license, as harsh of a punishment as it may be, so that I may start anew elsewhere and learn from the mistakes I have committed this past year and remain in the classroom.
Sincerely,

Special Educator

There you have it. It's sad. 

What I am about to share here I suggest that you read on an empty stomach. It is one of the most  revolting, repugnant, teacher abuse stories I have heard of in the 5 1/2 years I have been blogging. This story comes to SBSB courtesy of Francesco Portelos' new website; Don't Tread on Educators.

So many of us believed with the fall of the Bloomberg Empire that a new day had dawned within the confines of the NYCDOE. That the lawyers would be properly neutered so they would not reproduce, that out of control principals will finally be held accountable, that "GOTCHA!" will cease, that administrators will have their positions due to merit and not who they know. We looked towards Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Farina to lead us into a new day where children actually were the priority and where leaders will actually lead.

I still want to believe, I still want to hope that there is good coming to all who are involved in educating the children of New York City. But the more I see what is about to be posted and the more I hear from elsewhere I can't keep from thinking of the The Who's 1971 song, "Won't Get Fooled Again;"

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

This is a letter from a discontinued guidance counselor to the superintendent of District 19, Joyce Stallings-Harte in Brooklyn. The school is Van Siclen Community Middle School, and the principal is Adonna McFarland of the Leadership Academy (DUH! What a shock!).

Carmen’s DOE Takes Another Young Career

March 28, 2014

New York City Department of Education
Superintendent Joyce Stallings-Harte
557 Pennsylvania Avenue – Room 201
Brooklyn, NY 11207

Superintendent Stallings-Harte,

I would like to take this opportunity to address the 2013-2014 year end rating I received on Monday, March 24^th, 2014.

I can still recall my uncontainable excitement after I accepted the offer to serve as school counselor with Van Siclen Community Middle School in July 2013. It had been a position I had pursued for over three years. During school year 2012-2013 I actually secured a school counselor position with another new school scheduled to transition into the George Gershwin campus under the federal turn-around program. Those plans failed due to a lawsuit by the UFT against the NYC Department of Education. The schools chosen to open under this mandate never did. Although incredibly disappointed by the turn of events I remained resilient and continued on with my search. One full school year later I would be working in the same building under different leadership.
So carrying this excitement I entered this school year with incredible enthusiasm, brimming with creative ideas, and enormous passion for all the possibilities this school year held. I was confident that although I had no previous experience as a school counselor, that my experiences as a classroom teacher, coupled with my extensive work in child welfare would undoubtedly be instrumental to the work I would do this year. I recognized, as did Principal Adonna McFarland, that there would be a learning curve, as I had no previous experience outside of my practicum experience. However, I was committed to learning all I could and demonstrated my commitment to the VSC community by volunteering to be a member of the School Leadership Team and helping to facilitate various after school programming for our students.

Days before the start of the school year, August 30th, 2013, I spoke with Principal McFarland in her office. During this meeting I was supplied with a schedule that indicated that I would be effectively teaching entire classes of students anywhere from 2-3 times a day. In addition she stated, “I did not hire you to service mandated students, I hired you to service the at risk students.” Ms. McFarland continued to explain that in her experience service providers typically recommended services to students, that she believed, the students didn’t necessarily need in order for the service providers to secure their positions in their respective schools. Ms. McFarland also explained that when I went into these classrooms on a daily basis she would consider this as “services rendered” and that I should only follow the IEP mandates if I believed the students needed it.

A few weeks later, on September 30^th, 2013, I spoke with Ms. McFarland again in her office. Mrs. Keisha Kemp, UFT Chapter Chair and Special Education coordinator, was also in attendance. Ms. McFarland once again explained that she did not hire me to service mandated students and intended on considering services rendered when I went into classrooms. Mrs. Kemp quickly interjected explaining that this could not happen as the IEP stipulates length of time, group size, and ___location in which the service should be rendered. Principal McFarland immediately begun to scream angrily stating, “Keisha, don’t tell me sh*t about compliance early in the morning! Everything in this place is out of f*cking compliance.” Ms. McFarland then asked me to leave. After a few minutes she invited me back into the office and reiterated her previous sentiments.

