Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Have I done a good or bad thing?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 121400" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>"The principal's position is that they cannot investigate because it didn't "happen" at school."</p><p></p><p>If that is the case, then the principal should have totally stayed out of it and not even viewed the tapes. Catch 22 - can't have it both ways.</p><p></p><p>Therefore - ALL references to this from any school staff member or to any school staff member, boils down to merely spreading unsubstantiated rumour.</p><p></p><p>difficult child should not be liable for any disciplinary action from the school, if the school cannot get involved. And yet, this sounds ridiculous.</p><p></p><p>Which means - the principal's statement that the school cannot get involved is patently untrue, because the line of logic simply does not follow. Of course, we do know that education systems are often illogical.</p><p></p><p>What has happened - allegations have been made. The principal HAS got involved, to the extent of passing information to others, of meeting with you, of opening discussions with you, and being openly critical of difficult child. Principal IS involved.</p><p></p><p>Evidence - there were tapes, and allegations. There appear to be no records current, in terms of any written information or viewable information (I also suspect the tapes' convenient absence). There should at least be transcripts of allegations made by other students, even if names of students have been removed from those transcripts. Anyone making an allegation should be prepared to follow through and openly witness. </p><p></p><p>Evidence - it is highly likely that any tapes involved HAVE now been erased. Either because the tapes were needed to be recycled, or because the principal made more out of the incident than necessary and is now trying to save face.</p><p>Or the tapes may only have been REPORTED to have been taped over.</p><p></p><p>Which brings me to - who is responsible for the CCTV on the bus? Why do they do it, what is their aim?</p><p>I would think the main aim would be to document accurately any incidents on the bus for further action where necessary; to be able to go back and view footage and determine what really was going on. If that is the reason, then such tapes would be kept. If no incidents happen, the tapes would get taped over as a matter of course. A lot of stores with CCTV recycle their tapes. I mean, if you tape for a month and there are no incidents, no armed robberies, no thefts in that time - then why keep the tapes? But in case there ARE problems, most systems will have a series of tapes to cover, say a fortnight or a month, and then begin taping over. Any footage needed to verify a problem or back up a case should be kept. Failure to keep the footage is an admission that it was not a concern.</p><p></p><p>And now to responsibility - in Australia (so why not elsewhere?) the school is responsible for the students from the moment they leave their home and travel to school, to the time they get home from whatever mode of transport they were using. The same thing applies to employers, re Workers Compensation. I had a fall on the railway station steps on the way to work, and the time I had to take off to get my wounds treated was dealt with as Worker's Comp.</p><p>If the journey is broken (for example, you stop off to do your grocery shopping on the way home) then the cover stops at the point where you deviated from your usual route.</p><p>But with schools, it can extend further.</p><p>When difficult child 3 was bashed outside our home right on sunset (several hours after the bully had got home from school) the principal was still able to do something, because the bully was still wearing his school uniform. The bully was therefore an identifiable student of the school and because his bad behaviour brought the school into disrepute, the principal was obliged (and more than willing) to act. OK, the extent of the action was to increase supervision to ensure the bully couldn't get anywhere near difficult child 3 at school, but we were OK with that. We knew that nothing more could be done, without the boy's parents being prepared to acknowledge that their son is a problem (because the father is the problem, from our observations since).</p><p></p><p>I've gone in and taken photos of various activities occurring outside school hours, but due to large numbers of kids from the same school meeting together with inadequate parental supervision. When I am aware of such a situation, I keep my camera with me, but I remove difficult child 3 from the situation, because he's been wrongly accused before, of being a ringleader (as if other kids would follow HIM).</p><p>I also shadowed difficult child 3, to make sure that any statements such as "your son was throwing rocks at my kids, he started it," could be proven totally wrong, at least to my own satisfaction.</p><p></p><p>And the other vital information we were given by the police, when difficult child 3's bullies escalated their actions to the point of drawing blood, was to document all events AND report them to the police. We were told to call the police, even if a kid merely swears at him. The cops won't necessarily do anything, but they will document it, we were told, and if there is ever a more serious problem then that documentation will often make it easier to follow a pattern of problem behaviour by others.