John D: The three administrators against whom I filed Professional Standards charges not only disrespected Steve and tried to turn his innocent mistake by an uniformed teacher into a crime, but they themselves all three--Smiley, Sosa, and the other one whose name I get mixed up (Morris, I think)--also put severely disabled children into a room with junk piled on the walls, an accident-prone situation.
And they threw Kemp into taking care of these children without paying any attention to his lack of training to care for severely retarded children--his specialty is teaching reading to children who have trouble with the skill. They as well didn't give him a word of orientation or make themselves available for consultation as their job descriptions say they should. That administrative behavior constitutes child abuse in my book.
And the Secretary of Education's Professional Matters committee online says both teachers and administrators are liable to lose their licensces for child abuse--not just teachers. In addition, it does not mention a qualification to file a complainte except the knowledge that a child or children were abused. Ms. Kipley probably with Ms. Elia's help as well as that of Linda Cobbe made up the "standing" objection to my filing the charge. One does not appear on the Secretary of State's site for Professional Behavior breaches.
One does not see most child abuse. He or she infers it when seeing evidence of child abuse as I did when I was an emergency-room nurse, or people infer it from other situations such as the one I describe above involving Kemp and the careless administrators. I also witnessed child abuse when I worked as court observer for domestic violence for almost a year in Pinellas County courts.
I hope this answers your question.
lee drury de cesare
John__D has left a new comment on your post "Sherlock Holmes Rides Again": >I need also to know where you got your information that I do not have "standing" to file a Professional Standards charge. The written material you sent me does not mention such impediment. The Secretary of State's Web site's Professional Practices Section says otherwise. The Education Secretary's language suggests anybody who knows of child abuse should report it.< You write youself "anybody who knows". Perhaps Kipley writes that you have no standing because she believes that you don't actually know. What evidence do you have for Kipley that demonstrates that you know of abuse as opposed to "kind-of know", "think it could have", or "heard that it happened"?
3 comments:
I'll avoid levity. There is a possible typo that hinders my comprehension. Was Kemp a uniformed teacher or an uninformed teacher. This is a serious question, and a straight answer is important to me.
Does your post answer my question? Not directly, no. But as you write that "one does not see most child abuse", you seem to be writing that no one sees it and that no one could therefore know.
I'll make my question clearer based on your post, and I'll ask that you remember that you allege that I'm a Stanford-Binet lower-quartile dweller when you draft your answer.
Did you know the abuse occurred, or did you infer it?
a) You knew it.
b) You inferred it.
"Know" is a rich and complex word. It goes back to the beginning of a number of languages. Look it up in a good dictionary to see what I mean.
I know in all senses that the three administrators named allowed, even promoted, child abuse of the severely retarded children.
I don't know you, so I can't have called you lower-quartile Standford Binet unless you occupied one of the groups I was blasting.It's a favorite expression mine.
You seem intelligent. But mostly you seem angry. You don't like me, and you use this circuitous way to express that disesteem.
If you are for protecting child abusers, be on your way is my response. I don't like people who abuse children no matter who they are.
lee drury de cesare
>I know in all senses that the three administrators named allowed, even promoted, child abuse of the severely retarded children.<
This is a strong call about what you know. As for my protecting child abusers, you infer too much.
I think you're doing Steve Kemp more harm than good. You write that his was "an innocent mistake by [what I presume is] an uninformed teacher" and also that the three administrators were guilty of abuse by putting disabled children in a room with junk lining the walls.
That "innoocent mistake" was abuse, wasn't it? I'll be honest and admit that all I know is what I've read on blogs - but if someone specifically trained for the job had done the same thing that Steve Kemp had innocently done, they would have been child abusers in your eyes, wouldn't they?
The administrators left the disabled children in a junk-filled room? So did Steve Kemp, didn't he? I don't believe that this fact is disputed by any party, is it? It's a despicable situation, but Steve Kemp was there doing his best as a teacher while letting disabled children stay in that junk-filled room and, by your standards, abusing them.
Now, you've written that any citizen can file a complaint if they know of abuse, and also that most child abuse is inferred not known.
Would you therefore support someone who saw Kemp keeping those retarded children in a junk-filled room, inferred from the available evidence that abuse was occurring, and filed a complaint?
I welcome feedback on these comments from you or your readers. I will stand corrected on anything I have misconstrued, but I think (know?) that I'm on the money. If you want administrators' heads to roll, Steve Kemp as the actual doer of the action will have to watch his head roll too if you get your way.
Post a Comment