Frankly, I was flabbergasted by Ms. McFarland’s directive. In both my graduate level training and internship experience I had never witnessed such blatant disregard of students IEP mandates. In my experience a school counselors primary role is to provide counseling services to mandated students as per their IEP mandates. To not do so is in direct violation of US Federal Law (IDEA). I wanted so much to interject and share what I knew to be correct. However, I instinctively knew that if I did so I would instantly be under attack and subsequently punished by Ms. McFarland.

On September 18, 2013, I attempted to share my perspective with Ms. McFarland regarding one of our special education students CB after she had expressed frustration about his behaviors shortly after he transferred to our school. Ms. McFarland immediately attacked me, shouting at me in her office, stating, “I’ve been around for 20 plus years. When I tell you something don’t ever question me. You need to be careful what you say to me.” She also went on to state, “It concerns me that I hired a counselor who doesn’t see things the way I see things.” She immediately, the following day, requested that I begin to submit weekly counseling activities to her via e-mail. The following week at the Lindenwood Diner, during a staff get-to-together, she openly stated, “I was so pissed with you”. When I expressed confusion Ms. McFarland explained that she became angry when I offered an alternate point of view regarding student CB., and his needs. She went on to explain, “That is why I made you submit your weekly counseling activities. You made me so angry!” Once again this was deeply disturbing.

I had observed Principal McFarland threaten to give former teacher Ms. J. Antonucci a 30-day discontinuance before the school year even begun. Ms. Antonucci subsequently resigned. I observed Ms. McFarland belittle our former community associate Ms. C. Walker on a daily basis. She subsequently resigned. Ms. McFarland then shifted her focus to our former math teacher Ms. J. Taylor. Ms. Taylor also subsequently resigned. Unfortunately I was made aware of this information, as Ms. McFarland would often, involve me in the abovementioned events by discussing her negative feelings, about the staff members, with me on a daily basis. Ms. McFarland would even call and text message me after school hours to disparage them. I was deeply disturbed by her actions. I was forced to wonder, who would be next? And how might she treat me if I ever became the object of her disdain? Our school had quickly become a place stained and mired with intimidation and fear.

Eventually the inevitable happened; Ms. McFarland shifted the focus to me. I was now the enemy and the subject of her attacks. Principal McFarland’s leadership approach has been incredibly alienating and has communicated intimidation at every turn. She has communicated very clear messages, both verbally and nonverbally, to me that unless I allow her to control my every thought and unless I am in complete agreement with her, on every issue, I will be punished.

• How could I ever feel safe in this environment?
• How could I effectively learn and develop as a new school counselor?
• How could I not be fearful of retaliation?

As a probationer I recognized the vulnerable position I was in and knew I had to go along with Ms. McFarland’s plan regardless of how erroneous it was.

Our students have essentially gone numerous months, well over two thirds, of this school year without having received their federally mandated services. Here are four student examples of more than fifteen students who have not received their mandated services:

• RD., age X, emotionally disturbed, has never received mandated counseling services as per Ms. McFarland’s directive. On February 24^th, 2014 Mrs. Kemp, special education coordinator, requested that I complete RD.’s IEP immediately as his annual review was due in a few days. She asked, “You don’t see him, do you?”  I reminded her of the directive Principal McFarland gave during the first weeks of school. She nodded and asked if I could see him that day at some point. I explained that I could not as I would be in classes all afternoon. She stated she would confer with Ms. McFarland. It should be noted that Mrs. Kemp is in line to become Assistant Principal at Van Siclen Community Middle beginning school year 2014-2015. A few minutes later while performing breakfast duties Principal McFarland approached me to ask if I believed RD. was in need of counseling services. I explained that I do not determine whether a child receives counseling services but that the students’ IEP dictates whether he/she should receive counseling. While I continued to explain the counseling mandates to Ms. McFarland she walked away abruptly. Once upstairs Ms. McFarland informed me that I should begin to provide mandated counseling services to RD. beginning March 3^rd, 2014.

• QW., age X, learning disabled, has never received mandated counseling services as per Ms. McFarland’s directive.
• JH., age X, emotionally disturbed, has never received mandated counseling services as per Ms. McFarland’s directive.
• MS., age X, other health impairment, has never received mandated counseling services as per Ms. McFarland’s directive.

