tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post4740432790977427666..comments2024-03-29T02:41:52.718-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Should Principals Tell Staff about Sex Offenders at Schools?Melissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-83263646285379208962016-09-06T19:24:10.784-07:002016-09-06T19:24:10.784-07:00sped parent,
I can support your assessment; 1:1&#...sped parent,<br /><br />I can support your assessment; 1:1's are "restrictive" when cost-cutting admin proclaim they are. But the same admin are more than willing to gamble on a sex offender, given the pretense of the perpetrator's "privacy" or whatever fallacious argument of the day.<br /><br />I'd love to hear the rationale admin provide, along with the federal laws that they use as CYA.<br /><br />I also want aggrieved families of both the disabled and the sexually-abused to sue the district until they reform their practices. Not until then will they quit sacrificing children to expediency and smokescreens.mirmac1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10183460709639638172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-79926192451899991492016-09-03T08:01:15.249-07:002016-09-03T08:01:15.249-07:00Ah but SPS does not believe in providing 1-1. &qu...Ah but SPS does not believe in providing 1-1. "They are too restrictive and fail to make the environment a least restrictive environment", so says the district as an excuse. They don't want you to know that 1-1 service never HAS to be restrictive. In fact, 1-1 service is often the only way to make an environment accessible. Any employee can make an environment "restrictive". For example, principals who put kids in closets are creating a "restrictive environment." We never hear about getting rid of all principals because they are "restrictive". But SPS special had a direct mandate to get rid of all 1-1s. Staff was told to write them out of all ieps - and, without any evaluation of need. But in the case of sex offenders, sometimes they relent. It is ironic that the only way to get service in SPS is to be a sex offender. Awesomeness at its best.<br /><br />sped parentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-78413459173621192392016-09-02T18:58:06.426-07:002016-09-02T18:58:06.426-07:00The sex offender has a right to privacy, but there...The sex offender has a right to privacy, but there must be a balance between the privacy and safety of others. The school absolutely should have had a safety plan in place. If students who are sex offenders are going to have a right to privacy, e.g. not have his/her status as a sex offender be known to the public, then there should be limits on what the student who is a sex offender can access. If the student has a disability and the district fears a lawsuit because the sex offending could be a manifestation of the disability, then the district should provide that student with a 1:1 to supervise him or her. Ms206https://www.blogger.com/profile/11815010211309994388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-77613915805963906762016-09-02T13:55:38.332-07:002016-09-02T13:55:38.332-07:00The issue in this case appears to center on the pr...The issue in this case appears to center on the principal's failure to develop a safety plan <b>as required</b> and failure to keep the older student away from younger students <b>as required</b>.<br /><br />The Supreme Court didn't say that the school district was negligent, they only ruled that the case to determine the district's negligence could go forward.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.com