Posted on 03/23/2014 4:15:46 AM PDT by Altariel
IF they thought she was ‘unhinged’—why would they have called her in the first place?
Have her declare an alternate person to call when there is trouble—someone who can interface with ‘disruptive kid’ & ‘unhinged mom’.
Used to be schools had entrances all over the building, that were always open during school hours.””’
I went to a one room school There was only one entrance. Guess that wouldn’t pass today’s fire codes-—we would have had to exit thru the windows if there ever had been a fire.
The door is to stop unhindered and free access into the school without anyone being aware. It’s a stopping point. Then, the next step is that they cannot get in until someone is actually there and aware of their presence and is in the office (which is right next to the door) - and waiting for them to identify themselves.
The office then checks their records for the paperwork signed at the beginning of the year for who is legally allowed to have access to the child.
If someone “blows through” this process - someone is able to call the police immediately and they will be there in a couple of minutes (as a result of someone being aware that they are to check in and being ready to call the police immediately).
That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Maybe not the whole story is not being told. I hate news reporting.If what that person says is so, then yeah, we need to take a step back. I notice most reporting is too sensational these days, like that Newsweek "article" about the Bitcoin founder. Very one-sided, no real facts.
Our school still has doors all around the school, so there are exits all over the place. But, you can’t enter through those doors. And in case if a “lock-down” all those doors can be chained up and locked, during that lockdown period.
As I said up above ...
This security protocol is not for the crazed and criminally insane person. That is going to take armed personnel to deal with them.
What this security protocol is for - is related to the paperwork that you sign upon enrollment, which tells the school who is allowed access to your child. They are following that legal paperwork that was given at the beginning of the year.
Then they can do like shops do and put a little bell on it.
The buzzer is there so they can let people they deem not a threat in.
And if they have deemed a person not a threat then the signing in is just a formality.
And the people in the office were upset that rather then her coming to worship at their feet first she went to her child.
The rest of it is just hooey.
Ah, the magic paper again!
So this has nothing to do with the safety of the children but is there so the office drones can force others to bow to them before they can see their own children.
Doesn't that seem sort of mentally unbalanced?
The office isn’t like an armed guard shack, where the guy sits there and watches constantly. The office can have someone running over to the nurses office, getting something from the copy room, or even showing a parent part of the way to where they are going.
A jingling bell wouldn’t allow for any control in those situations. Someone would have free and unhindered access and the office personnel would have to hope they heard the little bell ... LOL ...
The way it IS DONE will sometimes mean the person is standing there for a minute or two, until they are available and ready to monitor your entrance. They are ready, at that moment to immediately call the police if necessary and I would imagine they also have an automatic dialer and message for emergencies. A little jingling bell just wouldn’t do it.
The process of not deeming the person a threat would occur in the office when they verify the person and check the records for if the person has access to the kid in question.
The signing in is to provide the record for the transaction, so that if something happens after the fact, they can go back and check to see who has been coming and going. At my school you have to “check out” too. And you date and time the “in” and “out”.
That’s a critical and essential part of what parents expect from the school. They expect that no one will have access to the kid except what is legally allowed, per the parents instructions.
And the parents also expect that the school will “hand off” the kids to ONLY the people listed on that paper that the parents filled out.
That’s not just empty paperwork, that part of the core essentials for your kid at school.
So, according to the one person who responded to the article by saying the mother was always a problem and made a spectacle of herself (not that exact wording), it must have been well known in the school that she was on the paperwork to have access to the child...so your arguement is mute.
Oh so now it is a transaction!
I see.
I wonder how much these "transactions" are costing the tax payers when they do nothing about what they are alleged to promote.
This is all about the school "administrators" being on a power trip. Even you admit this does nothing to promote safety for the children.
But hey, you get to hire more union members at vastly inflated salaries to make people jump through hoops for your amusement and if they don't comply you can just call more union members to come and haul them off to lock up where they will be harassed and humiliated by more union members.
Gosh! Who would gain by such a system? It does nothing. It gives a number of jobs to union members. It polishes the egos of union members on power trips.
Gee, now let me think for a moment about why someone would endorse and promote such a system. What could it be?
Really? Well that is ok then. They certainly are not actually teaching the child anything but by gosh they are whizzes at making parents sign papers.
And in the end isn't that what schools are for?
To provide union members with money and power for their little egos.
Anyone passing preliminary inspection and allowed access thru a security door has already breached the first security protocol. There should be a prepared security operative as a layered defense to further evaluate anyone seeking passage thru the secondary screening .
Signing a piece of paper doesn’t add to security if the credential check allows uncontrolled face to face presence with the person deciding entry. Anyone seeking illicit entry will take down the buzzer operator if the first door allows uncontrolled access to interior spaces. Obviously uncontrolled entry was possible based on the news report information; thus, security at this facility is an illusion.
Most likely one person called the mother and alerted her to a problem with the child. This person either was responsible for her entry or passed word along facilitating entry at the security door. The principle was out of the loop until someone in the office passed along a complaint that the sign-in was bypassed and attempted CYA as an afterthought. Their slack procedures and poor information management goosed the principle first toward a default lock down and police response, not having been brought up to speed on pertaining circumstances. After this point the principle discovers the person in the facility is not dangerous as evidenced by their in person confrontation before police arrive.
When a person goes by the office without checking in, it’s not clear who it is that is going by. So, there’s a need for them to be clearly identified. In addition, even if a person is “known” the legal paperwork can change.
That’s happened with me. Something happened so that I had to take a name off the approved list. Now, this person was “known” in the sense that they were seen there before, they were easily “identifiable” — BUT — only the office would have THAT INFORMATION up-to-date. I was thinking that something could happen even 12 hours later after I changed the information. Schools have to be TOTALLY on top of that - even within “hours” if necessary.
And all the other teachers do not have access to that office information, although the immediate teacher does (where our child is). So that means out of the entire school of teachers, there is probably ONLY TWO PEOPLE who know for sure and have up-to-date information. The rest of the teachers only vaguely “know” the person.
SO ... you see ... it’s a very good system for insuring that only the people you designate have access to the child and only the people you designate can have the child “handed off” to them to take out.
Well ... I’m all about making sure that no one else has access to our child and that our child cannot be “handed off” to,someone else.
What we’re talking about here is making sure that the school doesn’t grant access to your child for someone who has no right (per your instructions).
And secondly, we’re talking about making sure your child is not “handed off” to someone you have not explicitly authorized (and that being done prior to the event).
You ask any parent and you can be sure that they would be extremely angry and file charges of either of those two things happened. This is exactly what parents want for their kids.
Now I get it - you’re a NEA unionista justifying the “system”! That’s why you’re so intent on promoting the “magic paper” which does absolutely nothing to protect the children in your care!!! The “magic paper” does even less than a Restraining Order....both are totally useless.
You just keep posting the same talking points over and over...and it’s quite annoying.
Someone called this mother to the school for her child who needed her. She showed up. If she was such a nuisance (as that other person said on the article) then the office personnel knew what she looked like and would know immediately that she was the right person to show up for her child. She had just been there the day before in a meeting with the higher ups. You can keep spouting off the same old talking points, it doesn’t change the fact that the principal over-reacted. I’m done responding, I already know your reply will be the same thing, said almost exactly the same way you have been saying in every other post you’ve made on this thread. I’m not going to agree with you and I’m sure you won’t agree with me...but we both have the right to state our opinion.
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.