The mother, the child, the school board and the psychic

[Van Basten II]

The problem is that the cunt, sorry the psychic has no contact or way to know this, how the fuck can you get liable in this case.

I can understand if it's someone related or in some contact with the kid but in that case it's someone out of the blue who never saw the kid knows absolutely nothing about him

By the way why the hell a school employee would consult a psychic at the first place, these morons educating the children are as scary as a molestor ?

Edited June 21, 2008 by Van Basten II

[Tim McG]

The problem is that the cunt, sorry the psychic has no contact or way to know this, how the fuck can you get liable in this case.

I can understand if it's someone related or in some contact with the kid but in that case it's someone out of the blue who never saw the kid knows absoluty nothing about him

By the way why the hell a school employee would consult a psychic at the first place, these morons educating the children are as scary as a molestor

Once again, any allegation of child abuse must be reported. Period. No contest.

Again, the school employee was a TA who then reported to the teacher who, by law, reported to the admin. staff....by law, VB. We don't have an option here.

Who the TA went to was not made known until after the reporting. And even if it was, we still are required to report it. I seriously don't know why this is so puzzling.

Edited June 21, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Jazzmoose]

I seriously don't know why this is so puzzling.

Probably because you're changing the argument with each post...

[Dan Gould]

Its absolutely stupefying. There are two possibilities that a teacher might encounter.

"every INSTANCE" refers to physical evidence of abuse or eyewitness testimony, by the child or someone else. THAT is an "instance of abuse".

The other possibility is an "allegation" of abuse, and it is covered in the second half of the statute, the infamous "OR"

"which you REASONABLY SUSPECT to have occurred"

"reasonably suspect" - this is designed to cover ALLEGATIONS, which must be REASONABLE.

No allegation by a psychic, but most especially an allegation by a psychic which has no specificity, can be described as reasonable. It can't even be described as an allegation.

Gee Tim, the psychic said a girl with a first name starting with "V". What if she had said a first name starting with "M"?

Call in the parents of Mary, Melissa, Melody, Maura and Marilyn? That's when it would get hairy for you and the school administration, because all of those parents would raise holy hell over what was done on the claims of a freaking psychic.

[Van Basten II]

The problem is that the cunt, sorry the psychic has no contact or way to know this, how the fuck can you get liable in this case.

I can understand if it's someone related or in some contact with the kid but in that case it's someone out of the blue who never saw the kid knows absoluty nothing about him

By the way why the hell a school employee would consult a psychic at the first place, these morons educating the children are as scary as a molestor

Once again, any allegation of child abuse must be reported. Period. No contest.

Again, the school employee was a TA who then reported to the teacher who, by law, reported to the admin. staff....by law, VB. We don't have an option here.

Who the TA went to was not made known until after the reporting. And even if it was, we still are required to report it. I seriously don't know why this is so puzzling.

First of the case being in Canada, hope those rules don't apply,.

Second although it was done with good intentions, i hope you agree this is a dumb rule, think about it , i could easily email to a bunch of teachers i've never met that some of their pupils i've never saw are being molested and sent the poor teachers into a frenzy.

[Dan Gould]

Psychic:

A student in your class is being abused.

Teacher:

Really? Who?

Psychic:

The stars say that it is a strange name, a name you don't see every day.

Teacher informs Principal.

Principal:

Well, what are some of the strange names of kids in your class? We must get to the bottom of this! We must protect our jobs! I mean, the children, we must protect the children.

Teacher:

Well, I've got a couple of celebrity kids - Sailor Brinkley and Rumor Willis. Oh, and that Egyptian exchange student - Ahmenidijad. Don't see that name every day.

Principal:

Call Children's Services! Arrest the parents! I'm not losing my credentials!

[Dan Gould]

OK, here is a serious question for Tim:

The statute says

"or which you reasonably suspect to have occurred to a child"

Why does the word "reasonably" modify "suspect to have occurred"?

The legislature could have simply said "or which you suspect to have occurred to a child". They didn't. They included the modifier "reasonably".

What does "reasonably" mean in this context?

What would, in your opinion, constitute a reasonable suspicion under the statute and what would constitute an unreasonable suspicion under the statute?

