Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Does APS Board back the new sagger policy; do they even know about it?

My cursory research into the creation of a Procedural Directive, link, prohibiting "sagging" indicates the new administrative ban on sagging may come as as big a surprise to APS School Board Members as it will to saggers showing up at school on Monday with their butts hanging out.

Yeah, we're sagging.  So whadya gonna do about it?
I went looking for some evidence that the board actually understood what they were agreeing to when they approved the procedural directive banning sagging, and found none.

The Board is charged with policy making, not procedural directive approval, so the opportunity to provide "feedback" on an administrative initiative doesn't carry legal weight. Still, there is no indication I could find, that they even discussed the actual sagging issue.  It looks as though then Board Member Robert Lucero motioned (sic) for approval of a bunch of consent items and the board went along.

If we had a newspaper that would investigate and report upon student discipline issues, they could interview board members for their individual reactions to reopening hostilities between saggers and adults on campus.  If only ...

I suspect the reactions will be quite different when saggers and school board members find out about the prohibition.

Saggers will be greatly annoyed, insisting they have a right to dress however they want, and further insisting "they can't throw us all out!"  They will push back, without consequence, until the adults stuck with enforcing the ban, give up.

Board members reactions will fall into two groups based on their experience with the first and unsuccessful attempt to prohibit sagging, circa late 80's early 90's.  The new members, those who
didn't go through the first experience may think APS Supt Winston Brooks has a great new idea to regain control over students at school.  The more experienced members will remember how badly the first attempt failed and will be perplexed that it will be tried again under nearly identical circumstances; no buy in from anyone except administrators who will expect teachers to do all the heavy lifting in enforcing the ban.


Anonymous said...

I'll bet you have a lot of pictures like that!

ched macquigg said...

The anonymous comment above, was written, I believe, by Wayne Knight. He was the principal at Hoover Middle School who told students they couldn't sag and let them do it anyway. Administrators like him are why APS will never be able to establish and enforce dress codes.


In answer to his suggestion; I actually didn't have any pictures of saggers. I had to get the one I used from stock files on the internet.

The pictures Knight is really concerned about, were the ones I took of students sagging at Hoover Middle School. I was documenting allegations I was making against him in various complaints I was filing over his incompetence and corruption. I was documenting his ongoing failure to enforce the dress code; his regular permission of prohibited behavior. I even managed to get a picture of saggers walking by the vice principal who was just standing there watching them.

The administrative response was to fire me for creating a hostile environment for the incompetent and corrupt butt nugget. The firing was overturned in the first legitimate hearing.

Anonymous said...

I remember the days of Donald Wolfley! He was a good guy.

Anonymous said...

You took pictures of middle school boy's butts, and that you cannot deny. That is not only inexcusable, it is immoral and indecent. Let that be a red flag to anyone who reads this blog.
You criticize name callers as being shallow, and yet you do it yourself.
Typical hypocrisy.

ched macquigg said...

Again, the anonymous commenter is I believe, H Wayne Knight himself.

As to, "you cannot deny that", of course I can, and I do. I took photographs of students sagging, there were no butts involved, no indecency, no immorality. The photographs I took, were made available to the district. If there were any substance at all the Knight's allegations I would have been prosecuted criminally. As bad as they and Knight wanted to invent a case to use to retaliate against me, even they could find no evidence that I had done anything wrong.

It was my efforts to hold Knight accountable for his incompetence in enforcing a simple dress code, that drew the groundless allegations, retaliation and retribution.

There is no character education in the district because they can't find any administrators or board members with the character and courage to step up as honest to God role models of accountability to the Pillars of Character Counts! or any other higher standards of conduct.

Knight wouldn't know character and courage if they were biting him on his ass.

I don't know that I have ever criticized a name caller as "shallow".
I don't see the hypocrisy. Knight is a disgrace. He was, and certainly still is, a lousy administrator; corrupt, incompetent and cowardly.

ched macquigg said...

Oh, and lest it be forgotten; this case ended up in arbitration where I prevailed.

The arbitration was conducted by former State Supreme Court Chief Justice William Riordan.

In his finding in my favor, he expressed his opinion of Wayne Knight. It was: Knight "lacked credibility in the face of contradictory evidence from any other witness".

He saw Knight for who he was, and who he still must be.

Anonymous said...

Retaliation and retribution, is still the APS way. What goes around comes around, right Mr. Mac?

Anonymous said...

You harassed middle school boys. LET EVERYONE BE FOREWARNED! No matter how you spin it, you did that.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack and the vindication it implies!

ched macquigg said...

The above, again from Wayne Knight. The boys, who smiled and thought it was funny to have their pictures taken while sagging, proudly posed. After all, they had shown Knight that they, not he, were in charge at Hoover Middle School.

Knight needs to look up "ad hominem" and "vindication".