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

[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?

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.

Once agian you are pleading the case for the defense here, Dan.

If you don't know what a reasonable suspicion is, how in God's name can you expect anyone to be able to reach an exact, definable and agreed upon definition?

This is why we are required to report it, Dan...to let the experts handle the situation and either support or negate it.

[ta-da]

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.

Exactly.

And if the allegations were true and the teacher said nothing, guys like Dan would be spitting fire at the teaching profession.

Amazing, isn't it?

You are spot on, Alexander. Well said.

Edited June 23, 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.

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.

Once agian you are pleading the case for the defense here, Dan.

If you don't know what a reasonable suspicion is, how in God's name can you expect anyone to be able to reach an exact, definable and agreed upon definition?

This is why we are required to report it, Dan...to let the experts handle the situation and either support or negate it.

[ta-da]

You really are spectacularly idiotic, aren't you?

You are required to report REASONABLE suspicions. That means that you must make an A PRIORI judgment about the reasonableness of what has been alleged. Therefore you need guidance on what constitutes reasonable.

Or, you need to use your native intelligence (Timothy, you are excused for obvious reasons) to determine whether the claims of a PSYCHIC are "reasonable" allegations. As my friend, who has more experience with special ed kids than you will ever have, stated, the claims of a psychic are not reasonable and ought not to be acted upon.

[Dan Gould]

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.

WRONG.

The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

THAT is how it started.

[Tim McG]

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.

WRONG.

The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

THAT is how it started.

Reading comprhension skill, apparently, is not your forte Dan, eh?

All of the information and the allegations came from the TA to the teacher.

Re-read the article, Dan.

Then go back to abusing somebody else.

Edited June 22, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

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.

WRONG.

The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

THAT is how it started.

Reading comprhension skill, apparently, is not your forte Dan, eh?

All of the information and the allegations came from the TA to the teacher.

Re-read the article, Dan.

Then go back to abusing somebody else.

So what are you stupid enough to assert?

That because the psychic is one stepped removed from the source of the accusation, its appropriate to launch a full investigation?

You're a freaking loon is what you are.

[RDK]

Yeah, good thing the TA didn't dream about the incident. That's even more direct than hearing it from a third party psychic!

[Niko]

Yeah, good thing the TA didn't dream about the incident. That's even more direct than hearing it from a third party psychic!

on a vaguely related note lee morgan appeared in a dream of mine last night...

(to get into the details, as far as i still remember them, he was walking down the street like two meters in front of me (a housing area like 10 minutes from here, can post detail in case anyone is interested) we came by a house and a small (70% of normal size) russian-looking man with a brown beard (he would turn out to be a tenor player a few minutes later) was lying about 1.5 meters from the ground on a bush, he seemed to have slept there, lee and i got him down and went into the house, directly behind the door was a woman, can't remember her very well, she was his sister and after a brief conversation it turned out she had just shot their dad and was glad we brought her (enchanted?) brother back... the whole thing had some sort of parsival-feel to it...) then i woke up

(after all it's not surprising that russians appeared in my dream last night, don't know about the house, but the street was familiar... lee morgan and a murder)

[Tim McG]

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.

WRONG.

The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

THAT is how it started.

Reading comprhension skill, apparently, is not your forte Dan, eh?

All of the information and the allegations came from the TA to the teacher.

Re-read the article, Dan.

Then go back to abusing somebody else.

So what are you stupid enough to assert?

That because the psychic is one stepped removed from the source of the accusation, its appropriate to launch a full investigation?

You're a freaking loon is what you are.

Speak to the lawmakers, Dan.

Guys like me are merely following the law.

Why that is problem for you is beyond my comprehension.

Guys like you constantly piss and moan about how we don't do our jobs....and now, why we do. I think that brings back to loony, Dan.

Here's to having both ways.

Peace...out.

Edited June 22, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

[Tim McG]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

Once again, Dan...the psychic didn't tell the teacher, the psychic told the TA who then told the teacher of the abuse, not the psyhcic's "vision." That came later. Go back a re-read the article...several times, if necessary. There will be a test.

Dan [heaviest of sighs] being an abusive individual yourself you couldn't possibly understand what it is like to teach in an environment where loud mouths like you, and on both sides of the political spectrum, control everything we do. You aren't a teacher [thank God] and wouldn't survive ten minutes with an attitude like yours and a mouth full of expletives to go along with it. You would be the one being accused of child abuse, Dan. It wouldn't take a psychic to tell you that one either.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the be all to end all, there are thousands more people who don't....none of whom are teachers. All of whom are parents we serve. A few people on this BBS do not constitute 10-0 of anything let alone what the law clearly states we are required to do. We have to serve all people in public education not just the non-psychics and belligerents like yourself. It is impossible to please everyone and no matter what we do, we are wrong. You have said as much yourself. So you report everything. Period. End of comment.