We now know that a psychic who doesn't even give a name constitutes a "reasonable suspicion". How about tea leaves read by experts? A Ouji board? What about interrogating a Magic 8 Ball? Don't laugh, its track record is at least as good as your average psychic.

[Tim McG]

The problem is that the cunt, sorry the psychic has no contact or way to know this, how the fuck can you get liable in this case.

I can understand if it's someone related or in some contact with the kid but in that case it's someone out of the blue who never saw the kid knows absoluty nothing about him

By the way why the hell a school employee would consult a psychic at the first place, these morons educating the children are as scary as a molestor

Once again, any allegation of child abuse must be reported. Period. No contest.

Again, the school employee was a TA who then reported to the teacher who, by law, reported to the admin. staff....by law, VB. We don't have an option here.

Who the TA went to was not made known until after the reporting. And even if it was, we still are required to report it. I seriously don't know why this is so puzzling.

First of the case being in Canada, hope those rules don't apply,.

Second although it was done with good intentions, i hope you agree this is a dumb rule, think about it , i could easily email to a bunch of teachers i've never met that some of their pupils i've never saw are being molested and sent the poor teachers into a frenzy.

You would be surprised how often false reports are made to accomplish that very same purpose or worse....to get a teacher in trouble. According to the law, we still have to investigate them.

And I do agree that this particular teacher assistant probably isn't the brightest bulb in the stadium. I mean, a psychic? Right there that should tell you this TA is one brick short of a load....but we are still required to report it. Sad, but true. It is the law. Let's just be sure we aren't blaming the teacher or the administration here. They were only doing their job.

This whole business rests solely upon the soulders of a, shall we say, less-than-circumspect TA.

Edited June 21, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Psychic:

A student in your class is being abused.

Teacher:

Really? Who?

Psychic:

The stars say that it is a strange name, a name you don't see every day.

Teacher informs Principal.

Principal:

Well, what are some of the strange names of kids in your class? We must get to the bottom of this! We must protect our jobs! I mean, the children, we must protect the children.

Teacher:

Well, I've got a couple of celebrity kids - Sailor Brinkley and Rumor Willis. Oh, and that Egyptian exchange student - Ahmenidijad. Don't see that name every day.

Principal:

Call Children's Services! Arrest the parents! I'm not losing my credentials!

Speaking of abuse....

Go back and read the article, Dan. The person making the report was a teacher assistant. A non-credentialed person with little or no college education. Obviously, not a terribly bright individual either.

You want to gang up on somebody, fire up on her. The teacher and the administration were only following the chain of command set down by the law which governs our required response to an allegation of abuse.

This is easy to understand, Dan. We aren't building a rocketship here, OK?

Edited June 21, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Psychic:

A student in your class is being abused.

Teacher:

Really? Who?

Psychic:

The stars say that it is a strange name, a name you don't see every day.

Teacher informs Principal.

Principal:

Well, what are some of the strange names of kids in your class? We must get to the bottom of this! We must protect our jobs! I mean, the children, we must protect the children.

Teacher:

Well, I've got a couple of celebrity kids - Sailor Brinkley and Rumor Willis. Oh, and that Egyptian exchange student - Ahmenidijad. Don't see that name every day.

Principal:

Call Children's Services! Arrest the parents! I'm not losing my credentials!

Speaking of abuse....

Go back and read the article, Dan. The person making the report was a teacher assistant. A non-credentialed person with little or no college education. Obviously, not a terribly bright individual either.

You want to gang up on somebody, fire up on her. The teacher and the administration were only following the chain of command set down by the law which governs our required response to an allegation of abuse.

This is easy to understand, Dan. We aren't building a rocketship here, OK?

No, only to a foolish person like you. The T.A. reported what her psychic said - and the first thing the teacher should have asked is, does this constitute a reasonable suspicion? No, it does not. "Case" closed, and sign up the T.A. for James Randi's email list.

[Tim McG]

Psychic:

A student in your class is being abused.

Teacher:

Really? Who?

Psychic:

The stars say that it is a strange name, a name you don't see every day.

Teacher informs Principal.

Principal:

Well, what are some of the strange names of kids in your class? We must get to the bottom of this! We must protect our jobs! I mean, the children, we must protect the children.

