On the front page of the Journal today, link, we are led to believe a student was sent to jail for burping.
I'll bet there's more to the story than; kid burps, kid goes to jail.
Little light is shed on the incident by APS Executive Director of Communications and Crisis Manager Monica Armenta who told the Journal, she "hasn't seen the lawsuit and can't comment."
There's something else that Monica Armenta hasn't seen and can't comment on; APS' efforts to control chronically disruptive students before they "burp" and then get hauled off to jail.
She cannot show you the district's Student Discipline Philosophy, because there isn't one. There is not one shared philosophical underpinning for any of APS' discipline policies. There is not even agreement on whether to "punish" deliberate misconduct. The result is a discipline policy of virtually unlimited second chances followed by frustration driven overreaction.
Student discipline problems stem failure to shape behavior before it becomes misbehavior. Yet Armenta can't show you any district wide effort to prevent student misconduct by developing good character in students. The lack of preparation leads to "last straw", "last nerve" overreactions to relatively insignificant misconduct.
She cannot show you a meaningful proactive approach to dealing with student discipline, behavior and character development.
She cannot, or will not, put together a PowerPoint presentation on student discipline in the APS. APS Supt Winston Brooks will not defend his failure to make improving student discipline a district goal, nor why he will not have a public meeting goal setting meeting on student discipline.
Why not?
Because neither Armenta, nor Brooks, nor anyone else in the leadership of the APS wants to have to explain to you, why the leadership is will not hold themselves accountable as role models of the standards they create and enforce upon students. She can't, or won't, tell you why APS has no role modeling clause in their own standards of conduct. Or, why they removed the one they did have that read;
In no case shall the standards of conduct for adults,They won't have a public meeting because Armenta can't explain to you, why a kid goes to jail for "burping" and Supt Winston Brooks can commit a public assault and battery, link, and doesn't even get written up for it.
be lower than the standards for students.
Not even by the Journal.
photo Mark Bralley
2 comments:
The Journal sensationalized the story by leaving out the details that the student assaulted someone right before getting hauled away to D-home. Burp, then ASSAULT, then D-home.
Interesting slant on the story, but very untrue, as they omitted imprtant facts to make it more interesting.
Come off it. I understand we like to broaden the definition of assault these days for people who get their pride hurt.
But once again, you weren't there, no one else was there that can confirm what kind "bump" it was.
And if their calling it a "bump" and not a push, shove, slam, or whatever. Then I'm not buying it as assault.
In fact, I read your comment first before reading the article about the supposed assault. And when you said 'ASSAULT' in capital letters.
I was thinking the kid swung at somebody or tried to charge someone because he was pissed. Or actually made some sort of OBVIOUS attempt to hurt somebody.
I highly doubt the students intent was to cause physical injury upon the man. And your comment is slanted. Good day sir.
Post a Comment