By: Publius
In our last piece📰 we showed proof that Hartland Schools are allowing violent outbursts and threats to remain in the schools.
We followed up with our breaking report📰 that a Hartland School Board Trustee's wife, who works as a secretary in the intermediate school, was put on leave pending an investigation based off of a social media comment.
We live in a police state |
In part 2 we will go all the way back to May of 2022.
Here are the facts of the story:
(quotes from administration will be highlighted under the appropreate timeline segment)
📌On May 18th a first time substitute teacher, hired by a 3rd party contractor, arrived at Round elementary to fill his roll as a substitute teacher in Mrs. Griffins classroom.
📌Upon arrival the first time substitute requested to show the kindergarten students his ultrasound machine he brought to show the class their hearts. He stated he was a retired surgeon.
📌Principal Dotty Hottum agreed to allowing the substitute to show the class his ultrasound machine. The stipulations were that he was only able to show the boys their hearts, as he was a male teacher.
📌The substitute was sent to Mrs. Griffins kindergarten classroom accompanied by the buildings permanent substitute. The first time substitute requested the children call him Mr. Charlie.
📌It was reported to us by a parent of a student "The boys took turns laying on the floor and pulling their shirts up to their necks. Mr. Charlie put jelly on their chests and used his wand on the machine to show their hearts to the classroom. He also used his stethoscope so they could hear their heart beats."
There were parents and staff that were outraged over parents not being notified. Those parents and staff members withdrew statements for fear of retaliation. Much like in our February 28th report.
Documentation can be found here
Here are questions we have:
*Why were parents not notified prior to the event?
*If the event was unplanned and last minute; what gave the principal, Dotty Hottum, the authority to bypass parental consent to allow the substitute to use medical treatment practices on students without medical release consent?
*What was the purpose of paying 2 substitute teachers in one kindergarten classroom if the staff substitute was already available to instruct the class?
While some do not see "the big deal" in this story as the substitute is, in fact, a retired doctor.
The glossed over, yet very important issues of safety were never addressed here.
1) Any 5 year old that was participating in this event was not able to give Mr. Charlie the child's medical background. There was no knowledge of preexisting conditions of students participating or potential adverse reactions to an ultrasound being preformed.
2) Boundaries for our children is incredibly important at the age of 5. Adults, acting as doctors (whom children are told to trust) impede the trust boundaries in a setting like school, removing the child's personal space autonomy and opens children up to being potential targets later. This is a psychological fact.
Adhering to a medical health check "only in the doctor's office with mom and dad or guardian present" does not blur those boundaries for a healthy 5 year old mind.
On the floor in a kindergarten class does blur those protective lines. Making children susceptible to future blurred boundaries. No adult knows the depths of every child's personal trauma history. This was irresponsible.
3) Saftey for our children in the current mental health crisis of our country is paramount. When the safety of our children's minds and bodies are not our first priority they can and will be harmed.
This is the definition of grooming:
*We're not saying Mr. Charlie is anything more or less than a nice retired doctor that wanted to show the kids something cool on his first sub job at the school. We have no evidence he did anything nefarious at all.
*We are saying, it is the administration's job to establish boundaries and implement proper procedures at all times. Possibly inviting him back at a later date with consent from the parents would have been the appropriate initial response?
As we wind down this story today, it is important to note, this isn't the first time superintendent Chuck Hughes has had to run offensive for poor decision making and lack of situational oversight.
This is from TODAY! He must not have liked that light too much?
Why did he feel the need to lie about the nap?
Why the rush to only post positive responses in his letter to parents?
Perhaps taking advice from those around you, investigating outcomes/information and preparing for situations based on the live statistics you track in your schools, maybe these forms of operational malfeasance could be prevented.
We will continue this line of thought through our next part of this series that will hopefully drop later this week. We will highlight the next safety issue at hand and Hartland will get a break from our focus for a moment.
Im sure they'll need the break. They still can't figure out how to word the resolution to implement protocol and policy to ALLOW convicted sex offenders in their schools and at their school sponsored events. They just can't seem to find the pretty words to placate enough of the people to make it ok.
It's not that hard. Sex offenders do not belong in the schools or around our children |
All documentations can be found here
コメント