Teacher:

Well, I've got a couple of celebrity kids - Sailor Brinkley and Rumor Willis. Oh, and that Egyptian exchange student - Ahmenidijad. Don't see that name every day.

Principal:

Call Children's Services! Arrest the parents! I'm not losing my credentials!

Speaking of abuse....

Go back and read the article, Dan. The person making the report was a teacher assistant. A non-credentialed person with little or no college education. Obviously, not a terribly bright individual either.

You want to gang up on somebody, fire up on her. The teacher and the administration were only following the chain of command set down by the law which governs our required response to an allegation of abuse.

This is easy to understand, Dan. We aren't building a rocketship here, OK?

No, only to a foolish person like you. The T.A. reported what her psychic said - and the first thing the teacher should have asked is, does this constitute a reasonable suspicion? No, it does not. "Case" closed, and sign up the T.A. for James Randi's email list.

In your opinion, Dan. Not in the opinion of the law. The TA was the first contact for this incident, not the teacher. The teacher, by law, correctly followed legal procedure which she is required, by law, to do.

It is not our call to make after the TA has determined this is a situation in need of the attention of CPS. Once the allegation is made we must report on it. Period. End of discussion. Game over.

A psychic, however idiotic we may think she is or the people who consult them are, is still a living, breathing, thinking human being. On that level and on that level alone, however shaky her evidence is, we are still required to report the allegation.

A game board, tea and a child's toy are things, Dan; inanimate objects.They by themselves cannot talk or think or see or reason, OK? I thought you said this was a serious question.

You don't like the law then write up a petition to change it on the next election ballot. Until then, you can go get your teaching credential, get a teaching position job and ignore all the allegations of child abuse you want. People like Alexander and myself will obey the laws of our land until a better way comes along to change how it's done now. Understand?

Edited June 21, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Parkertown]

You are aware [i hope] that the public we serve pay a great deal of attention to psychics. You know, the same public whose kids we teach and the CPS folks have to follow up on....by law.

This is the line I really like...

Source?

Who pays attention to psychics?

Are these the same people who watch that show "Medium"?

Wacko...

Edited June 21, 2008 by Parkertown

[Jim Alfredson]

I am offended by the anti-psychic bias in this thread.

[Dan Gould]

Psychic:

A student in your class is being abused.

Teacher:

Really? Who?

Psychic:

The stars say that it is a strange name, a name you don't see every day.

Teacher informs Principal.

Principal:

Well, what are some of the strange names of kids in your class? We must get to the bottom of this! We must protect our jobs! I mean, the children, we must protect the children.

Teacher:

Well, I've got a couple of celebrity kids - Sailor Brinkley and Rumor Willis. Oh, and that Egyptian exchange student - Ahmenidijad. Don't see that name every day.

Principal:

Call Children's Services! Arrest the parents! I'm not losing my credentials!

Speaking of abuse....

Go back and read the article, Dan. The person making the report was a teacher assistant. A non-credentialed person with little or no college education. Obviously, not a terribly bright individual either.

You want to gang up on somebody, fire up on her. The teacher and the administration were only following the chain of command set down by the law which governs our required response to an allegation of abuse.

This is easy to understand, Dan. We aren't building a rocketship here, OK?

No, only to a foolish person like you. The T.A. reported what her psychic said - and the first thing the teacher should have asked is, does this constitute a reasonable suspicion? No, it does not. "Case" closed, and sign up the T.A. for James Randi's email list.

In your opinion, Dan. Not in the opinion of the law. The TA was the first contact for this incident, not the teacher. The teacher, by law, correctly followed legal procedure which she is required, by law, to do.

It is not our call to make after the TA has determined this is a situation in need of the attention of CPS. Once the allegation is made we must report on it. Period. End of discussion. Game over.

A psychic, however idiotic we may think she is or the people who consult them are, is still a living, breathing, thinking human being. On that level and on that level alone, however shaky her evidence is, we are still required to report the allegation.

A game board, tea and a child's toy are things, Dan; inanimate objects.They by themselves cannot talk or think or see or reason, OK? I thought you said this was a serious question.

You don't like the law then write up a petition to change it on the next election ballot. Until then, you can go get your teaching credential, get a teaching position job and ignore all the allegations of child abuse you want. People like Alexander and myself will obey the laws of our land until a better way comes along to change how it's done now. Understand?