</p><p></p><p>difficult child 3 now knows this and if anything, it encourages him to keep his nose clean. ANY hint that he was at all involved in escalating an incident, will also come out on the record. He knows to do absolutely nothing to provoke, but to come home, or call me on his mobile phone, or go to a safe house (we've set up a few cooperative neighbours to help rescue him in times of trouble).</p><p></p><p>I might seem to be digressing here, but this sort of problem is often all linked in. Other kids saying things that may or may not be true - you have the right, the community responsibility, to check the stories out. Just asking your son is not enough - ANY kid would deny wrongdoing, it's natural. Just taking the word of a skilful interrogator with an axe to grind - also invalid.</p><p></p><p>Either the situation requires investigation, or it doesn't.</p><p>If it doesn't, then all records, notes, emails etc should NOT be deleted, but should be kept on his file with a covering letter to say that no evidence for these allegations was provided and that therefore no investigation was made. The records must show everything full and complete, because the allegations have been made; at some future time, this may prove relevant (either because he IS a lying little snot, or because he IS being victimised and they need to have a paper trail to chase those responsible).</p><p></p><p>And if the situation DOES require investigation, then you should have access to the same information the investigators do. After all, if your kid IS a lying little snot, you should have the right to do something about it before he gets worse. Leaving a problem like this unattended is asking for trouble - if your kid is violent like this, is also lying about it, is beating up on other kids and the neighbourhood kids a rightly terrified of him - then surely, this needs to be stopped fast? And surely it is in the principal's interests to give you all the support and help you need to do this?</p><p></p><p>Please note - I don't know your son, I have no reason to believe he is the problem the principal is claiming. All I am trying to show, is that whichever view you take (is he innocent? Is he a danger?) requires proper investigation and follow-through. And if not - then the problem was clearly so trivial it should never have been raised.</p><p></p><p>Good luck. Go get 'em.</p><p></p><p>Bur final advice - stay unemotional. Document independently. Report widely, as widely as they do (if not more) and make any requests for information as provable as possible (hence Witz's suggestion for registered letter instead of email - although a broadcast email cannot be tapered with easily, generally evidence of attempt to tamper can do a lot of harm; principal could tamper with what was received at the school, but unless the principal can access other people's files, he/she can't be sure to have rewritten every single copy).</p><p></p><p>Good luck!</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 121400, member: 1991"] "The principal's position is that they cannot investigate because it didn't "happen" at school." If that is the case, then the principal should have totally stayed out of it and not even viewed the tapes. Catch 22 - can't have it both ways. Therefore - ALL references to this from any school staff member or to any school staff member, boils down to merely spreading unsubstantiated rumour. difficult child should not be liable for any disciplinary action from the school, if the school cannot get involved. And yet, this sounds ridiculous. Which means - the principal's statement that the school cannot get involved is patently untrue, because the line of logic simply does not follow. Of course, we do know that education systems are often illogical. What has happened - allegations have been made. The principal HAS got involved, to the extent of passing information to others, of meeting with you, of opening discussions with you, and being openly critical of difficult child. Principal IS involved. Evidence - there were tapes, and allegations. There appear to be no records current, in terms of any written information or viewable information (I also suspect the tapes' convenient absence). There should at least be transcripts of allegations made by other students, even if names of students have been removed from those transcripts. Anyone making an allegation should be prepared to follow through and openly witness. Evidence - it is highly likely that any tapes involved HAVE now been erased. Either because the tapes were needed to be recycled, or because the principal made more out of the incident than necessary and is now trying to save face. Or the tapes may only have been REPORTED to have been taped over. Which brings me to - who is responsible for the CCTV on the bus? Why do they do it, what is their aim? I would think the main aim would be to document accurately any incidents on the bus for further action where necessary; to be able to go back and view footage and determine what really was going on. If that is the reason, then such tapes would be kept. If no incidents happen, the tapes would get taped over as a matter of course. A lot of stores with CCTV recycle their tapes. I mean, if you tape for a month and there are no incidents, no armed robberies, no thefts in that time - then why keep the tapes? But in case there ARE problems, most systems will have a series of tapes to cover, say a fortnight or a month, and then begin taping over. Any footage needed to verify a problem or back up a case should be kept. Failure