Posted on 03/23/2014 4:15:46 AM PDT by Altariel
Missouri resident Niakea Williams was at home, in bed when she got a phone call from Walnut Groves Elementary School. She was told that her son, Michael,who has Asperger’s syndrome, was panicking. Niakea quickly head over to her son’s school, got buzzed in, and immediately went to find Michael. As KMOV News 4 reports, what happened next has Ms. Williams furious.
Ms. Williams, though she had been buzzed in as a “known parent” by school officials, apparently broke protocol when she did not sign in before heading to Michael’s classroom to console him. Williams admits this but feels she was justified, telling KMOV, “I didn’t sign the book, but I had to check on my son.” She told the principal to bring the book to her and she’d sign it, but the administrator had other ideas. Niakea recounts, “She said, ‘Oh no, I’ve already called the police.’”
She had indeed called the police. Calverton Park Police showed up and put the school in a 12-minute lockdown due to an “unauthorized entry to a school.” Williams was arrested and taken to the police station on trespassing charges. This all despite her being a known parent at the school who actually had met with the principal just one day prior.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You can bet your bottom dollar nikaea would sue the school system if someone who didnt sign in hurt her disturbed child.
You only open the door to allow then into the office to check who they are and to verify by the records that they have permission to access the child. That is not done at the door, but in the office, where the paperwork resides.
Amen...this far left school agenda is absurd ad harmful.
Ahh, it makes sense now why you are defending the statist principle that children belong to the school employees (and thus, the parents "need permission" to see their own children).
Like the MSNBC host, you share the belief that we must "break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."
I appreciate your honesty in this little revelation.
I know, it's all so very soviet and surreal.
You said ... “How are you coming on establishing how a mother checking on her own child is a danger to other students?”
The mother may be a danger to her own child or to others ... either way.
If the office didn’t stop the mother of our boy from having access to him, then they would be negligent and we would sue the school for not doing their legal and required duty of stopping and checking everyone with the records to see if they are allowed access to a child in the school.
We live in a world where officials are obsessed with procedure, with no regard as to whether it’s got anything to do with accomplishing the stated goal. Whether it’s schools with idiotic zero tolerance policies, or TSA clowns strip searching granny at the airport, we’re at the mercy of moronic petty dictators backed up by henchmen with guns and badges.
Schools love it because they get several times more money for anyone diagnosed “special needs”.
That’s why the school has to stop EVERYONE to see who they are and if they are the people listed on the legal paperwork that has right of access to the child. That paperwork is REQUIRED of everyone when they enroll their child in school. NO ONE can gain access unless they are listed - no matter if they are a relative or not or if the parent asked them for a favor to pick up the child. They HAVE TO BE LISTED.
Several years ago I accompanied my wife to her daughter’s adopted child’s school. Her daughter signed us in then went outside. We proceeded to the cafeteria and had lunch with the child. This took place in a small town in NC where a 9 year old girl had been missing for several months and her dismembered body had been found a few days earlier. You’d think the school would have been more careful.
With this lady in the article, it’s just plain stupid what they did. Take my example and couple it with the article and it shows how schools are at both ends of the extreme and there seems to be no middle.
You’re wasting your time - or as George Carlin said - “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
“Oh, Student’s Mother didn’t sign in. I’m calling the police.”
Actually we really don't know that is the way it happened...
“The only evidence we have of anyone acting irrationally is the principal.”
Well, there’s the cops. They could have told the principal he had overreacted once it became clear what happened. And if the DA is filing charges he’s an idiot too.
You identify if they actually are the person who is permitted to have access to the child. That paperwork, which is submitted upon enrollment is signed, stating who has the permission for access to the child. A phone call can be received by anyone in the house - and so, whoever “shows up” is not necessarily the person who has permission to access the child.
“Sue the living crap out of them.”
I totally agree. I don’t usually favor litigation, but there are a lot of hungry attorneys out there, and if you want to fight back against this kind of nonsense you have to do things that get their attention.
I understand being strict with school entry rules, but the school called her, recognized her, and she had just met with the principal. I would not doubt that there was some conflict between them before this (why was she meeting with the principal the day before), and they used this opportunity to get back at her.
Well ... my statements are for the other readers, too — some of whom may not have thought about this situation, because they don’t have any kids in school right now.
But once the general audience reads these things that I’ve pointed out, they’ll understand why all parents want this in order to protect their children.
“The mother may be” does not establish that she *is* a danger to other students. How are you coming on establishing how a mother checking on her own child is a danger to other students?
Logically that takes place at the door, when someone requests to be buzzed in. (This is why you don’t buzz in every Tom, Dick and Harry at the door without identifying them).
1) See who is at the door.
2) If you don’t identify the person, ask for identification.
3) If the person is still unknown and asks for access to a child, verify that the person has been given *parental permission* to access the child.
4) Determine whether to buzz in or no.
a) Not permitted? Don’t buzz in.
b) Permitted? Buzz in.
Astounding, using a buzzer system which is put in place to screen the unauthorized from the authorized. Novel idea, that.
So a “news” article by Yahoo that you read seconds ago makes you want to sue the school system?
This is a forum that has a valid distrust for the media so getting more information might help.
I’ll withhold opinion on this matter until I know more about what happened.
.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.