You still refuse to answer the question:

What does "reasonable" mean in the statute? What constitutes "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspicions? "Reasonable" suspicions come from living, breathing, thinking psychics? And "unreasonable" ones come from a game board, tea leaves and a child's toy?

Why was "reasonable" inserted into the language of the statute?

Its time for you to simply tell the truth:

As a matter of policy, teachers are told that "reasonable" has no meaning. The statute is to be interpreted as if "reasonable suspicion" has the meaning of "any suspicion".

Just tell the truth: that is how the statute is interpreted. Not to protect children but to protect your own job.

Otherwise, tell us what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspicions are. That's the letter of the law! What does it mean? Tell us.

[Alexander]

No dead horse here.

Nobody witnessed any abuse, nor were there any visible signs of abuse on the girl.

Can you re-read the article and show me where the "known instance" of child abuse is discussed and described? If it's a known instance, then there has to be some details there. Yet there are none.

Since there was none, the only other choice (in your California law example) is reasonable suspicion. I remain unconvinced that the word of a random psychic who didn't even name a particular child is "reasonable suspicion".

No, but the girl was non-verbal autistic AND she was displaying sexualized behavior. If she WAS being abused, she couldn't name her abuser AND she would engage in the described behavior. If a two year old girl comes up to you and starts tugging on the front of your pants like she wants to get your belt off, that's reason enough to be suspicious of abuse. It doesn't matter that she ISN'T being abused and just liked your belt buckle. As a mandated reporter, you have to report it. And, yes, it sucks when innocent people are investigated for things they didn't do. Allegations of this kind can ruin a person's life. It can lead to the loss of a job, it can lead to divorce, it can even lead to suicide. It sucks, but protecting the kids who ARE being abused is really more important to the state than protecting the few innocents who get caught in the net. All we can do is trust that the system of due process will eventually clear the person of suspicion (but by then the damage is often already done. God help you if you're a teacher accused of abusing a student. It doesn't matter if the charges are disproven: You'll never teach again).

Honestly, as screwed up as this situation was, the fact is that the TA DID have reason to suspect abuse (based on the girl's behavior, not the psychic's prediction). Imagine the same situation in which the TA was talking to a friend who says, "I just read a story about an autistic girl who was abused and did the following things..." The TA might well say, "Gee, I have a girl in my class who does the same things." At that point, she would have to report. I don't know what was going on in the TA's head, but it might well have been the case that if Victoria was NOT displaying sexualized behavior, she wouldn't have bothered to say anything. In that case, it's not that the psychic SAID " this girl is being abused," but rather that what the psychic said triggered a chain of thought that lead to the TA to conclude, "My God. Victoria is being abused."

[Alexander]

Its time for you to simply tell the truth:

As a matter of policy, teachers are told that "reasonable" has no meaning. The statute is to be interpreted as if "reasonable suspicion" has the meaning of "any suspicion".

Just tell the truth: that is how the statute is interpreted. Not to protect children but to protect your own job.

Otherwise, tell us what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspicions are. That's the letter of the law! What does it mean? Tell us.

Well, yeah, Dan. We're teachers, not lawyers. It is not our job to interpret the law, simply to carry it out. Back when *I* was working as a TA, I had to report things to the teacher that my student said (I was a one-to-one). One day he came in to school and told me that he had been in a fight at a party over the weekend (this is a middle school student). His uncle was throwing the party. There was booze. The guy my student fought with was an adult and drunk. His mom broke up the fight and there was no harm done. That said, my student BEGGED me not to tell the teacher what had happened. I told him that I have no choice: If he didn't want the teacher to know about it, he shouldn't have told me about it. As a mandated reporter, teachers and TAs are no different than cops: We just enforce the letter of the law and let the laywers and judges work on what the law meant. If we let something slide, even something as seemingly irrelevant as my student's story (or the word of a psychic), it can come back to bite us in the ass. So yes, we are trying to protect ourselves AS WELL as the children. That's just how the system works. Put yourself in the teacher's shoes, Dan. Do YOU want to be the one the state comes looking for if it DOES turn out that the girl was abused? Because I will tell you one thing, Dan: They honestly will not care about your INTERPRETATION of the word "reasonable." They will fire you, fine you, and possibly even imprison you. I don't want to go to jail (I WORK in a jail. I have no desire to become a perminent resident). Not even in the name of being right.

