Case Studies
Jo Anne Pulley

Case #1: Mrs. W.
Situation:
Mrs. W. came to pick up her son, Adrian, twenty minutes before dismissal. The principal happened to be in the outer office and, upon learning who the parent was, explained to Mrs. W. that she had just spoken to her son. Adrian had come to see the principal about another child, Zita, with whom he was having a considerable conflict. The principal was able to get the children to agree to avoid each other over the next two days on the playground. They also agreed that they would meet together with the school counselor to try to work things out. Mrs. W. said that this was an ongoing problem and the school had done nothing about it. She said that she had given her son permission to hit the other child who was bothering him. The principal explained that if Adrian did hit the other child then the school would have no option but to take disciplinary action. Mrs. W. indicated her understanding of the school's position, and reiterated her own position. She then left with her son. Mrs. W., her sister, her adult son, and her minor son (Adrian) waited in their parked car in front of the school until dismissal. At that time, she had Adrian point out Zita to her as Zita exited the school building. In front of hundreds of students, and many parents, Mrs. W. began an immediate loud and profane assault on Zita. She approached Zita in a physically threatening manner.

Response:
The principal was called on the radio. Zita's friends pushed Zita back. A teacher, fearing for the safety of Zita, moved in between Mrs. W. and Zita, and Zita ran for the bus. Mrs. W. followed her to the bus while continuing to scream obscenities. The principal arrived on the scene and escorted Mrs. W away from the bus to an area of the parking lot where her continued stream of profanities would be less disruptive. The principal radioed the main office to request the assistance of the sheriff. Meanwhile, Adrian boarded the bus with the apparent intention of physically assaulting Zita. The bus driver was able to block Adrian from moving down the bus aisle toward Zita.

Outcome:
The sheriff arrived and spoke to Mrs. W. Adrian was suspended for attempting to cause physical injury to another child. As Mrs. W. left, she told the principal and the deputy that she was "...going to see you in court, this school has not protected my child, so I am forced to!" Several days later the school learned that Adrian had apparently been pulled out of WF, as another school called for Adrian's records.

Reflection:
Mrs. W. did not give the school principal an opportunity to help resolve the problem Adrian and Zita were experiencing. As Adrian was a new student to WF, the principal was not aware of the similar history this child and his mother had at the prior school. Perhaps the prior school could have called WF to provide a "heads up." This information may have allowed the principal of WF to anticipate an incident before it occurred.

Case #2: Mrs. K.
Situation:
Mrs. K barged into the principal's office unannounced, in a physically aggressive manner and slammed her fist onto the principal's desk. In a loud and accusatory voice, she demanded to know why homemade food was going to be sold to parents and students at the Cinco de Mayo celebration that day.

Response:
Mrs. K was told that there were plans to sell food, but none of it was home-made. Then Mrs. K relayed that she was very angry that there was going to be a celebration of Mexican heritage. She wanted to know when the celebration for Anglo Americans was going to take place. When the principal spoke of the heritage day that had been celebrated earlier that year Mrs. K called the principal a liar, told her that there would be a protest, and that the health department would be at the school to check on the food, and stormed out of the principal's office, slamming the door.

Outcome:
The principal arranged for two deputies to be present at the Cinco de Mayo celebration. Many parents were present. Mrs. K was not among them. There was no protest. The crowd seemed to enjoy the singing and dancing. Mrs. K filed a three page complaint with the district office listing her concerns about Cinco de Mayo (as well as totally unrelated issues: a demand to have her son's suspension lifted, an accusation that the assistant principal called her son names, and finally, a demand for policing of the parent pick up area).

Reflection:
I believe that the principal of the school should have filed charges against Mrs. K for threatening a school official. Although the inflammatory words were rude, the slamming of her fist on the desk would constitute a threat and should have been reported to the sheriff.

Case #3: Mrs. M.
Situation:
One half hour before dismissal a large baggie of marijuana was found in the backpack of a student, C. Six boys were involved in passing the marijuana around during the course of the school day. C. was the student that had the marijuana in his backpack. He was being questioned by the principal when his mother arrived to pick him up from school. Students told her that her son was being questioned about the marijuana. She started her own investigation on the spot. She believed that "the marijuana was planted on her son and her son was being framed." She was yelling this outside the principal's office.

