Statement from our super

[snoopy]

Mar 6, 2009 15:56:46 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

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....

Do we have to agree on just one?

• failure to follow policy
  
• unethical conduct
  
• failure to provide leadership and attempts to deflect responsibility
  
• perpetuating an emotionally hostile and unhealthy environment for the students
  
• failure to resolve a significant distraction within the learning environment
  
• fostering distrust of school personnel on the part of students and distrust of district administration on the part of parents
  
• failure to live up to the values and mission of the district
  
• lack of accountability to the stakeholders/public
  

[steckdad]

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?

My understanding was that the law steered the admin in the direction the went with handling the gregory situation....

[popquizkid]

Mar 6, 2009 19:08:23 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

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?

My understanding was that the law steered the admin in the direction the went with handling the gregory situation....

"However, if a student is not in a safe environment, or a request is made by the family, a student could be moved to another school within the district. All parents in this case have been offered the option of moving to a different school, but have so far declined the offer. A forced move to one of our other schools is an option, but we have concerns with how welcomed this forced move would be received by the new school community and the impact it may have on students involved. "

[steckdad]

Mar 6, 2009 21:10:10 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

Mar 6, 2009 19:08:23 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

My understanding was that the law steered the admin in the direction the went with handling the gregory situation....

"However, if a student is not in a safe environment, or a request is made by the family, a student could be moved to another school within the district. All parents in this case have been offered the option of moving to a different school, but have so far declined the offer. A forced move to one of our other schools is an option, but we have concerns with how welcomed this forced move would be received by the new school community and the impact it may have on students involved. "

please explain your angle because I don't understand. This quote does not mention law or policy.

and IMO their is nothing heinous about the quote.

[popquizkid]

Mar 7, 2009 10:08:44 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Mar 6, 2009 21:10:10 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

"However, if a student is not in a safe environment, or a request is made by the family, a student could be moved to another school within the district. All parents in this case have been offered the option of moving to a different school, but have so far declined the offer. A forced move to one of our other schools is an option, but we have concerns with how welcomed this forced move would be received by the new school community and the impact it may have on students involved. "

please explain your angle because I don't understand. This quote does not mention law or policy.

and IMO their is nothing heinous about the quote.

Steckdad,


Let me preface my remarks by saying that I hope I'm presenting my thoughts in a respectful manner - it's so difficult to impart tone in an email. My intention is to listen to your thoughts on this matter as well and hopefully learn from your and others' comments.

I don't think there is anything particularly heinous about the quote from Dr. D's letter - just inconsistent with previous statements.

I may have my facts wrong here, but my understanding is that the victim's family and the larger Gregory community have asked that the alleged attackers be removed from Gregory attendance - with no qualifiers as to where the alleged attackers be moved to. As I recall, the response from the District that has been reported is that there is no policy that allows for this action.

From Dr. D's statement in the same letter as quoted above, I gather that changing the alleged attackers' placement to an alternative school (like Indian Plains) or to home-bound education were not options the District could exercise and stay in accordance with the law.

Again, from Dr. D's statement the option of forcing a change to another middle school within the District, however, was a possibility but was dismissed because of the potential effect on the families in the receiving school's attendance.

Bottom-line, there was another legal remedy available to the district but the District chose not to exercise this option.

While I appreciate the fact that the SB and Dr. D are taking families' opinions into consideration, I can't help but feel that their consideration should begin with the family of the victim.

If Gregory is able to meet the alleged attacker's need for supervision in order to assure the safety of all in Gregory's attendance, than why couldn't another school in the District meet those needs while assuring the safety of their attendance?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the information, but my understanding is that the victim's family doesn't want their son to have to worry about seeing his alleged attacker at school each day and it appears that both SB policy and the law allow for an option in which that goal could be achieved.

[steckdad]

Mar 7, 2009 13:15:56 GMT -6 popquizkid said:

Mar 7, 2009 10:08:44 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

please explain your angle because I don't understand. This quote does not mention law or policy.

and IMO their is nothing heinous about the quote.

Steckdad,


Let me preface my remarks by saying that I hope I'm presenting my thoughts in a respectful manner - it's so difficult to impart tone in an email. My intention is to listen to your thoughts on this matter as well and hopefully learn from your and others' comments.

I don't think there is anything particularly heinous about the quote from Dr. D's letter - just inconsistent with previous statements.

I may have my facts wrong here, but my understanding is that the victim's family and the larger Gregory community have asked that the alleged attackers be removed from Gregory attendance - with no qualifiers as to where the alleged attackers be moved to. As I recall, the response from the District that has been reported is that there is no policy that allows for this action.

From Dr. D's statement in the same letter as quoted above, I gather that changing the alleged attackers' placement to an alternative school (like Indian Plains) or to home-bound education were not options the District could exercise and stay in accordance with the law.

Again, from Dr. D's statement the option of forcing a change to another middle school within the District, however, was a possibility but was dismissed because of the potential effect on the families in the receiving school's attendance.

Bottom-line, there was another legal remedy available to the district but the District chose not to exercise this option.

While I appreciate the fact that the SB and Dr. D are taking families' opinions into consideration, I can't help but feel that their consideration should begin with the family of the victim.

If Gregory is able to meet the alleged attacker's need for supervision in order to assure the safety of all in Gregory's attendance, than why couldn't another school in the District meet those needs while assuring the safety of their attendance?

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the information, but my understanding is that the victim's family doesn't want their son to have to worry about seeing his alleged attacker at school each day and it appears that both SB policy and the law allow for an option in which that goal could be achieved.

very well stated reply popquiz. after hearing from the SB about what has occurred since the alleged incident, It sounds as if they took steps To ensure a safe learning environment for all students at gregory. I realize for some that emotions will not allow them to accept anything short of dismissal from gregory as a viable option. I totally understand where that train of thought is coming from

[d204mom]

Mar 6, 2009 19:08:23 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

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?

My understanding was that the law steered the admin in the direction the went with handling the gregory situation....

That's just spin, not true. Daeschner could reassign a child tomorrow if he wanted to.

From today's Naperville Sun:

Indeed, in his Feb. 23 presentation to the District 204 board, Canna made it more than clear that the board can assign students to whichever school it sees fit.

"As long as that decision is not arbitrary in nature, the administration would have the right to do that," Canna said. "It could be in connection to a discipline situation, it could be in connection with a variety of other situations."

BTW - Canna is the district's attorney.