More public school officials fail to meet their responsibilities

People can get angry, sometimes over stupid things. People can respond to their anger by doing stupid things. Yes, we all do it, and I will admit to having done so in the past. But the people around them, if they have any authority, ought to be held responsible for letting things get out of hand. That’s the case in this situation:

Kansas school employee locked teen with Down syndrome in closet, storage cage, lawsuit says

August 17, 2024 / 3:48 PM EDT / CBS/AP

A paraeducator of a rural Kansas school district repeatedly shoved a teenager with Down syndrome into a utility closet, hit the boy and once photographed him locked in a cage used to store athletic equipment, a lawsuit claims.

The suit filed Friday in federal court said the paraprofessional assigned to the 15-year-old sent the photo to staff in the Kaw Valley district, comparing the teen to an animal and “making light of his serious, demeaning and discriminatory conduct.”

While the CBS article does not name the “paraprofessional,” the story in the Daily Mail, which admittedly goes for the sensational, said he was Albert Bahret. The image to the right comes from the Daily Mail, and was not in the CBS story. The Kansas City Star’s story is hidden behind a McClatchy paywall, but is available without a subscription via Yahoo! News.

Let’s be clear here: these things have been alleged in a lawsuit, and allegations in a lawsuit do not constitute proof.

The teen’s parents alleged in the suit that the paraprofessional did not have a key to the cage where sports equipment was kept and had to enlist help from other district staff to open the door and release their son, who is identified in the complaint only by his initials. The suit, which includes the photo, said it was not clear how long the teen was locked in the cage.

The lawsuit names Mr Bahret, other special education staff and the district, which enrolls around 1,100 and is based in St. Marys, about 30 miles northwest of Topeka.

Let’s assume that Mr bahret lost his temper, but any, and I stress any competent school administration would have immediately taken serious action against him. If he had to get others to help him release the handicapped boy, then other people in the school knew what had been done, and any of them had to have known that Mr Bahret needed to be immediately suspended pending investigation.

The suit said some staff expressed concerns to the special education teacher who oversaw the paraprofessional, as well as the district’s special education director. But the suit said neither of them intervened, even though there had been other complaints about the paraprofessional’s treatment of disabled students in the past.

If this is true, it has to be asked: how were the school’s “special education teacher” and the “district’s special education director” so poorly trained in their jobs that they did not recognize that Mr Bahret’s behavior was wholly improper and a huge liability to the school and the district? These people are all college graduates, supposedly educated on things like this, and had to understand that the “paraprofessional” needed to be removed from the school and reported to law enforcement, as soon as they became aware of the first complaint against him.

The suit said the director instructed subordinates not to report their concerns to the state child welfare agency. However, when the parents raised concerns, a district employee reported them to the agency, citing abuse and neglect concerns, the suit said.

There seems to be some major ass-covering going on, but such would not be necessary if the responsible school authorities had properly exercised their authority, at the proper time. Yes, the ‘mainstreaming’ of handicapped students is a tough policy, and one with which I do not agree, but the policy exists, and the school officials, who are dramatically overpaid based on the median family incomes in their communities, need to meet their responsibilities, or be fired.

Spread the love

2 thoughts on “More public school officials fail to meet their responsibilities

  1. I think your reservations are warranted.

    The offender sent the picture to other people? If he was being abusive, why would he take a picture and why would he send it to others?

    Look at the lock. That looks a lot like the kind of lock that latches automatically when the door is closed. Which could explain why the teacher didn’t have a key.

    Look at the kid. He’s standing there holding a basketball. Granted his face is blacked out, but he doesn’t look like he’s in distress or fearful. He looks like he’s found himself in a sticky predicament and doesn’t know how to get out of it.

    Theory: The kid went into the locker (which had been unlocked so the teacher could access it, but the teacher didn’t have a key) and pulled the door shut locking himself in…or perhaps another student locked it accidentally or as a joke.

    The teacher may have very well thought it was funny and took a picture while waiting for someone to bring the key. I could see him sending the picture with text “comparing the teen to an animal” (note there’s no direct quote) along the lines of “he looks like my dog in his kennel” or “a rat in a trap” or something like that. Perhaps inappropriate, but hardly devastating.

    So, the parents find out about the picture, grill the kid about what happened in such a manner as to illicit accusations of abuse that may or may not have even happened (remember the child abuse daycare center ridiculousness from the late ’80’s? That’s exactly what happened there…the adults were so determined that they were going to get the kids to tell the “truth” they basically bullied them into making up stories of demonic rites, cannibalism, orgies etc).

    I’m not saying for sure that’s what happened here, because I don’t know. It’s not impossible that this teacher was an amazingly abusive and simultaneously amazingly stupid person, but other options are possible.

  2. “Look at the lock. That looks a lot like the kind of lock that latches automatically when the door is closed. Which could explain why the teacher didn’t have a key.”

    Elaborating about that particular point which I didn’t make clear…the door doesn’t even have a knob, only a keyhole. If the teacher didn’t have a key, how did he lock the student in there? The only scenario I can think of is the one I theorized. It’s possible that the teacher intentionally shut the door and locked him in there, but that just seems a bit hinky to me. As you mentioned…why would he intentionally lock the kid in there as a form of abuse while knowing he was going to have to enlist the help of someone else to let him out? Doesn’t make sense.

Comments are closed.