"Somebody in the school system, [at _______ elementary school] or somebody else, took her daughter's journal, went through it, copied a page, provided it to the school system's lawyer to use -- potentially use against her in this case." (Page 7 of transcript section shown below.)This is the fifth in our series of due process hearing transcripts illustrating how the Montgomery County Board of Education uses extraneous arguments and documents to grill parents for days on end. How does any of this relate to the question of the educational needs of the child?
Child = the child that is the subject of this hearing
Maisy = the sibling of Child
Mother = the mother of Child and Maisy
The attorneys in this matter are:
Mr. Eig = Child's attorney
Mr. Krew = Montgomery County Board of Education attorney
In this transcript, Mr. Eig questions Mother as to whether or not she knew that the Board of Education had obtained Maisy's school journal. Maisy's journal was item number 90 on the Board of Education's list of potential exhibits. The Board of Education's attorney responds that the journal was to be introduced in to evidence if "there was some reason to do so". (Page 5 of transcript below.) "Some Reason?" The only reason would be to bully or harass the parents, of course. Is bullying and harassing parents the goal of a hearing on a child's special education needs?
Maisy's journal had to travel out of her classroom, to the Principal, to the Community Superintendent, to the Superintendent, and then to the Board of Education in order to become a part of Child's hearing. It took a lot of MCPS administrators and the Board of Education to first find this journal, read it, and then decide to produce it as a piece of evidence that could be used against her sibling, Child.
The journey of Maisy's journal shows an institutional acceptance of opposing children that need special education services, even to the extent of taking a siblings class work without the permission of the parents.
Superintendent Starr says, "What you permit is what you promote."
Superintendent Starr, this happened on your watch.
Note that after the Child's attorney exposes that the Board of Education took a sibling's class work and brought it to the hearing, the Board of Education's attorney attempts to object to the introduction of this document. The Board of Education brought this document to the hearing, but then doesn't want any discussion of how it came to be on the evidence list.