School Bullying and PPT's
Adults know that if other adults bully or harass them, they
have recourse to the police and to the courts. It is not so well
known that children also have recourse against harassment or
bullying by other children.
Kids will be kids, but if bullying gets out of hand and affects
a child’s well being, then the parents must take action.
Unfortunately, parents often don’t know what to do.
The almost immediate response of most parents is to complain to
the school. The school means well, but it has other problems to
worry about. Dealing with school authorities to control the
actions of other children can be most frustrating. In this
lawsuit-saturated culture, schools have become experts at
paper-pushing and giving verbal assurances. Unfortunately, if
it’s not in writing, then it probably isn’t worth anything.
One student was being continually harassed by other students,
because he wore different clothing and tended not to fight back.
His mother, who meant well, spoke to an Assistant Principal, who
said, “There is nothing we can do. Let the boys just work it
out.”
It worked out into a fight, with the student suspended, and more
bad feeling in the school.
Of course, the Assistant Principal later denied that he said it,
and there was nothing in writing and no videotape. He counted on
this woman to be intimidated by the school. Instead, she called
me.
In those situations, we deal directly with the Superintendent or
the Board of Education, in writing. We also deal directly with
the parents of the offending children. In extreme cases, we will
seek police, civil court, and juvenile court action.
Therefore, if bullying becomes a problem, we can help. You do
not have to “grin and bear it,” nor do you have to beg
indifferent persons to take action. Further, having an
experienced advocate on your side is far less frustrating than
dealing solo with the authorities.
THE SCRUGGS CASE
In one of the most
notorious cases in Connecticut history, a middle school student,
Daniel Scruggs, hanged himself as a result of relentless
bullying in school. His mother complained that she had tried to
get help for years and was stonewalled by the authorities. After
Daniel’s death, there was an investigation – and the mother was
arrested! The State charged that, bullying or not, Daniel’s
problems were mainly caused by her own negligence. Although the
mother had one of the top criminal lawyers in the State
defending her, she was found guilty. Both DCF and the school
system were embarrassed, but escaped responsibility.
A case like this has plenty of blame to go around, and I will
not attempt to parcel out fault. But one thing is clear: had the
mother gotten legal help the moment that she ran into a stone
wall, Daniel might be alive today. A qualified Juvenile Court
lawyer would have not only pressured the school, and the parents
of the offending children, but also would have advised the
mother on her own child care responsibilities and methods of
getting counseling for her child. The lawyer would have
attempted to counsel the child as well.
After Daniel committed suicide, it was too late. If the tragic
death of this innocent child does not convince you to get help
in dealing with the authorities, then, sad to say, nothing will.
The mother was sentenced to probation and community service.
However, the case finally did have one decent turn for her. In
August, 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously reversed
the mother's conviction. Among other things, the Court noted
that DCF had closed its file in this matter, leading the mother
to believe that the State itself believed that there was no
immediate threat to Daniel's health.
In other words, in my opinion, DCF botched the case. When
someone in authority realized that someone had to be held
accountable for this child's death, DCF then attempted to shift
the blame to the mother. Of course, many people, including the
prosecutor, still believe that the mother was at fault; and this
case had plenty of fault to go around.
In the most recent good news, Mrs. Scruggs filed a federal
court lawsuit against the Meriden school officials. The case
settled out of court. There was a confidentiality agreement, so
we have no way of knowing how much money Mrs. Scruggs received;
but you may be sure that it wasn’t enough. The school board was
happy to settle. It only wanted to be free from future
liability, and of course took no responsibility for its actions.
The State, of course, takes no responsibility and pays nothing.
The State apparently felt guilty enough to push an
“anti-bullying law” through the State Legislature. This law, as
you may suspect, creates even more paper trails to protect
school administrators. Substantively, it accomplishes nothing.
To repeat, it is clear beyond argument that you need a lawyer
when dealing with state officials.
Some people may find this hard to believe. After all, are not
teachers, principals, and superintendents authority figures?
Yes, once they were. In today’s bureaucratic environment,
however, many are reduced to being paper-pushers.
One example is that of the Board of Education of Fairfield, CT. In late 2008, the Board implemented a policy that if a child calls another child by a derogatory name twice, that child will be labeled as a “bully”. The record will follow the child to college. That warning is supposed to frighten kids into not bullying. The problem, of course, is that most bullies either do not care or do not understand. By the time they understand the warning, it may be too late. However, the warning does nothing for the bullied child. But it does allow the Board of Education to say that it “did something.”