The facts of this matter, the law regarding it and the professional opinions of two teachers aren't good enough for you. You still want to run off at the mouth even when I, too, have said the TA is a moron and people who go to psychics aren't playing with a full deck. You are in no position to judge, Dan. And, I dare say, ill-equipped to do so. You have to be right even when you are dead dog wrong.

Buddy, if you pulled your act with my last year's 5th or 6th period class, we'd read about you in the newspapers ten days after they found your duct taped body locked in the custodian's closet.

You want my job, Dan? Think you can do it so much better? Then come and get it, big boy. You'd quit within the week or get fired for being an idiot or because you alienated everyone on the staff...including the TAs. You can bet the ranch on that one, too. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, Dan.

Oh, and have a nice day.

Edited June 23, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all,

IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation.

A few people on this BBS do not constitute 10-0 of anything let alone what the law clearly states we are required to do.

The facts of this matter, the law regarding it and the professional opinions of two teachers aren't good enough for you.

Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said.

My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism.

HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't.

Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting.

I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy.

[Tim McG]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all,

IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation.

A few people on this BBS do not constitute 10-0 of anything let alone what the law clearly states we are required to do.

The facts of this matter, the law regarding it and the professional opinions of two teachers aren't good enough for you.

Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said.

My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism.

HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't.

Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting.

I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy.

And the TA has a degree in what again...?

Maybe your "friend" could renumerate on that point as well, eh?

Apples and oranges, big boy.

[Dan Gould]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all,

IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation.

A few people on this BBS do not constitute 10-0 of anything let alone what the law clearly states we are required to do.

The facts of this matter, the law regarding it and the professional opinions of two teachers aren't good enough for you.

Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said.

My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism.

HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't.

Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting.

I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy.

And the TA has a degree in what again...?

Maybe your "friend" could renumerate on that point as well, eh?

Apples and oranges, big boy.

WHAT THE FUCK???????

You talk about two teachers who "know" that this is the proper course of action, I give you over a dozen people, Special Ed specialists, who say that the word of a psychic is no word at all, that no report is required by law.

And you say "the TA has a degree in what again" and "apples and oranges"?

Only the CA schools could hire someone as breathtakingly stupid as you.

And you have a good evening, too. Just remember to stop walking while chewing gum. Its safer that way.

[Dan Gould]

Maybe your "friend" could renumerate on that point as well, eh?

I knew an ass like you would question the identity of my friend.

He is the program head of the USF chapter of the Florida Inclusion Network in St. Pete - Mike Muldoon.

[Tim McG]

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires.

Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all,

IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation.

A few people on this BBS do not constitute 10-0 of anything let alone what the law clearly states we are required to do.

The facts of this matter, the law regarding it and the professional opinions of two teachers aren't good enough for you.

Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said.

My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism.

HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't.

Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting.

I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy.

And the TA has a degree in what again...?

Maybe your "friend" could renumerate on that point as well, eh?

Apples and oranges, big boy.

WHAT THE FUCK???????

You talk about two teachers who "know" that this is the proper course of action, I give you over a dozen people, Special Ed specialists, who say that the word of a psychic is no word at all, that no report is required by law.

And you say "the TA has a degree in what again" and "apples and oranges"?

Alexander?

Right.

Once again, the allegation came from the TA to the teacher, Dan, not from the psychic to the teacher. If you're going to get it wrong, get the facts right at least.

And this "friend" of yours, did you ask him about reporting abuse or did you stack the deck by asking if he thought a psychic's word is grounds for a report? BTW, I hold a MASTERS Degree in Education-Administration and would seriously question anyone who did not report any allegations of abuse. Job title is not an excuse to ignore any allegations regarding children. I would fire your ass.

Pssh.

Amazing.

Good day to you, Sir.

Edited June 23, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[RDK]

When an irresistible force such as you

Meets and old immovable object like me

You can bet as sure as you live

Something's gotta give, something's gotta give,

Something's gotta give.

This is like the first act of some bad romantic comedy. I'm heading to the lobby for some popcorn, but let me know when you guys start dating...

[Alexander]

Dan, you've failed to answer one of my questions: Do you think that the girl's sexualized behavior, while not evidence of abuse, might merit an investigation? I've worked in Special Ed myself, and I've seen some pretty hairy stuff. I once saw an 11-year-old hearing-impared girl perform a move in the presence of other students that a STRIPPER might perform (she did a back-bridge and ran her hand between her legs, to be specific). Is that proof of abuse? Of course not. But I played it safe and reported the incident to the teacher. While the teacher didn't report that specific incident to CPS, she did document it and report it to HER superior, just in case.

Do you think that sexualized behavior in a student merits a closer look into her home life? Leave the psychic out of it. What would your friend say, do you think?

Edited June 23, 2008 by Alexander

[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?