Response:
Upon hearing Mrs. M., the principal went out of her office to speak with the parent. The parent continued to yell things like "you'd better not suspend my son. My son was framed. Ask anybody. All of the kids have told me that M. put it in C.'s backpack." The principal tried to explain that the school's investigation had just begun, and that no one would be punished that was not involved. The principal went back into her office to get the baggie of marijuana. As she headed to a waiting deputy sheriff, parked in the parking lot, Mrs. M. continued to scream at the principal that her son didn't do anything, and that she'd better not punish him. She followed right up to the deputy's squad car and told the deputy that the marijuana had been planted on her son. The deputy told Mrs. M. that her son was in a lot of trouble. The principal walked back toward the school with Mrs. M at her heels, repeating several times that if her son was punished that she would have her "vengeance."

Outcome:
The school concluded that the marijuana was placed in C.'s backpack by M. The school further concluded that C. had opened his backpack to enable M. to put the marijuana in it. Finally, the school determined that C. had opened his backpack to receive the marijuana because he was sternly told to do so by M. and that C. was afraid not to comply. C. was referred for expulsion consideration. The principal recommended non-expulsion. The deputy's investigation resulted in no arrests.

Reflection:
This parent was heretofore unknown by the school principal. I believe the school principal should have reported the thinly veiled threat to the sheriff's department. It is unfortunate reality that our society has its fair share of sociopaths. How would the principal know that this woman would not turn out to be one of them?

Case #4: Mrs. H.
Situation:
Mrs. H. called to complain that she didn't appreciate notes from the teacher regarding her son's misbehavior. Furthermore, she would not allow her son to serve a recess detention.

Response:
The principal explained that the teacher had the right to establish reasonable consequences for the misbehavior of students, and recess detention was a reasonable consequence. The parent reiterated that the school was not the parent and the school had no right to discipline her son. The principal explained "in loco parentis." The principal asked her to meet to establish mutually acceptable disciplinary procedures for her son. The parent refused. The principal said that the teacher may assign recess detention. If the parent wished to provide a written request for the school that she not be apprised of his misbehavior, she may do so, and the school would comply.

Outcome:
The parent said that she was going to "go to the board." She said, "The school better not discipline my son!" and hung up on the principal. The parent was never heard from again.

Reflection:
How does one reason with unreasonable people?

Case #5: Mr. and Mrs. M.
Situation:
The teacher, with the assistance of the school psychologist, reported suspected sexual abuse of second grade student, L. to Childrens' Services. L. is completely non-verbal. The teacher had a collection of drawings that L. had completed over approximately three weeks. The drawings were bizarre. Several drawings included small people being sodomized by larger people. Mr. and Mrs. M. learned from Childrens' Services that the school psychologist had reported suspected child abuse.

Response:
The parents complained to the principal that the school psychologist had reported them for suspected sexual abuse. The principal did not confirm this to the parents, but explained that any school official that suspected child abuse was legally required to report their suspicion. L. was at the time being tested by the psychologist for a possible learning disability. The parents refused to allow the testing to continue. They refused to allow the psychologist any further contact with their child. Several days later the parents came back to the principal to report that their son had told them that several boys had "shoved his head down" and that he saw "bad things" in the bathroom this year.

Outcome:
L. was unable to identify any boys involved in shoving his head down or doing "bad things" in the bathroom. Eventually, the parents filed a complaint with the district against the school alleging that a teacher of L's Kindergarten sibling was intentionally scratched by the teacher. They alleged child abuse on the part of the teacher.

Reflection:
This is a very long and sad story. Children's Services interviewed L. at least four times at the school. They apparently were not able to get any evidence conclusive enough to take the child away from the parents. This child is still non-verbal ... six months later. The individuals at the school that are involved with this child feel helpless. Yet they are determined to re-report, if there is a new cause to do so.