I am sympathetic to Boards of Education. And I am certainly not picking on Fairfield; other towns may be as bad or worse. However, their problems are not your problems. If your child is being bullied, paper pushers will not solve your child’s problem.PRESIDENT
CARTER
The problem
goes back to 1976. President Carter, elected primarily due to
President Ford’s pardon of President Nixon, was determined to
reward the teachers’ unions for supporting him. He succeeded in
1980, by raising the federal Department of Education to
cabinet-level status.
The result
was predictable. Less local and state control, more federal
control, more rules, more lawyers, and more bureaucrats. And
thus were education administrators reduced to paper-pushing,
lawsuit-avoiding roles.
DR. ROSEMOND
Dr. John Rosemond had an excellent column in April, 2006. The point was that a teacher in the northeast saw a student bullying another child, told him to stop, and – the teacher was reprimanded! The parents of the bully complained to the school; and the school, fearing litigation more than the plague, chastised the teacher.
Dr. Rosemond commented that he hears this from teachers all the time. I myself hear it occasionally from teachers in my circle of family and friends.
Of course, the school’s pat response would be that the teacher should have told the principal. That, of course, is nonsense. Why bureaucratize and extend something that could have been solved on the spot? One doesn’t know who to feel sorrier for:
- The bully, who has learned the wrong lesson, and may well grow up to be an adult criminal
- The bullied child, who can no longer trust adults
- The teacher, who has seen her ideals thrown out the window
- The school administration, which has to live with itself knowing that it is cannon fodder for overpaid school board lawyers
If you still trust paper-pushers to give you your rights, then I cannot help you. But hopefully, you will help yourself before a disaster erupts.
The bottom line is: If a bullying situation develops, try to work it out peacefully. If you can’t, don’t get upset; call us.
SANTORO BULLYING WARNING
Most people, of course, do not want to be confrontational.
That is understandable; after all, everyone likes to be liked,
and you may need a favor from the other person one day. So why
call a lawyer if you have a school bullying problem?
A gentleman named Frank Santoro, Jr., had a son in the Hamden,
CT public schools who was being bullied. He complained to the
school, which allegedly did nothing. Of course, the school
will have a different viewpoint; and after reading the above,
you may draw your own conclusions.
Mr. Santoro, aware of so-called anti-bullying laws, then filed
a lawsuit against the school system. After all, isn’t there a
law requiring school boards to establish anti-bullying
policies?
Despite being represented by one of the top civil lawyers in
the State, Mr. Santoro’s case was thrown out of court in
August, 2006. The technical reason: anti-bullying policies are
“discretionary”, and parents have no “private right of action”
to see that they are enforced.
The real reason: governmental immunity. If you, as a private
citizen, violate the law, you can be charged. If a
governmental entity violates the law, it is generally immune,
although there are exceptions. As of today, bullying is not
one of those exceptions. The Courts do not want to be
inundated with cases from citizens irate at ineffective
government; hence, governmental immunity thrives.
In other words, you have a right without a remedy. Not such a
bargain.
The lesson is clear. Do not expect the anti-bullying “laws” to
protect you, and if administrators refuse to protect you, do
not expect them to change simply because you persist. In the
Santoro case, the student allegedly doing the bullying was a
black student, and the administrators were afraid of “creating
a racial incident.”
Such is the administrative mentality of our lawsuit culture.
If your child is being bullied, and if the school does
nothing, CALL A LAWYER IMMEDIATELY.
The lawyer may be able to pressure the school board, its
lawyers, and the parents of the offending children, more
effectively than you can.
REMEMBER: Most bullies are cowards and will back down if you stand up to them.
WOLVERINE NEWS
In March, 2010, a Michigan federal court jury ordered a
school district to pay $800,000.00 to a student who was
repeatedly bullied, specifically finding that the school did not
do enough to protect him from years of abuse.
The problem started with name-calling in middle school, and
escalated into high school. It included: shoving the kid into
lockers; sexual insults; defacing his locker and notebook; and
being taunted in the locker room by a naked student rubbing
himself against the kid. We may safely assume that there were
even more vicious incidents.
The school, despite repeated complaints, did nothing.
Fortunately, the parents got relief, as they were able to sue
for sexual harassment under Title IX. The jury verdict held the
school responsible. I wish I had been in the courtroom, to hear
school officials explain how they had made notes of the
incidents, but were unable to do anything.
The importance of this verdict is that it sends a message to
schools. Our office will use this in all similar incidents in
the future.
However, it is important that parents not get the wrong message.
