1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | During a subsequent interview, LPA asked Director Clayton why she stated in her report that the child was in fact “hit”. Director Clayton admitted that “they just assumed” that he was hit during the activity despite no actual witness of such an event occurring and because parent of Child #1 was insistent that his son was punched according to his son’s own account of the incident. Per Parent #1, Child #2 was also involved in a previous incident where he bit Child #1. LPA interviewed staff, students and parents regarding whether or not Child #2 exhibited patterns of aggression including biting and hitting. All statements obtained support that Child #2 has not and does not exhibit patterns of bullying and/or aggression since the biting incident in December.
Allegations regarding Lack of supervision: Child had a bloody nose and staff was unsure of who or what caused the nosebleed. During the course of the investigation, Parent #1 stated that Parent #2 observed blood on the inside of the child’s mask after picking him up at the end of the school day (4/23). Child #1’s parents and relatives posted photos and details of the incident on social media. LPA reviewed reports pertaining to the incident. Though local police were contacted, parents of Child #1 were informed that the complaint did not warrant a police report. Per Interviews, no staff or children witnessed Child #1 actually getting hit or punched but stated that they had only heard in the days following that hitting or punching was the cause of the nosebleed. Staff acknowledged that child’s nose bled and that child’s mask did in fact have drops of blood but assumed that it was due to child being accidentally hit while dancing or that the child himself could have caused his nose to bleed by rubbing it due to dryness. Staff also stated that an incident report was not created until the following Monday, as they were not aware that there had been punching or hitting involved as Child #1 did not communicate that any such incident occurred. Per staff, they only became aware that they had a “situation” when the child’s father arrived at the school on Monday, 4/26.
Based on the information obtained, Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
PG 2 OF 3
|