With 40 kids in a class? Please.

wtf? you say when you observe "sexualized behavior" in a class of 40 kids you can't do anything... investigations will have to wait until some ta went to his or her psychic

(and the absence of the psychic let's alexanders story sound a good deal better than the one in the article...

i mean - i am not even saying that the teacher should just have forgotten about his ta's psychic's report... that would have been ok with me but say, i also would have found ok (maybe better) some phone call to the mother in the evening "you know, this may sound horrible, and there are hardly any facts behind it, but as it's a serious thing... this crazy person who works with us went to see her psychic..."

but this here sounds like a completely crazy reaction - why does the poor women have to leave her job right away...

Leduc's weird tale began on May 30, when she dropped young Victoria off for class at Terry Fox Elementary and headed in to work, only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away.

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the CAS had been notified.

amazing how many issues from this thread appear in this ali g clip

Edited June 23, 2008 by Niko

[Jazzmoose]

This is like the first act of some bad romantic comedy. I'm heading to the lobby for some popcorn, but let me know when you guys start dating...

[Dan Gould]

Dan, you've failed to answer one of my questions: Do you think that the girl's sexualized behavior, while not evidence of abuse, might merit an investigation? I've worked in Special Ed myself, and I've seen some pretty hairy stuff. I once saw an 11-year-old hearing-impared girl perform a move in the presence of other students that a STRIPPER might perform (she did a back-bridge and ran her hand between her legs, to be specific). Is that proof of abuse? Of course not. But I played it safe and reported the incident to the teacher. While the teacher didn't report that specific incident to CPS, she did document it and report it to HER superior, just in case.

Do you think that sexualized behavior in a student merits a closer look into her home life? Leave the psychic out of it. What would your friend say, do you think?

Alex,

If you asked that question to me specifically previously, I apologize for not answering at the time.

I did tell my friend about the sexualized behavior part of it, and his response was that it doesn't merit a closer look into her home life, on its face. Particularly with mainstreamed developmentally disabled kids, there is a good chance of her being influenced by her "peers".

Your mentioning of the reporting things to superiors brings up something that Mike said that I didn't mention earlier. He said that typically those "up the line" will make the call on 'reasonable' vs 'unreasonable' and will stop the process on that basis. So a lot of the blame he apportioned goes to the administrators who didn't put an end to the investigation when they learned about the psychic's role in inspiring it.

[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.

wtf? you say when you observe "sexualized behavior" in a class of 40 kids you can't do anything... investigations will have to wait until some ta went to his or her psychic

(and the absence of the psychic let's alexanders story sound a good deal better than the one in the article...

i mean - i am not even saying that the teacher should just have forgotten about his ta's psychic's report... that would have been ok with me but say, i also would have found ok (maybe better) some phone call to the mother in the evening "you know, this may sound horrible, and there are hardly any facts behind it, but as it's a serious thing... this crazy person who works with us went to see her psychic..."

but this here sounds like a completely crazy reaction - why does the poor women have to leave her job right away...

Leduc's weird tale began on May 30, when she dropped young Victoria off for class at Terry Fox Elementary and headed in to work, only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away.

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the CAS had been notified.

amazing how many issues from this thread appear in this ali g clip

Niko,

My comment goes to the need for a TA in class so that she might see things the teacher cannot.

The whole problem here is the TA stupidly went to a psychic, but the teacher was only told of the abuse allegation.

Contacting the mother is CPS protocol. Sadly, the mother was worried sick over a false report. But there again, until we have all the facts of the matter in hand, no one will know for certain. Hence, an investigation must be completed.

I think it stinks how this all came about, but the outcome was to be more aware of these types of behaviors and certainly to quiz a TA on where she got her information before launching a full investigation.

Alexander is correct that a TA needs to let the teacher know about things like this and to keep a paper trail going in the event something serious does happen. But the bottom line is, with an over burdened public school system mistakes are bound to happen.

Edited June 23, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Your mentioning of the reporting things to superiors brings up something that Mike said that I didn't mention earlier. He said that typically those "up the line" will make the call on 'reasonable' vs 'unreasonable' and will stop the process on that basis. So a lot of the blame he apportioned goes to the administrators who didn't put an end to the investigation when they learned about the psychic's role in inspiring it.

Agreed.

[Dan Gould]

Your mentioning of the reporting things to superiors brings up something that Mike said that I didn't mention earlier. He said that typically those "up the line" will make the call on 'reasonable' vs 'unreasonable' and will stop the process on that basis. So a lot of the blame he apportioned goes to the administrators who didn't put an end to the investigation when they learned about the psychic's role in inspiring it.

Agreed.

Ray, you can come back from the refreshment stand. I think Tim and I are officially dating now.

[Tim McG]

I'll buy the first round.

[Van Basten II]

Ok before things get too gushy, let's talk baseball