Throughout the course of this school year Ms. McFarland has repeatedly misused and abused my role as a new school counselor. I have been directed to perform duties outside of my license area, duties that have undermined my role as a school counselor. They are as follows:

• absence coverages
• breakfast duty
• lunch duty
• yard duty
• hall monitor
• dean (performing punitive measures i.e., calling homes, facilitating detention, covering the SAVE room)
• submitting grades for the fall 2013 report card cycle
• attendance officer (conducted home visits at the request of the Principal)

Additionally, I teach 2-3 periods per day, every week, as part of the permanent schedule I received from Ms. McFarland on August 30^th, 2014. I teach the self contained, 12:1:1 class, 5 times per week. This translates to over three hours of lost instructional time, on a weekly basis, as I am not a teacher and therefore I am not equipped to provide instruction to special education students. Our special education teacher, Ms. ___, is never present when I am teaching class 601. I have also been forced to facilitate extended learning periods, on a weekly basis, since the beginning of this school year. This also translates to 90 minutes of valuable time in which I should have been allowed to provide counseling services to mandated students. This abuse ended abruptly on March 25^th, 2014. It is important to note that I was notified of my potential discontinuance on March 24^th, 2014.

As a school counselor it is imperative that I am given the latitude to remain flexible so that I can be responsive to student needs. Being provided a schedule in which I am constrained within classrooms multiple times a day interferes with my ability to respond to student/parent needs should they arise at any given point during the school day.

On Thursday, January 30^th, 2014, Assistant Principal Campbell informed me, that I would no longer be working out of the counseling office. I was not supplied with a reason. I wondered how I would complete my duties? How would I store confidential records? How would I ensure confidentiality during counseling sessions and meetings with parents and/or service providers? I was instructed by Principal McFarland to utilize Room 210 and Room 205 beginning February 3^rd, 2014. I was also instructed to utilize the computer in the main office. It should be noted that three other professionals share the sole computer in the main office. They are: Parent Coordinator Lee, Community Associate Perez and Attendance Officer Kierstedt on any given day. It has been extraordinarily difficult to negotiate the use of the computer with several other professionals who all have arduous tasks to complete. As a result my ability to complete tasks has been severely compromised. Confidentiality has also been severely compromised. The constant influx of students, parents, and staff members moving in and out of the office space has made it impossible to have any confidential conversation.

Most recently, I received an e-mail from Principal McFarland, on March 21^st, 2014, informing me that effective March 24^th, 2014, I would be relocated to the staff conference room/kitchen to work with students. Room 221 is located at the far end of the second floor apart from all classrooms and students. It contains a refrigerator, microwave, water cooler and refills, food products etc.… Teachers and staff are constantly moving in and out of the room as well. For the first time this school year Principal McFarland instructed me to service mandated students in this room. It should be noted that I also received notice of my potential discontinuance on March 24^th, 2014. These kinds of changes are clearly devised to undermine my efforts at being successful in my role as school counselor. Removing, from me, the tools required to successfully complete my professional responsibilities and then subsequently penalizing me when I am unable to complete said responsibilities is unfathomable. It is unjust. It is clearly sabotage. Ms. McFarland has essentially manufactured my failure.

Principal McFarland on numerous occasions, beginning on November 4^th, 2014, during a meeting, expressed her dissatisfaction with my performance stating, “I regret hiring a new counselor. I should have hired someone with more experience.”  Ms. McFarland has included five disciplinary letters as evidence of my incompetence as a school counselor. I have reviewed each letter several times and remain bewildered by each one. From encouraging a student to discuss a grievance regarding Assistant Principal Campbell with her parent/guardian to making an error, as all human beings do, from time to time, the administrators at VSC have sought to take a punitive approach against me on issues that clearly could have been addressed with a clear conversation. Why choose to go on the attack, and punish without cause, when I have demonstrated total compliance and extreme responsiveness throughout my tenure at Van Siclen Community Middle School?

As the instructional leader of Van Siclen Community Middle School I have depended upon Ms. McFarland to guide me professionally and to provide me with immediate feedback concerning my performance as a school counselor. She is charged with the responsibility, both professional and ethical, of providing those under her charge with the resources to improve their professional practice when it requires improvement so that growth and development are evident. How can Ms. McFarland recommend that I be discontinued when I have not been:

• supplied with a written professional improvement plan detailing areas of concern, suggestions for improvement and a realistic plan of action to address these concerns.
• given an opportunity to attend professional development in and/or out of the school building regarding these areas of concern.
• given a mentor/coach that worked with me directly to address specific concerns detailed in the professional improvement plan.
• given the opportunity to work on the areas of concern with a coach/mentor.