to keep the footage is an admission that it was not a concern. And now to responsibility - in Australia (so why not elsewhere?) the school is responsible for the students from the moment they leave their home and travel to school, to the time they get home from whatever mode of transport they were using. The same thing applies to employers, re Workers Compensation. I had a fall on the railway station steps on the way to work, and the time I had to take off to get my wounds treated was dealt with as Worker's Comp. If the journey is broken (for example, you stop off to do your grocery shopping on the way home) then the cover stops at the point where you deviated from your usual route. But with schools, it can extend further. When difficult child 3 was bashed outside our home right on sunset (several hours after the bully had got home from school) the principal was still able to do something, because the bully was still wearing his school uniform. The bully was therefore an identifiable student of the school and because his bad behaviour brought the school into disrepute, the principal was obliged (and more than willing) to act. OK, the extent of the action was to increase supervision to ensure the bully couldn't get anywhere near difficult child 3 at school, but we were OK with that. We knew that nothing more could be done, without the boy's parents being prepared to acknowledge that their son is a problem (because the father is the problem, from our observations since). I've gone in and taken photos of various activities occurring outside school hours, but due to large numbers of kids from the same school meeting together with inadequate parental supervision. When I am aware of such a situation, I keep my camera with me, but I remove difficult child 3 from the situation, because he's been wrongly accused before, of being a ringleader (as if other kids would follow HIM). I also shadowed difficult child 3, to make sure that any statements such as "your son was throwing rocks at my kids, he started it," could be proven totally wrong, at least to my own satisfaction. And the other vital information we were given by the police, when difficult child 3's bullies escalated their actions to the point of drawing blood, was to document all events AND report them to the police. We were told to call the police, even if a kid merely swears at him. The cops won't necessarily do anything, but they will document it, we were told, and if there is ever a more serious problem then that documentation will often make it easier to follow a pattern of problem behaviour by others. difficult child 3 now knows this and if anything, it encourages him to keep his nose clean. ANY hint that he was at all involved in escalating an incident, will also come out on the record. He knows to do absolutely nothing to provoke, but to come home, or call me on his mobile phone, or go to a safe house (we've set up a few cooperative neighbours to help rescue him in times of trouble). I might seem to be digressing here, but this sort of problem is often all linked in. Other kids saying things that may or may not be true - you have the right, the community responsibility, to check the stories out. Just asking your son is not enough - ANY kid would deny wrongdoing, it's natural. Just taking the word of a skilful interrogator with an axe to grind - also invalid. Either the situation requires investigation, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then all records, notes, emails etc should NOT be deleted, but should be kept on his file with a covering letter to say that no evidence for these allegations was provided and that therefore no investigation was made. The records must show everything full and complete, because the allegations have been made; at some future time, this may prove relevant (either because he IS a lying little snot, or because he IS being victimised and they need to have a paper trail to chase those responsible). And if the situation DOES require investigation, then you should have access to the same information the investigators do. After all, if your kid IS a lying little snot, you should have the right to do something about it before he gets worse. Leaving a problem like this unattended is asking for trouble - if your kid is violent like this, is also lying about it, is beating up on other kids and the neighbourhood kids a rightly terrified of him - then surely, this needs to be stopped fast? And surely it is in the principal's interests to give you all the support and help you need to do this? Please note - I don't know your son, I have no reason to believe he is the problem the principal is claiming. All I am trying to show, is that whichever view you take (is he innocent? Is he a danger?) requires proper investigation and follow-through. And if not - then the problem was clearly so trivial it should never have been raised. Good luck. Go get 'em. Bur final advice - stay unemotional. Document independently. Report widely, as widely as they do (if not more) and make any requests for information as provable as possible (hence Witz's suggestion for registered letter instead of email - although a broadcast email cannot be tapered with easily, generally evidence of attempt to tamper can do a lot of harm; principal could tamper with what was received at the school, but unless the principal can access other people's files, he/she can't be sure to have rewritten every single copy). Good luck! Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
Have I done a good or bad thing?
Top