[Dan Gould]

If I were a teacher, I would demand instruction on the meaning of the word "reasonable" in the statute.

Otherwise, I would apply my standard of "reasonableness" and say, "Miss T.A., you're an idiot for going to a psychic. You're a bigger idiot for believing what you were told."

[Alexander]

If I were a teacher, I would demand instruction on the meaning of the word "reasonable" in the statute.

Otherwise, I would apply my standard of "reasonableness" and say, "Miss T.A., you're an idiot for going to a psychic. You're a bigger idiot for believing what you were told."

And 99% of the time there would be no problem. You and the TA would move on and that would be the end of it. But in that 1% case where the kid really was being abused, psychic or no psychic, you're the one who would be hung out to dry. Because it is ALWAYS the teacher who pays in the end.

My very first teaching job was a massive failure. I was teaching four English classes (all tenth grade). Three out of the four were going great. No problems whatsoever. The fourth class was a disaster area. I made the mistake of snapping at them the first day, and that was it: I lost them and never got them back. As the semester dragged on, things went from bad to worse. No matter what I tried to regain control, it failed. It didn't help that I had a brand new supervisor in my department and that the advice she gave me turned out to be horribly wrong. I have since learned that you NEVER raise your voice. Never try to talk over a noisy class. Just stop talking. Eventually, they get the idea and shut up. But I didn't know that. They didn't cover this in grad school. The problem never arose in my student teaching (where the classes were well established by the teacher by the time I showed up). The end result was that I was a successful teacher in three out of four classes, but I had to fight that fourth class the whole way (it didn't help that the fourth class was my largest class (31 students) and had the largest number of low ability kids and behavior problems). I have also since learned that no matter what your students do, you never relinquish control. But my supervisor thought it would be helpful to give me a more experienced teacher to "pinch hit" when things got rough. I never should have taken her up on that. After the first time I turned to the other teacher, I really lost that class. They saw I couldn't handle them alone and it just made them worse. Again and again I asked the administration for help. They promised me the moon: We'll remove the trouble makers. We'll split the class into two more managable sections. Send the troublemakers to the office everytime they misbehave, even if you have to send the whole class down. The administration never delivered on any of their promises, and when I did send the kids down to the office, the office staff started to hate me (again, NEVER send a kid out of the room unless he's threatening to hurt someone).

It was a mess. By the time November came, I was at the end of my rope. I would come home from work and cry, that's how bad it got. The adminstration was threatening me now, telling me that if I couldn't get my class under control, they would fire me. Then all hell broke loose.

One of my students threw a pen at me and hit me in the back of the head. In that moment, I could see exactly how to handle the situation. Turn around, tell them that such behavior was unacceptable and that the perpetrator would be punished, and go back to the lesson. But I snapped. I turned around an screamed, "Who threw that?" Nobody spoke (of course they didn't...I had united them against me). Then I said, "When I found out the little prick who threw that, there's going to be big trouble!"

That was it. I was gone after that. It doesn't matter how it went down. It doesn't matter that the administration reversed it's position 180 degrees (from "You made a mistake. You're human." to "This is the worst thing I've ever seen in thirty years of teaching. Get out." in three meetings), that my supervisor who gave me the horrible advice that backfired in my face lied to the administration ("I tried to stop him! I never told him to do any of those things!"), or that they had put a new teacher in a class that nobody else wanted to teach in the first place. What matters is that by this point parents were up in arms ("He said the word "prick" in front of our fifteen year old child! They've certainly never heard that word before HE said it.") and I was a new teacher and therefore expendable. When the shit comes down and the school district is looking down the barrel of an outraged parent or an outraged state agency, the first tactic is to throw the teacher under the bus. And why not? It looks like decisive action. "Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so, we've solved the problem. The bad teacher who said "prick" is gone. Now your out-of-control child will be fine." Well, it wasn't fine. A couple of my former students stayed in touch with me. Seems that the teacher that they hired to replace me was gone within a month or so. I'm not saying that no one could teach these kids, but that putting them all together in one room was probably not the best idea they'd ever had.

