Statement from our super

[doctorwho]

Feb 27, 2009 10:40:36 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Feb 27, 2009 9:45:59 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

has your investigation proven this was not a personal issue between the kids ? If so then you'd be right - if no then I'm guessing the kid who 'told' is at must more risk from the alleged perpetrator - no ?

funny how you say "my investigation" with the enormous amount of emotional backlash from posters here and at the SB meeting that may or may not be based on anything but emotions.

but based on that emotional feedback from folks, I think I read the child is troubled and a potential menace to society.

because you have been consistent with your statements that unless facts support a claim- it can't be used --

you just said the kid is the same danger to others as the victim- I disagree with that statement because unless you know different- if this is a personal issue between the two kids- the victim is signifiantly more at risk.

can't have it both ways....

[southsidemom]

Feb 27, 2009 9:38:28 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Feb 27, 2009 9:10:00 GMT -6 jftb said:

The child's alleged offenses (of which he took pictures and sent them to friends) took place before his attendance in district 203. They can't deny him the right to education any more than 204 can. All the parents were asking for in this situation was to move the alleged offender while waiting for trial. This is not a ridiculous request; it's common sense. No one ever said the child shouldn't be able to attend school, just could it please be a different school. The only thing offered to the victim's family was for the attackers to change teams or for the victim to transfer.

BTW, a board member was overheard at Monday's board meeting saying "If only the family had come to us privately, we might have been able to help them." What? More smoke and mirrors, more secretive nonsense. Because the family wouldn't sit down and shut up, take whatever was offered to them, they shouldn't get the same treatment they would have gotten otherwise? Seriously. I can't stand it.

is the alleged attacker any less of a threat to kids at lincoln vs. the alleged victim?

Personally I feel sorry for the attackers as well that they have parents that obviously have their heads in a cloud (which most likely led them to this reckless chain of behavior). Instead of vacationing in Mexico they should have their son in serious counseling so he can grow up to be a man with values and principles instead of a potential criminal. Seems they are turning a blind eye and this will only hurt their son in the long run. I had a parent tell me last night that it was a prank that got out of control. I told the parent that they must be absolutely crazy. Any child should know that the acts committed are definately punishable under the law. A prank is to pull a persons pants down and expose boxers (this happens amongst kids as a joke all the time), but what these kids did tells me that they are not psychologically stable at all. Learning history, math and science is not what they need right now. These kids need professional pyschological help. I think that their parents need some as well.

[researching]

Feb 27, 2009 10:18:33 GMT -6 snerdley said:

Feb 27, 2009 7:40:36 GMT -6 slp said:

THIS GUYS GOT TO GO!

Dist. 204 chief: Blame me if we mishandled assault allegations

www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=275361

Justin Kmitch
Daily Herald
2/27/2009

Superintendent Stephen Daeschner says he accepts any blame for the way Indian Prairie Unit District 204 has handled allegations of a sexual assault involving three middle school students.

Several school board members expressed disappointment in recent days that they didn't learn of the alleged Nov. 11 attack until late January or early February when they read newspaper accounts or heard about it from neighbors.

The parents of the alleged victim notified the staff at Gregory Middle School in Naperville almost immediately after the incident and staff members quickly notified district administrators.

Daeschner, however, didn't share the information with school board members until the father of the alleged victim went public with complaints about the district's handling of the matter.

"That disappointment has certainly been an undertone in my conversations (with some board members) and that's understandable," Daeschner said Thursday. "I still believe the school staff acted appropriately and made the right decisions to handle the situation. I sit here and have to second-guess those decisions (to not alert board members immediately) a lot. So go ahead and lay it all in my lap. I'll take it."

Two boys - a 12-year-old and an 11-year-old, both from Naperville - have been charged with felony counts of criminal sexual abuse and criminal sexual assault against another boy stemming from a November incident at a home on the city's south side. The 11-year-old also faces a misdemeanor count of battery for a separate incident involving the same alleged victim - this time in the halls of Gregory.

The 12-year-old transferred out of District 204 this week to Lincoln Junior High School in neighboring Naperville Unit District 203.

According to Will County civil court records, the two boys are accused of tying up their 11-year-old classmate and sexually assaulting him in the unsupervised home of the accused 12-year-old student.