A lawsuit is not a goal, since it takes years, and can take even
longer with appeals. The correct approach remains: contact an
attorney to protect your child at the outset. Attorneys will not
be intimidated by school administrative stalling, and know how
to deal with stall-oriented expensive downtown School Board
lawyers.
And, as you recall, failure to protect your kid can subject you
yourself to DCF neglect petitions.
It is not worth the risk. If the school stalls even once, call a
lawyer.
BOTTOM LINE:
When you act like a victim, you’ll be treated like a victim.
Don’t do it. You have rights, and a lawyer will help you to
secure those rights. The school will not.
PPT
MEETINGS (Planning and Placement Team)
Our office will gladly assist you in many problems related to
schools. These can include: school bullying issues, PPT’s,
problems with a specific teacher or administrator, etc.
We do not litigate against schools. If you want to sue a school, that is a difficult business, and only a few lawyers in Connecticut handle such matters. We will refer you if necessary, but in most cases your objectives can be achieved without a long and costly lawsuit.
School bullying has been considered previously.
PPT’s present a typical problem. Your child needs special help, the school is mandated to provide that help, but has no money to do so. This is the familiar American technique of unfunded mandates. In practice, many schools have a variety of tricks to shoo the parent away, and will act only if the parent is influential or gets a lawyer.
We have sat in on many PPT’s and have achieved reasonable results just by being present. We are aware of administration tricks (failing to put key items in writing; listing an objective in vague terms, so that if nothing is done, blame will be hard to assign; specifying 30 minutes of individual instruction which actually ends up as 15 minutes; etc). We will work with you, and with the school, to ensure that the PPT is successful, and that a reasonable IEP (Individualized Education Plan) is implemented.
Naturally, success cannot be guaranteed. But our experience is that you will do much better if you are not the lone wolf against a sea of teachers and administrators. Your goal is to win without a lawsuit.
In another vein, many students complain that one teacher or administrator “has it in for them.” That is seldom true, but it actually does happen. People are people, and they can be biased for any number of reasons.
We will be glad to write to the responsible person to get the problem solved. We will meet with that person if necessary. You will not have to go it alone, be made to feel guilty, and risk getting your kid into yet more trouble.
Schools have difficult, and in some cases impossible,
responsibilities. It is natural that administrators seek to
offload as many problems as possible. If you have a problem that
is not being addressed, our office is available to help.
NOTE ON SCHOOL PARANOIA
Many persons, especially older ones who received traditional
education, may have difficulty believing some of the assertions
in this article. After all, are schools not in business to
educate young people, and provide education to teach them how to
think for themselves in a civilized society?
That is the traditional goal. However, the real goal of modern educators is often to avoid legal difficulty. That is the message learned after decades of federal manipulation into the town and state school systems. Education is fine; but avoidance of problems is the Name of the Game.
Teachers who speak their minds are threatened with lawsuits or dismissal; one district even decided to teach substandard English, in a misguided effort to placate unruly students, and changed this “policy” only after public outrage; kindergarten kids are suspended for harmless violations; one district even tried to forbid teachers from telling kids to use the dictionary, on the grounds that it would make the kids feel inferior. On it goes. The result, of course, is to harm the very kids who are counting on adults to help educate them.
Administrators want to please parents and lawyers. If the kids are educated, fine; but that is incidental.
THE EXPULSION
In one case that I recently had, a boy inappropriately
touched a girl, and was properly suspended for ten days. During
his suspension, a friend of the boy provocatively asked him what
he would do to the girl when he returned. “I will avoid her”,
he said. “It’s not as though I will smash her into the
concrete.”
The friend, anxious to impress the girl himself, reported that the boy had threatened her. The girl was frightened, told her mother, and the mother called the police. The police quickly dismissed it.
The mother then told the school that the police would not make an arrest. The school moved to expel the boy. He was due to return to school in two days, but the school wanted an immediate expulsion so that he could never return.
An expulsion hearing was held. Lawyers have no subpoena powers for these hearings, so I asked the school to have the actual witness to this alleged threat present. The school declined. The only “witness” was the assistant principal, who testified that the boy, the alleged friend, had told him of this threat.
Talk about hearsay.
The Board which was hearing the expulsion deliberated, and initially ruled that it did not have enough evidence to make a decision. They asked, reasonably enough, that the actual witness be called to testify, and be available for cross-examination. Seems fair, even if I had suggested that myself.
But the Principal objected. Due to scheduling problems, that could not be done before the suspension was due to end. In other words, the boy would have to return to school until the expulsion hearing was resumed. And what, asked the Principal, if the witness’ parents refused to let him testify.