Today, I teach kids who are WORSE than the kids at my first job (I teach the drop-outs, push-outs, and felons), yet I have no problems. A lot of it has to do with class size (I rarely have a class bigger than ten) but a lot of it has to do with what I learned in that first job. I learned how NOT to start off the year. I learned how not to react to noisy kids. I learned how not to react to misbehavior. That first job really made me the teacher I am today. But it also taught me never to trust a department head or an administrator, because they will shit-can you in a second if it means saving their own asses. And that's what this whole psychic business is really about.

[Dan Gould]

Well Alex (and Tim), it just so happens that my closest friend was, for over ten years, not only a teacher in the Florida School system, but a Special Ed teacher specializing in autism.

I ran down the facts of the case, and the arguments that have been made. He confirmed that Florida has a similar law. His response:

A claim by a psychic does not qualify as as reasonable suspicion. I would do nothing if this had been reported to me. Sexualized behavior by an autistic child is not necessarily supportive of a sex abuse claim, particularly when that child has been mainlined and has exposure to "normal" kids. Yes there are teachers and administrators who err on the side of caution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use their own good sense. The word of a psychic is no word at all, and that would be my defense if I were ever charged with failing my duty to my kids.

[Jazzmoose]

I am offended by the anti-psychic bias in this thread.

I knew you were going to say that.

[Jazzmoose]

Wow...Goodspeak keeps adding insults to Dan's intelligence to his posts, and Dan calmly refutes his arguments with facts. I think an investigation is called for! What are you two trying to pull?

[Alexander]

Well Alex (and Tim), it just so happens that my closest friend was, for over ten years, not only a teacher in the Florida School system, but a Special Ed teacher specializing in autism.

I ran down the facts of the case, and the arguments that have been made. He confirmed that Florida has a similar law. His response:

A claim by a psychic does not qualify as as reasonable suspicion. I would do nothing if this had been reported to me. Sexualized behavior by an autistic child is not necessarily supportive of a sex abuse claim, particularly when that child has been mainlined and has exposure to "normal" kids. Yes there are teachers and administrators who err on the side of caution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't use their own good sense. The word of a psychic is no word at all, and that would be my defense if I were ever charged with failing my duty to my kids.

But it's not the word of the psychic. It's really the behavior of the girl. You're friend has it right: "Sexualized behavior by an autistic child is not necessarily supportive of a sex abuse claim, particularly when that child has been mainlined and has exposure to "normal" kids." It is not necessarily supportive of a sex-abuse claim, but it is not grounds for absolute dismissal either. What if the TA had simply noticed a pattern in the kid's behavior? What if we take the psychic out of the case for a moment? The behavior might not support the claim, but it is surely grounds for an investigation, no?

[Niko]

But it's not the word of the psychic. It's really the behavior of the girl.

there is one thing left i do not get... i understand that caution is needed... but then: why did the psychic's word get the teachers started (and not observing the girls sexualized behavior (whatever that means))... alexander and goodspeak: after observing "sexualized behavior", would you have waited with the investigation until one of your assistants got a hint from his or her psychic?

[Tim McG]

You are aware [i hope] that the public we serve pay a great deal of attention to psychics. You know, the same public whose kids we teach and the CPS folks have to follow up on....by law.

This is the line I really like...

Source?

Who pays attention to psychics?

Are these the same people who watch that show "Medium"?

Wacko...

No one that I know....but we do pay attention to TA's.

[Tim McG]

But it's not the word of the psychic. It's really the behavior of the girl.

there is one thing left i do not get... i understand that caution is needed... but then: why did the psychic's word get the teachers started (and not observing the girls sexualized behavior (whatever that means))... alexander and goodspeak: after observing "sexualized behavior", would you have waited with the investigation until one of your assistants got a hint from his or her psychic?

With 40 kids in a class? Please.

Besides, we are trained to understand these types of behaviors in our special needs students. A TA, however, is not. Autistic children act out in often inappropriate ways.

The first allegation of sexual abuse came from the TA then the teacher did what she is required to do: Report it. It was after that they heard of this psychic business.

Seems to me you guys are phishing for a reason to play the blame the teacher game.