The schools response...

I received this response on Wednesday March 13th, 12 days after witnessing my 5 year old son being subjected to gross emotional stress by an inexperienced teacher, intervening while the vice principle tried to stop me, then being banned by campus police and threatened with criminal trespassing charges....
Here is what I received in 3 parts(it's long....but lacking so much)

"March 13, 2013

Dear Mrs. Quigley,

This letter serves as my response to your inquiry about the events of March 1, 2013. I understand that you are unhappy with the events of that day, as they relate to your visit to the campus, and Mr. H's ultimate decision to contact law enforcement that morning. In an effort to fully understand what occurred, and to provide you with a response, I have investigated this situation. As part of my investigation, I reviewed the statements of Mr. H's, Ms. G and yourself, the NISD police report, and also spoke with other staff members who witnessed or reported some related events. Enclosed with this letter are the statements from Mr. H and Ms. G.

Review of Events:

I determined that on Friday, March 1, you checked in with the office staff at 9:56 am and received a visitor’s badge from the Raptor system per NISD policy. You indicated that you were going to observe Emerson in the BMC setting. At 10:19 am the office received a call from a teacher stating that an adult whom she did not recognize was walking the hallway and looking in classrooms. This hallway is not located near the BMC classroom. Upon inquiry I confirmed that the reported individual’s description matched your appearance. Similarly, there were no other authorized campus visitors at this time.

At approximately 10:30 am, Mr. S reported to Mr. H that you were sitting on the floor outside the BMC classroom listening at the door. He also stated that you had asked him questions regarding his role on campus and Emerson’s behavior. Mr. H then proceeded to go upstairs to speak with you and answer any questions you may have. He reported that he offered you the opportunity to enter the classroom, but that you preferred to remain in the hall.

After a few minutes of conversation between you and Mr. H, you overheard Emerson became upset in the classroom. During our meeting on March 5, 2013, you stated that you also overheard Ms. G's tone and direction to Emerson to “sit down” and to “get to work” and you believed that it was necessary for your to enter the classroom at that point. While you reported that Ms. G's tone was “harsh,” Mr. H did not perceive any reason to enter the classroom. Against Mr. H's request for you to remain in the hallway, you entered the classroom. Once in Ms. G's classroom you interacted directly with Emerson, lifting him onto your lap and holding him and speaking with him. Ms. G indicated that she was uncomfortable with the situation. Mr. H advised her to step aside and allowed you time to comfort Emerson. Once Emerson was returning to instruction, Mr. H invited you to speak with him in the hallway.

You accepted Mr. H's request to leave the classroom, but refused Mr. H's request that you leave the hallway area and accompany him to the office to discuss your concerns further. You were adamant that you did not want to leave the hallway. Mr.H attempted to further explain that your actions were disruptive and that you should leave the area. You became defiant and raised your voice to a level such that other students in the hallway appeared to be alarmed. You stated that if Mr. H found it necessary to call for NISD police support, it would be the only way you would leave the area. You confirmed this when we spoke on March 5. During this time your tone was angry and you used a raised voice. Mr. H contacted the office staff and a call to NISD police dispatch was made. A few minutes before 11:00, I received a call from the office staff alerting me to the situation. I left a District training to return to campus.

At approximately 10:50, Emerson left the classroom for lunch and you and Mr. H began the walk to his office. During the walk your tone tone was angry and you continued to use a raised voice. Upon reaching Mr. H's office you expressed your concerns about campus communication and Emerson’s IEP schedule. The two of you conversed about your concerns until the police arrived. The police officers advised you that your compliance with administrative requests were expected. The police officers concluded that your conduct in failing to comply with Mr. H's directive while on campus would support the issuance of a criminal trespass warning or arrest.

When I arrived on campus, you were waiting in the office lobby. I reported immediately to Mr. H's office and spoke briefly with both the police officers and him about the events. Mr. H and I asked that the police offers not pursue a Criminal Trespass Warning. I concluded that the sitautation would best be handled if you were asked to leave campus for the remainder of the day and we could speak after the weekend and reschedule the conference we had planned for 2:00 PM that day. It was not my intention to ban you from the campus or prevent you from returning for the remainder of the year. I asked you to join me in the conference room so that I could explain this to you. The police officers and Mr. H were present as well. I attempted to explain how the behavior was disruptive to the school environment. You stated that you felt Mr. H responded inappropriately. Emerson was brought to the office during our conversation. Your husband also arrived on campus at around this time and joined us. During this time your tone remained angry and loud, and as you acknowledged, more angry than it had been in your earlier exchange with Mr. H. I indicated that it was time for you to leave. Your husband indicated that he would return at 2:00 so that we could hold the conference with Emerson’s teachers as planned.

Conclusions:

In considering the totality of events that occurred during your visit on March 1, I believe that you did not immediately report to the BMC classroom, although you had indicated that was your intended destination. This was a violation of our campus expectations for visitors. Once you arrived at the BMC classroom door, you did not enter the class, but instead chose to sit in the hallway. The presence of a unfamiliar adult, sitting on the hallway floor, listening through a classroom door would be disturbing for some students and creates a distraction and concern for other teachers and administrators who may have observed you. When you were given the opportunity to enter the classroom by Mr. H, you declined.
Once you and Mr. H overheard Emerson, Mr. H concluded that your presence in the classroom at that moment woud interfere with Ms. G's efforts to redirect Emerson. Mr. H appropriately directed you to remain outside the room, but you did not comply with this.

Although you acted against Mr. H's request, once in the classroom, he permitted you to interact with Emerson even though it intered with Ms. G's efforts. Once Emerson was re- engaged in the classroom activity, Mr. H appropriately requested to talk with you at another location, rather than the classroom.

You defied Mr. H and indicated that the only way you would leave the hallway would be with the involvement of law enforcement. Upon my review of all the information, it is undisputed that you initiated the discussion of law enforcement’s involvement. During this time you continued to disrupt the school environemnt through your tone and volume. Particularly in light of recent events concerning school violence it is impossible to disregard the impact your conduct in the hallway had on the campus and that it may have been concerning to students and teachers.

Although your conduct was in violation of the NISD Board Policy for visitors, as your conduct interefered with instruction in Emerson’s classroom and other classrooms, no action was taken to restrict you from the campus beyond asking you to temporarily leave the campus that day. In light of these events I have concluded that Mr. H's conduct was appropriate to maintain order on the campus. Further, I have concluded that you were not treated inappropriately on that date.
While I understand that you may disagree with my conclusions, I trust that we can continue to work together in your student’s best interest. Likewise, I trust that the events of March 1 will not be repeated. Prior to that visit I have had no concerns reported concerning your visits to the campus and so I have no reason to anticipate that they will recur. Please be advised, however, that in the future I do expect you to limit your visits to the specific destination identified upon sign-in and that you respect the authroity of administrators and teachers to maintain order on the campus.

Sincerely,
Mrs. S
Principal


Vice principal Mr.H's statement:
http://mylittlemartian.blogspot.com/2013/03/through-vp-eyes.html

BMC teacher Mrs.G's statement:
http://mylittlemartian.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-teacher-tells-her-side.html

And my statement since we're getting all stateMENTAL here:
Part 1:
http://mylittlemartian.blogspot.com/2013/03/warrior-mom-criminalized.html
Part 2:
http://mylittlemartian.blogspot.com/2013/03/mommy-buddy-behind-bars.html

Oh! And my nice letter informing them I was coming to observe 2 says BEFORE this March first event.
http://mylittlemartian.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-fluffy-little-letter-to-my-sons-school.html



Sorry if the links don't work. I'm on it!