This has been extraordinarily painful, as I know with certainty, that under the right leadership my potential as a school counselor is limitless. Principal McFarland’s incessant misuse and abuse of my role undoubtedly points to a severe lapse in professional judgment and should illuminate her inherent inability to develop new talent and to ultimately lead. What will happen to the students of Van Siclen Community Middle School if she is allowed to continue to circumvent the structures put in place to
ensure that students have access to the education and services guaranteed to them under New York State and Federal Law?

Superintendent Stallings-Harte, as the leader charged with protecting the educational rights of our most vulnerable students, I ask that you keenly consider my circumstance with discernment, care and balance. Ms. McFarland has worked diligently to erode my ability to do this work. In the past weeks she has forcibly discontinued both my girls and bereavement groups under the guise that she would be rescheduling the time the groups are to be held. It has been well over a month and the groups have not been rescheduled. The students inquire about when the groups will resume on a daily basis. I have been unable to supply them with an adequate response. Most recently Ms. McFarland has begun to interrogate our students after I speak with them asking, “What did she say to you?”  And frequently penalizes students when they attempt to speak with me, yelling, “What are you doing over there” and “Go where you are supposed to be!” Despite Principal McFarland’s consistent attacks I have remained focused on our students. This past Monday morning one of our students, a 12-year old girl, voluntarily came to speak with me about her weekend. The student explained that she recently discovered who her birth father is and traveled to the Bronx, with her mother and siblings, to meet with her paternal grandmother and extended family members for the first time. She was clearly overwhelmed by the experience and expressed feelings of fear and anxiety. I was able to really work with this student on the issues involved, explore the root of her fear and help her get a firm handle on what she can expect to feel emotionally in the coming weeks and months as she explores these new relationships with the paternal side of her family. This is the work I am passionate about and the work I know our students yearn for.

The role of a school counselor is a significant one, one that I have not been allowed to carry out as detailed in this letter. It has always been crystal clear, to the entire school community, that I’ve had the best of intentions for our students. I have consistently met them with affirmative energy, warmth, and encouragement. Ms. McFarland has also recognized this as fact on multiple occasions. Despite the arduous circumstances I continue to work with our students to the best of my ability.

Approving Principal McFarland’s recommendation to discontinue my employment with the Department of Education will essentially empower her perverse actions, enable her to continue forward with harming the students of VSC, and communicate a dangerous message to the school community that maligning professionals in an effort to mask malfeasance is acceptable. It is not. I remain hopeful that you will, see clearly, all the issues I have outlined and make the appropriate decision that will allow me to continue onward with the career I have worked so hard for. I want to be a school counselor. I am passionate about this work, this community, and our children.

Realizing the limitations of the written page, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you in person in order to address any of your questions and/or concerns. Thank you for your time and consideration.

With Warm Regards,


School Counselor

Hey. Guess what? Another law is being broken. Or at least it is being seriously bent. Remember that 2nd grade CTT (collaborative team teaching) class I have mentioned in the past. The one that has 15 special ed. students as opposed to 6 general ed. students. Yeah, you know the one. Do your math. DOes that come out to the 60/40 split of general ed. to special ed.? No, and I am not a mathematician and I was able to figure that out. So you ask what is going on with this?

Gladys the IEP bag lady is on the case! But it seems are method is somewhat unorthodox, if not somewhat treyf. Gladys, and I am sure this is coming from above, wants to decertify enough special ed. students so that the ratio would be the lawful 60/40 split. Hey this is great. But the problem is that these students are not able or ready to be decertified and and not only does Gladys no it, but the assistant principal for that grade knows it as well. And can you guess whom the AP is? Yes! It is Numb Nuts.

They are pressuring the teacher to decertify these students. They are doing an end run around the PPT team, and education law so they can cover their asses. I guess they are infected with the children first doctrine so bad they really feel the need to show it. Oh, for those who don't get it, I am being sarcastic.

