We’ve had an interesting few days over at Edison Elementary (in the Northwest quadrant). The video in this post is pretty factual, from my perspective, and as a result of the turmoil and missed opportunities to bond with parents at the school, a parent has been barred from setting foot on the school grounds.
Let me be clear: if we are serious about parent engagement as a powerful tool for student achievement, we should not be looking to bar parents that advocate for their children. At the same time, we do have to ensure that the schools can operate safely and efficiently.
I’ve started crafting an update to board policy KFA, which governs conduct on school grounds. It’s normal practice for a principal to have a letter restricting a parent from access to the school delivered by our district security personnel. The problem is that the current policy offers no opportunity to appeal this decision, made by principals, sometimes without much review by central administration.
I will reserve my opinion about whether this principal used this restriction to retaliate against a parent that was advocating for the safety of their child.
I will be reading this first draft during new business at tomorrow’s board meeting. I’m including a copy here for your review, and if you’d like to offer feedback or suggestions, please do (the added portion is in the beige print). It won’t be executed at tomorrow’s meeting, but my expectation is to do so by the next meeting. So your input is greatly appreciated and welcome as soon as you can offer it. You can watch the discussion from home on Comcast channel 22.
Hi Andrea
Here are my thoughts regarding the recent incident at Edison and the proposed appeal process for restricting parents/guardians from the school:
1. There should be a policy for the immediate notification of parents to incidents relating to many of the items listed in KFA- Public Conduct on School Property. How much notification would you require of the school? You wouldn’t necessarily want to make a school wide notification policy for someone swearing– which I don’t condone–vs threatening to bring a gun or weapon to school. Maybe this requires a broadcast voice message or e-mail notice if there is insufficient time to send a written notice. Also, I am basing this off of the news report but we don’t know if the prinicipal did notify the District of the issue perhaps on Friday afternoon but no one was there to respond and approve of a notification to send out to the parents before the weekend. I understand this has happened at other schools in the district. There should be a designated person(s) in the District that can be contacted outside of school hours or in emergency situations who has authority to approve of Principal notifications to the District or there should be a generic available notice that the Principals can send out without District pre approval. This should be sent within a reasonable time of an incident to parents/guardians not some 4 days later based on parental notification to the media.
2. Does this “Public Conduct on School Property” apply to students and staff at the school? How does this policy apply to the Edison facts as reported by Fox? It seems it is directed to those outside the school like parents, grandparents, day care providers, vendors etc.
3. Is there a due process policy in place in the district that could apply to a parent/guardian being restricted from the school? That could be referred to or refined as it relates to this particular policy.
4. Who has the actual authority to restrict or “find” that a parent/guardian has violated a provision of the policy and should be denied school access? This seems like a last resort kind of option that requires some other steps–due process–before imposing it on a person. Is this the job of the Superintendent, the Principal or the Office of Parent Engagement or some other body?
5. In the event a parent/guardian is “found” to violate the policy on school property implies that some legal, administrative or judicial body has made a finding of facts surrounding the incident. Doesn’t this also imply an impartial or unbiased gathering and consideration of the facts that should precede restricting access to the school?
6. With regard to the letter to the parent guardian, who actually writes this letter and what factors or input are taken into consideration when drafting the letter? How do you assure unbiased and factual input vs speculative or one sided input? Are they required to interview everyone involved or witnessing the incident? What about asking children for their input? How far does one have to go to investigate an incident before restricting access?
7. As for the length of the restriction, it seems the restriction could far exceed the appeals process and may not actually be used or enforced.
8. In the proposed appeals process, how do you assure that the parent/guardian is not being retaliated against or if it is a vendetta by the school? What if a parent can’t afford an “adviser” or legal counsel?
I’m all for making schools safe and secure for the children, staff and parents/guardians. I think consideration should be given not to just making reactionary policies without thinking of the implications to other incidents.
From what I gathered in the news report, the parents were upset with not receiving a school notice in a timely fashion. They were also upset that the child who threatened another child had been problematic in the past and nothing seemed to be done with the child. I think there was a failure on two fronts: 1. in addressing the “challenging” child and 2. the untimely notice to the parents. These are the two areas that I think District policy needs to focus on.
Yours humbly,
Kathi Vaggalis Schaaf
Fox News? Factual? You have got to be kidding me!
To date this has been a very one-sided, very public discussion and I am incredibly disappointed that a member of the school board would comment on the matter before the investigation is complete. There are numerous inconsistencies in news stories, lots of hyperbole, very little fact. If parents were so concerned with the “fear based culture” at Edison, why didn’t they get involved in the school sooner? I haven’t seen any of the parents interviewed in this story at PTA meetings this year. The “missed opportunities to bond with parents” has been entirely of the parents doing. Those that wanted to be involved in their children’s school and education have been. I really appreciate everything Sally has done at Edison this year and hope she will not become a scape goat due to, what appears to the community to be, one man’s personal agenda.
Ms. Dixon, as you will note upon reading, my comments are more about due process for parents when barring them from schools. I am not referring to any personnel matters per se. I hope that you can appreciate this distinction.
I was specifically referring to your comment about the Fox video regarding the alleged gun threat.
“The video in this post is pretty factual, from my perspective”
Last night’s board meeting clearly showed that the majority of parents and teachers at Edison do not feel it is factual at all.
Actually, no one presented any facts that disputed that there was a gun threat made. I did clearly hear that there is some support for the current principal, but I’m not disputing that fact.
Again, my post is about changing the policy barring parents from schools. If the tables were turned, you would benefit from an improved policy.
Obviously no-one presented any facts disputing there was a gun threat because none of the parents saw the incident! As did none of the parents or child in the Fox video. It is all hearsay. As is what the parents in the video said about the school culture and what the principal did or did not do.
The video is full or rhetoric and hearsay.
Your overall post may be about changing policy, but you are choosing to further publicize the drama surrounding this incident, to the detriment of the entire Edison community, by including the video on your website.
I have seen a YouTube clip posted by the parent who I believe you are referring to in this post, and it clearly demonstrates harassment of the school administration by the individual. They were not at the school to advocate for their child, they were attempting to cause a scene. If you have not yet listened to it, I would encourage you to do so.
All that being said, I do agree that a clear policy is needed for these type of situations. I just wish the discussion could take place without specific digs at an administration that is not in a position to respond.
Ms. Dixon, I completely understand your frustration. It’s hard to have come through to the other side, have high hopes for the current school administration, just to feel that the rug will be swept away. I also hear loud and clear that you are disturbed by the media coverage that might portray the school as troubled in some people’s minds. You appear to be part of the super-engaged parents at Edison, and if it were me, I would feel very strongly about the potential for negative media coverage to paint the wrong picture about my school.
But you are raising issues that have nothing to do with my post. I can see that you have feelings that you want to air, and while you have that right, those have nothing to do with my core issue here, which is that we need to fix this policy.
Further, what you don’t understand is that I have dealt with a handful of similar incidents in my own district, in which parents were also barred from school. Most of the time they aren’t as engaged as you are and don’t know how to navigate this system (which is why the policy builds one in the first place). Also, since you are not my constituent and therefore not accustomed to my style, you don’t understand that southwest Denver families are accustomed to having discussions in the open air with me about the issues that affect their children and their education. This is how we fix problems.
All due respect, but this post isn’t really about Edison. It’s about southwest Denver.
I’m not the enemy here, as much as you’d like to place the blame on me. But rest assured that my colleagues and I are taking this very seriously, whether you are my constituent or not.