Sunday, February 24, 2008

Now We Get To See Why Kids And Parents And Public Education Lose

Public Education is nothing if it isn't about big money. Bottom line.

Defending this money is a paramount goal. Statistically, the public systems protect each other. They have unlimited resources and expertise in strategies. What seems to never be of concern is that there is more to life than money. But at a $200,000 liability cap for public school systems, that is as insignifant as hiring a consultant.

I write frequently about the abuse of power by public school employees. They are afforded protections that most people don't get.

In this case, the charges against a teacher seem to fit with the physical signs of the kids. Goose egg lumps, busted lips, extracted teeth, and bruises are hard to fabricate.

I am not surprised in the least at how the defense is shaping up. It is the nature of the defense culture for public schools.

Another story is here :

Click here: HeraldTribune.com - News - News stories about Sarasota, Manatee and Charlotte counties in Florida, from the newspa

We have a time line:

"Two aides in Diana O'Neill's class started documenting instances in which they believed she abused students as early as October 2007. But it was three months later -- after more than a dozen instances -- before the police and the state Department of Children and Families were notified"

Some one had concerns, but if it isn't on paper, it didn't happen: "Police records also indicate that O'Neill, 45, had been "talked to" in the past for her behavior with her profoundly disabled students. But there is no record that any concerns were ever reported to the police or the school district to investigate."

We have a kid who has no chance of telling the truth so how could anyone believe anything about her wasn't done by herself:


"Tara, who cannot walk, talk or see, has been in O'Neill's class for eight years.

During that time she often came home with bruises, prompting Hatfield to go to the school and question the teacher. Every time, O'Neill had a different explanation that ranged from other children hitting her to her falling out of her wheelchair, Hatfield said."


A few details by the aides:

"Police identified four of O'Neill's five students as victims. With one child, aides reported that O'Neill parked his wheelchair against a wall and watched as the boy hit his head against it, sarcastically telling him, "Don't hit your head."

Aides also reported that O'Neill had kicked one girl in the legs, hit her in the head with objects, pushed her to the floor and used a "weighted blanket" and a "body sock" -- two therapy tools that restrict movement -- to punish her."

Setting up the need for understanding a unique situation:


"Educators and parents alike complain of little support from the rest of the school system, and even fewer resources. It is a pressure cooker that can pit teachers against parents, or unify them in the face of shared challenges.

Despite efforts to include students with disabilities in the regular school setting, at most schools these small classes stay clustered together, sharing resources and working as teams, creating a tight-knit community.

It is also a place where teachers employ unusual techniques to control their children's behavior and help them develop physically and mentally."

And then we have common place actions:

"For example, the aides reported an episode where O'Neill shoved a cloth into a child's mouth and then pulled it out so hard the child's tooth came out.

But Sloan said this is a common technique used to build the biting reflexes of students with disabilities. In this case, O'Neill accidentally knocked out a baby tooth, Sloan said."

And I wrote previously about how the system will make sure no one speaks out without themselves becoming liable:

"School Superintendent Gary Norris said the district would review not only the allegations against O'Neill, but also how the other employees responded."



And here comes the "defense of professionals":
"These charges were observed by aides who are not sufficiently trained to work with handicapped children," Sloan said. "This woman is completely professional.""

There is the "culture of defense" in a nutshell.

If these aides are lying, our kids will suffer yet another setback.

If these aides can not prove they are telling the truth, our kids will suffer another setback.

Afterall, it is about numbers. The fact that this is an isolated incident eases our anxiety.

Unless it was your kid.

But in that case, you would just be a parent.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another time, the boy bit down on a wash cloth O'Neill was using to clean out his mouth and she yanked it out so hard that a bottom tooth went flying over her right shoulder, the aides said.

Is the incident above the same incident below, only described in more detail. If they are two explanations for the same incident, then which one is true? The two explanations are completely different. "Why was the cloth in the child's mouth? Was it to clean the child or to engage in a "common technique used to build the biting reflexes?" Answering this question should go a long way in determining who is telling the truth.

O'Neill's attorney, Catherine Sloan, argued during her first court appearance Friday that the teacher's aides mistook these kinds of accepted techniques for abuse.
For example, the aides reported an episode where O'Neill shoved a cloth into a child's mouth and then pulled it out so hard the child's tooth came out.
But Sloan said this is a common technique used to build the biting reflexes of students with disabilities. In this case, O'Neill accidentally knocked out a baby tooth, Sloan said.

PRO On HCPS said...

Goader:

I am curious if you read all 17 pages of the affidavits?

http://www.tampabays10.com/images/pdfs/school-abuse-affidavit.pdf

Not sure where you are going with this.

The affidavit refers to the "tooth" on page 8.

There are many other incidents that will go along way in determing who is telling the truth.

Anonymous said...

Having now read page 8 of the cause, it states the teacher was attempting to clean the student's mouth after eating.

Since the teacher's attorney stated the teacher was applying some kind of accepted intervention for some other reason than cleaning the student's mouth, then the fact finders must determine who is telling the truth. By deciding, who is telling the truth in this situation one side or the other will gain credibility. In other words, the teacher's attorney seems to have provided testimony, which might be impeachable, hence good for the student's side in court.

Just a little legal wrangling.