So there you have it. Another shining example of the students being thought of first and what is best for them. Oy vey!

Tony got a superintendents suspension for kicking or hitting a safety officer. He was sent to another school in which there was no SAVE room and placed in a third grade class without any work, and worse, without the services he must have according to his IEP, federal law, and chancellor's regulations. Since he is a busing student, a bus is not available to take him to this temporary school and dad must drive him.

He has been out of the school about ten days now without a hearing. His hearing was originally scheduled for tomorrow but from what I have heard John Deacon does not plan on coming to work tomorrow so the hearing is now going to be December 2nd. Maybe John Deacon will be absent as well on Wednesday? Anyhoo, think about this. Is Tony, even though he is a major pain in the butt, deserving of this treatment? Dad is pissed as hell. In fact he was in the school today and the principal, John Deacon, refused to meet with him. But you ask, what about this past Thursday which was parents night? It appears that not only did John Deacon refuse to meet with Tony's dad, but refused to meet with other pissed off parents as well. John Deacon enjoys the rich comfort of the bunker.

Today I had to cover a class, that kindergarten 12:1:1 class I have mentioned previously. The students were taking their after lunch nap and myself and three other paras stayed next to the rambunctious students to prevent any mayhem.

I drew short straw and got to watch The King. The King's favorite phrase is "f**k you bitch" which I am sure he does not get from watching SpongeBob. So there I am and suddenly The King starts to shout "Bite It" repeatedly. Looking down I see that his ding a ling is out and he is stroking it in a manner that is not conducive to the educational process. Assuming that this is a matter that should not be ignored I attempt to notify several of our hydra headed AP's. I get no response. Unfortunately I then was left with nothing else other than notifying Numb Nuts.

I bring The King to his office figuring that Numb Nuts would take a manner of a five year old student stroking his ding a ling seriously. Oh how wrong I was. Numb Nuts response to me was, "so what do you want me to do about it?" For a second or two I just stared at him dumb founded, perplexed that a supposed administrator is incapable of taking any kind of leadership position. I said he need not worry that I will take care of this. He said thank you and let me leave his office with The King. About ten minutes later he came down stairs and after confirming with a para that The King was diddling his doodle took decisive action in taking The King to his office and then sending Mrs Met with an "official school anecdotal" form for me to fill out. But strangely at no time did he ask me to fill out a DOE incident report. Only after relaying this incident to my chapter chair did I fill one out.

Here's the catch. This is being taken not seriously. It is a "boy being a boy" experimenting with his doodle. Guess what? Again, for the second time in a week I call bullsh**! I was a boy and this is not happen. Neither is "f**k you bitch!", or "f**ker", or "I am going to take my belt and beat you". The King is getting this from somewhere. You think ACS is going to be called? No way. Never. Ever. Will.

But guess what a little birdie told me today? The King's IEP states that he must be in District 75 in an 8:1:1: setting. December is almost here. Think he will be moved soon?

Remember The Dude? If you need refreshing click here. Anyway The Dude is about to be officially mainstreamed. I am all for mainstreaming a student. When it is for the right reasons. But unfortunately mainstreaming The Dude is for the wrong reasons. He is being moved because he is a behavior problem. But more because of personality conflicts within the class.

The Dude's mother will be coming in to sign the papers so he is no longer in special ed. Mom is sweet, but needs someone to advocate for her. The Dude and his sister are the adults in that home. In fact Sister is the one that cooks, gets The Dude ready for school and so on. Mom is going to be met with a full court press and told that The Dude has progressed and he is ready to move on. Also, why aren't teachers being asked to join in on the meeting with mom? But what, you may ask yourself, is the problem?

The problem is that the IEP/PPT team (school psych, etc...) have not tested him out of special ed. Nor was there any conference or anything to discuss it with IEP/PPT team. The Dude is two grades behind where he should be in reading and several teachers have mentioned that there might be dyslexia. Shouldn't he be tested for this? Seems to me that the law, if not the spirit of the law is being broken. Time to call in the school cops?

So another example of the "Children First" philosophy gone awry. More of the "cover your ass and hide your head in the sand and hope the problem either goes away or becomes someone else's" philosophy.