Daeschner said school staff immediately separated the boys at Gregory by moving lockers and ensuring they were not in the same classrooms. Those actions, he said, have kept the school safe without disrupting the educational environment.

"Nothing jumps out at me to make me think we might have made a different decision," Daeschner said. "There's not a lot of things we would change as far as how we handled the situation, but I hate that the community is so vicious in terms of understanding why we do what we do."

The victim's parents have repeatedly demanded the remaining alleged offender be transferred to one of the district's five other middle schools.

Officials have said the accused boys could not be moved to an alternative school program because the alleged assault took place off school grounds and the youths were in no danger of being expelled from District 204.

The school district's attorney, Jack Canna, has warned board members they have little, if any, authority to discipline students for off-campus actions.

Daeschner said he thinks residents would have a different opinion of the board's action - or inaction - if they were privy to documentation and closed-door discussions regarding the juveniles.

"I think it rounds out the situation to know what we know and it does make it difficult when one side can talk about their perception, wrong or right," he said. "When one chooses to voice some of that stuff, it discredits others. Fortunately I'm not in the discrediting business."

Is this designed to take the heat off the SB members as we approach the election?

DD takes the blame, so the incumbents can get re-elected?

We will blame you Dr. D. AND the SB. It is not mutually exclusive. The SB HIRED YOU!

[steckdad]

Feb 27, 2009 10:50:07 GMT -6 sashimi said:

Steckdad, I agree with you that most of us are still basing a lot of what we think should (or should have) been done on rumors and emotions.

I do think that if what I have heard is true...in addition to the brutal sexual assault, that photos were taken and shared in school and the victim was assaulted at school, the attackers should have been removed and put into a different school. One of the comments I have heard from the administration is that if they had done this, they would have received a backlash from the parents of the school that these kids were moved to.

Perhaps as the protectors of our children, the District should have sought court intervention to have the attackers evaluated to see if they in fact do present a risk to fellow students (there was enough probable cause to charge them so I would imagine that the courts could order such an evaluation if the students wanted to remain in the district).

well thought out sashimi. but the slippery slope here is the SD seeking court intervention on a sexual abuse case that happened off campus. hopefully the assault that happened the day after was addressed.

also, the SD has a responsibility to create a safe learning environment, but are not necessarily protectors of our children as you put it.

[steckdad]

Feb 27, 2009 11:28:18 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Feb 27, 2009 10:40:36 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

funny how you say "my investigation" with the enormous amount of emotional backlash from posters here and at the SB meeting that may or may not be based on anything but emotions.

but based on that emotional feedback from folks, I think I read the child is troubled and a potential menace to society.

because you have been consistent with your statements that unless facts support a claim- it can't be used --

you just said the kid is the same danger to others as the victim- I disagree with that statement because unless you know different- if this is a personal issue between the two kids- the victim is signifiantly more at risk.

can't have it both ways....

agreed on fact vs. rumor. Just throwing it out there..

I would think that if the allegations are true, then he would be a threat to all kids not just the alleged victim.

[steckdad]

Feb 27, 2009 11:59:26 GMT -6 southsidemom said:

Feb 27, 2009 9:38:28 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

is the alleged attacker any less of a threat to kids at lincoln vs. the alleged victim?

Personally I feel sorry for the attackers as well that they have parents that obviously have their heads in a cloud (which most likely led them to this reckless chain of behavior). Instead of vacationing in Mexico they should have their son in serious counseling so he can grow up to be a man with values and principles instead of a potential criminal. Seems they are turning a blind eye and this will only hurt their son in the long run. I had a parent tell me last night that it was a prank that got out of control. I told the parent that they must be absolutely crazy. Any child should know that the acts committed are definately punishable under the law. A prank is to pull a persons pants down and expose boxers (this happens amongst kids as a joke all the time), but what these kids did tells me that they are not psychologically stable at all. Learning history, math and science is not what they need right now. These kids need professional pyschological help. I think that their parents need some as well.

so you think they are a threat at 203?

[Arch]

Feb 27, 2009 13:11:03 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

so you think they are a threat at 203?

Personally.. Yes.