I countered that that was the school’s problem. The school knew of the hearsay; it had requested the expulsion hearing; and it also had my explicit request that the boy testify. My client would have to return to school in the interim.
The Board then cleared the room, deliberated in secret, and announced its decision – a unanimous 3-0 vote for expulsion! I asked how they could do this, since they had already announced on the record [tape recorder] that they didn’t have enough information. The Chairman curtly told me that the matter was over.
The parents were out of money by this time. However, the boy’s father, after consulting with me, and taking advantage of his son’s “504” status, told the Principal that he was prepared to go to federal court for egregious due process violations; and to get this matter into the newspapers.
Then an amazing thing happened, worthy of a Harry Potter movie. The Principal announced that she had discovered “new evidence”, realized the injustice that had been done, and got the expulsion lifted. The boy returned to finish the school year, although he will thankfully be going to a different school next year.
I suppose all’s well that ends well. Any federal court hearing would have been expensive and time-consuming. The unbelievable thing is that the Board was willing to expel a kid on second-hand unverified hearsay.
This is some lesson in American
citizenship.
THE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Recently, I was asked to judge a middle school mock trial
competition. The kids were very good, but one in particular was
outstanding. She happened to be female. After the competition,
I asked her if I could speak to her with her advisor present.
We talked about law in general, as she obviously had the flair. We discussed the training of lawyers, and preparing for a legal career (mainly: read and read again). Her advisor, himself a seasoned trial lawyer, agreed that she had talent.
I told the student that if she had any practical legal questions, throughout high school or college, that she couldn’t get answered, that it was OK for her to send me an e-mail. I then had the legal foresight to give her my business card, which actually had my name and EM address. The advisor was present throughout this 10-minute-or-so conversation.
I was somewhat surprised to hear, the next day, that the school principal had been in the audience, had seen me provide my business card, and had reported me to the competition organizer. The organizer straightened it out after talking to the student and the advisor, and all is now well. Presumably the principal will not call the police on me.
To date, the principal has not called to thank me for offering to help with this kid’s education. That, of course, was also incidental.
The event organizer “suggested” that, to avoid future problems, I speak only to male students, and not to female students. I told her that I had no intention of doing so, and no intention of defending myself against nonsense. That, as you might guess, ended my pro bono career as a mock trial judge.
Another good example of American
citizenship for the students.
COLLEGE RAZZLE-DAZZLE
I am a product of the public schools. My own law school is a
public law school. But I seriously wonder why anyone would want
to be a teacher today.
The problem is not limited to public schools. An old friend of mine, a gentleman and a gentle man, a true scholar and teacher by any sense of the word, was railroaded out of academia a few years ago. He taught at a private college. He also wrote poetry, coached sports, freely gave of his time to anyone who asked, and had a wonderful sense of humor.
One day, a female student made an allegation, not that he had done anything, but that he had said something that she found offensive. No one else so alleged, and the matter could have been handled over coffee in the Dean’s office.
But the student persisted. The Administration told my friend that they knew he was innocent, but:
1. He was nearing the end of his career and was planning to retire in a few years anyway;
2. Retiring now with a generous severance and pension would be cheaper for the school than a court fight;
3. Retiring now would avoid adverse publicity, and the Administration already had enough other things to worry about.
So, he gave up the ghost. Most likely the student, long-since graduated, is proud of her liberalism in breaking the spirit of a wonderful man.
I had listed some of his qualities above. Now I have to add another. After his forced retirement, his wife became disabled. Instead of putting her in a nursing home, he cared for her on a full-time basis.
If I knew the identity of the student, I would ask her, as Atty. Welch asked of Senator McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency?”
But of course the McCarthy Era is over.
Isn’t federal intervention great?
HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY
I asked earlier why anyone would want to be a teacher today.
On February 3, 2010, Fox News broke the story that the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction had encountered a problem in its high schools. It seems that the schools found it impossible to teach American History. The subject was too large, and could not be presented in the time allotted.
The tentative solution was to not teach early American History, and instead begin the study of American History with the Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. That was actually offered as a possible solution to the problem.
I don’t know if this idea ever came to fruition, and I don’t want to know. The interesting thing is that people responsible for the education of children actually thought enough of this idea to publish it.
And this country, this United States, actually has graduate-level Schools of Education, in which teachers and administrators and principals are taught how to teach children. Who, I wonder, teaches in those schools.
To repeat, I am a product of the public schools, and I favor public education. I shudder every time I realize that I myself almost became a public school teacher.