Oh Numb Nuts what can I say? You are a source of infinite material. You make Principal Skinner look like Joe Clark. Your tenure as an assistant principal would make a great sitcom or better yet a Shakespearean tragedy. This should be no surprise. I think the last eight years of having W as president has shown that competency is not a requirement for a leadership position.

I get a call from Numb Nuts today that the 12:1:1 class I written about yesterday was out of control. "It's an emergency, get down here ASAP!", his shrill voice beckons me over the phone. I could picture in mind him hiding under a desk as a full blown revolt is taking place.

So I meander my way to the class and lo and behold the students are running wild. I realize why I was sent down. The teacher had to go on her prep. Hey, I don't begrudge her that. But Numb Nuts could have told me that instead of being shrill with me. But I wondered what he told the other teachers who were there as well. Because I wasn't the only one there.

The other teacher sent there for the "red alert" took several students to her office. I along with the para quickly restored order. Yes we had some problems. One student thought it would be fun to keep running out of the room. I solved this problem by using common sense. I parked myself in front of the door. No way this student was going to move me. He did get out once I admit because there was a flare up in the class that needed my attention.

Most times when a student runs out of a room they want attention. They want to see you chase them and then see how you will get them back to class. I am not going to run through the school unless there is a danger of the student running outside. Short of that, notify security, and just walk briskly. But that is easy. The hard part is to get the student back to the classroom. Each kid is different. Sometimes you have to talk to them, talk tough, walk with them, block their way, but never drag them through the hall. Never.

This is what Numb Nuts did today. The student who ran out of the classroom ran around the corner and basically ran into Numb Nuts numb nuts. Numb Nuts to the student by the hand and started walking with him when the student just flopped on the floor. Must have gotten that tactic out of some 1960's protest march. So what does Numb Nuts do? Starts dragging him down the hall. If memory serves this violates Chancellor's Regulation A-420. The student wasn't a danger to himself or others, he was just being a pain in the ass. There is not, as of yet, any regulation about pains in the asses.

All these students needed was to be redirected, and have someone take control of the situation. I do not blame the teacher at all! She is a new teacher thrown into a mess that IEP's were not adhered to and worse she still has not seen the IEP's! . She asked how she can properly teach these children without knowing anything about them. How can she know what strategies she can use in changing the students negative behavior.

This all falls on Numb Nuts. Like President Truman the buck stops with him in these matters. This is his grade, his responsibility. You can't shirk your responsibility off on others and then run away. And if things get out of hand, improvise, adapt, and overcome!

When I left the school building on Friday I had this on the tip of my mind thinking it would make a great post. But I forgot about it, what with my other posts and catching up on sleep and doing family stuff. But tonight during a mass family gathering while faking interest in some relative talking to me I remembered it.

There is a 12:1:1 class in my school. Now for the uninitiated this means that twelve students in a class with one teacher and one para. But suddenly after someone went into the vault to look at the students IEP's it was noticed that there should be more than one para in the class. The teacher should have brought this up several weeks ago. Oh yeah, she couldn't. You know why? Yep, that is right. She and other teachers in the school have no access to IEP's of the students in their respective classes. Last I checked these IEP's are federally mandated and there is no wriggle room for interpretation of what an IEP mandates. Unless that is you pressure The Dudes mother to sign something.

Short week this week. Only three days of material for me. Oh well, I will make do.

A student that I will refer to as The Dude, who was held over in Kindergarten, held over in 2nd grade is in special ed now gets mainstreamed because he is misbehaving and having personality conflicts with other students in his class? The mother is railroaded into signing her approval for this move. A mother with no skills at all. A household where the 14 year old sister of this boy is the parent? Sorry there is no punch line, unfortunately it is true. The Dude is a good kid, and is a bright kid, but the higher ups have failed him. 

What else is true that for some reason teachers who have students with IEP's do not have their IEP's. Why is this? Is it some kind of state secret? Or is the IEP teacher just incompetent? Is this against federal law? Will the Federales be coming to the school?

Numb Nuts has no idea how to properly discipline a child, nor handle a child. Saw him a few days ago dragging a 5 year old by the arms (arms above the child) to his office. Mind you the five year old was pitching a tantrum but how come when I have dealt wit this young man, and though it is difficult, he is able to respond to me? I mean it is really not that difficult. Just takes some brainpower.

Children First! YAY!!!!