Here is why:

They already stepped over a line with respect to one individual. That means the moral compass that keeps normal folk from doing drastic things to people is already broken/misaligned. Do you know where else the line of behavior is blurred/non existent where normal acting people would never venture?

It's a risk that is not worth taking, IMO.

[popquizkid]

Indian Prairie Community Unit School District 204 pg 351
Page 1 of 1
General School Administration

Administration in Absence of Policy
From time to time, events will occur in the District where an officially adopted policy will not
be present to serve as an administrative guide. When no applicable policy exists, the
Superintendent is authorized to act in what he/she thinks to be in the best interests of the
District. The Superintendent will consider the welfare of the District, the professional code of
ethics, and past practice, prior to taking any action.
The Superintendent is responsible for notifying the Board when he/she must act outside of
adopted policies and for recommending--when appropriate--any policies that may be
needed to cover future recurrences. His/her decisions will be subject to review by the Board
at its next meeting.
Adopted: 12/13/00

[popquizkid]

above is copied directly from the IPSD policy manual.

[southsidemom]

Mar 6, 2009 12:01:47 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

Indian Prairie Community Unit School District 204 pg 351
Page 1 of 1
General School Administration

Administration in Absence of Policy
From time to time, events will occur in the District where an officially adopted policy will not
be present to serve as an administrative guide. When no applicable policy exists, the
Superintendent is authorized to act in what he/she thinks to be in the best interests of the
District. The Superintendent will consider the welfare of the District, the professional code of
ethics, and past practice, prior to taking any action.
The Superintendent is responsible for notifying the Board when he/she must act outside of
adopted policies and for recommending--when appropriate--any policies that may be
needed to cover future recurrences. His/her decisions will be subject to review by the Board
at its next meeting.
Adopted: 12/13/00

Please don't tell me you are surprised that DrD did not fulfill his responsibility.....not our DrD!

[popquizkid]

My understanding is that Dr D & the Board are clinging to the argument that they are unable to act because of the lack of policy. That's an unfortunate position to take, as a policy has been adopted to cover situations where there isn't a policy. A policy, I might add, that gives considerable power to the superintendent to act and delineates his responsibility to report his actions to the Board.

I know that much of the ire has been addressed to MM for his uncooperative attitude and ill-chosen vocabulary, but I think that this policy clearly shows that the person who is ultimately responsible is the person we are paying to run the district. Will there be any repercussions for his actions?

[Arch]

Mar 6, 2009 15:00:40 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

My understanding is that Dr D & the Board are clinging to the argument that they are unable to act because of the lack of policy. That's an unfortunate position to take, as a policy has been adopted to cover situations where there isn't a policy. A policy, I might add, that gives considerable power to the superintendent to act and delineates his responsibility to report his actions to the Board.

I know that much of the ire has been addressed to MM for his uncooperative attitude and ill-chosen vocabulary, but I think that this policy clearly shows that the person who is ultimately responsible is the person we are paying to run the district. Will there be any repercussions for his actions?

I hope there are for both, because I believe both seem to be exhibiting a pattern of unacceptable professional ethics and behavior which set a very bad example and lead for the rest of the district to follow behind.

[popquizkid]

Contract Non-renewal
If the Board decides not to re-employ the Superintendent, it will notify him or her of that
decision in writing no later than April 1 of the year in which the contract expires, unless
otherwise specified in the contract. The specific reason(s) for not renewing the contract also
will be stated in writing. Within ten (10) days of receiving a dismissal notice, the
Superintendent may request a closed hearing with the Board.
The Superintendent's contract may be discontinued at any time by mutual agreement of the
contracting parties or by the Board at any time for just cause."

again, from the board's policy manual. i'm not defending MM and i can't imagine a situation in which i would begin defending him, but i think it bears metioning that i haven't found a poll that asks the board for Dr. D's resignation.

[Arch]

Is dereliction of duty 'just cause'... that duty being to notify the board of issues of this magnitude that exist in a school within the district...?

[popquizkid]

Mar 6, 2009 15:22:35 GMT -6 Arch said:

Is dereliction of duty 'just cause'... that duty being to notify the board of issues of this magnitude that exist in a school within the district...?

it would be an interesting poll to see what the public thinks constitutes cause....