Brickbat: Get Off the Bus

|

In West Virginia, Point Pleasant Intermediate School Principal Cameron C. Moffett has been charged with felony child abuse after being caught on video pushing an 11-year-old special-needs student off a bus. Moffett rolled the boy down the steps of the bus then allegedly pinned him to the ground with his knee. At least three adults saw the incident but did not respond. Students were preparing to go on a field trip when some other students allegedly pushed the boy out of his seat. When the boy refused to get up out of the aisle, a teacher sent for Moffett.

Brickbat Archive

NEXT: Lawyer for Anti-Illegal Immigrant Group Gets SWAT Raid for Son's Graffiti, But He's Still Not Worried About Law Enforcement Excess

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good morning reason!

  2. That’s pretty fucked up right there. At least the principal was arrested.

    I notice he hasn’t been fired yet, though.

    1. “Is he still employed? Yes,” Dickens told the Gazette-Mail. “Is he at the school? No.”

      Dickens told the Point Pleasant Register earlier this week that Moffett had been moved to an “off-site location.” She refused to disclose that location or his duties.

      “I can’t comment on that because it’s a personnel issue,” she said.

      1. bet the ‘personnel issue’ is still on the public dime…

  3. That’s pretty fucked up right there. At least the principal was arrested.

    I notice he hasn’t been fired yet, though.

    1. Fucking squirrels.

  4. By my understanding, “special needs” can mean anything from “learning disability” to “mentally retarded” to “violently insane” these days. My mom is a teacher and complains of having to spend most of her time with special needs students because NCLB forces them to be integrated to the highest degree possible with the rest of the student body. This makes for ridiculous situations like consuming the bulk of school resources on a few students.

    I don’t know the details of this particular student’s issues, and the details of the event in question are a bit sketchy. There are students out there that are nearly completely disabled that are required to be placed in normal classes that soak up most of the resources. When a school averages its total expenditures over all students and reports a per student spend, it’s likely covering up the fact that the school is spending very high amounts on a small group if special needs students and very little comparatively on the “regular” students.

    1. The the movie Mask looms large.

    2. i don’t think this is what the Supreme’s meant by mainstreaming…

    3. I dont know if it’s the mainstreaming requirement, as much as that the school district would have to pay for “appropriate schooling” if they determine that the child can’t be mainstreamed.

      Can’t have that tax money flowing out of your rice bowl.

    4. it’s likely covering up the fact that the school is spending very high amounts on a small group if special needs students and very little comparatively on the “regular” students.

      This argument has become commonplace and despite a kernel of truth it is bullshit.

      There is no doubt that the mainstreaming of disabled kids is a ridiculous waste of teaching time in the classroom that distracts and disadvantages the other children in that class. It should be stopped for that reason.

      However, even it cases where the kids have a full time assistant, which is not all by any means, the overall cost is a small part of the district’s budget.

      This is demonstrated by the way that districts refuse to pay for the cost of sending disabled kids to specialized schools that can better serve those kid’s needs. The cost of those outside schools is usually less than what the districts claim it costs them to keep the kid in system.

      And yet, they’ll fight tooth & nail to not let “their” kids go. In CA, there is a state law that says districts must pay for disabled kids to go to those types of specialized schools and they still refuse, up to the point where a court date is set for a filed lawsuit.

      1. I don’t see how it’s bullshit to say that these students contribute to inflated per pupil spending numbers. I’m not sure that schools aren’t shipping their special needs students out. My mom’s Catholic school takes on special needs students from public schools that don’t want them for a fee. She’s frustrated that the school is apparently subsidizing their operatiins by taking this money, but the reality in her area is that the diocese is not spending the money on schools they once did, and tuition increases in that area are more lilely to result in decreased enrollment than more revenue. She rells me of students who are almost completely disabled and bused in from as far as 2 hours away to her school.

        1. My experience is in CA. Here they definitely don’t want to send the kids, and the state money, out of district. Even when that means that the kid gets a better education. If you have a disabled kid you literally have to sue the district despite black letter law that says they have to pay for the alternative shcooling.

          I don’t see how it’s bullshit to say that these students contribute to inflated per pupil spending numbers

          The educational establish definitely makes this claim, but it is largely a lie. Consider the average classroom of 25 kids. At state average funding levels that classroom costs around $300k of which $60k goes to the teacher in that classroom. Throwing in extra TA for the special needs kids doesnot dramatically alter the ration in classroom to overhead expenses.

          Administrative bloat and general inefficiency are much much larger factors in the skyrocketing cost of public education than the marginal cost of babysitting disabled kids.

          Again, if the districts really saw those kids as a negative they would be pushing for them to attend more specialized schools.

          Instead, the districts use them as props to provide cover for escalating costs, which goes something like this:
          “Sure costs are up because of the special needs kids. You don’t want to throw them to the wolves do you?

      2. This is demonstrated by the way that districts refuse to pay for the cost of sending disabled kids to specialized schools that can better serve those kid’s needs. The cost of those outside schools is usually less than what the districts claim it costs them to keep the kid in system.

        I have personal experience with this. While I’m sure there are exceptions, when given a choice between sending money out of the school where the student will benefit, and keeping the money even though the student is harmed, too many schools opt for the latter.

        The ones who do get sent out generally have parents who make themselves gigantic pains in the schools ass.

        What is sad is how many parents are happy to have their kids warehoused.

  5. Isn’t this the response that sarcastic was looking for yesterday in regards to how to handle unruly children?

    1. It’s “sarcasmic”, not “sarcastic”.

      And that’s “sarcasmic The Great” to you.

      To answer your question: no.

      1. Sarcasmic, they caught us. We have to come clean. When we were objecting to police coming in to handcuff and charge a pissed off 6 year old girl, we meant that the teacher should have “pinned [her] to the ground with his knee”.

        1. You know, you’re right.

          That teacher should have rolled the girl down a couple flights of stairs before putting a knee in her back.

          There’s no common sense middle ground between abuse and calling the cops.

          None at all.

          1. The point you’re missing is that you assume such a middle ground exist without a bright line determination.

            I happen to agree with the “Death of Common Sense”. But the fundamental problem of this line of though is its strict reliance of adjudication.

            So what’s it going to be gentlemen, clear, precise policies related to handling of unruly children or loosey goosey policies with wide point in time discretion and lots of lawsuits to settle the opinion differences?

            1. The underlying assumption is that these magical “policies” can be written with enough forethought to give clear and concise instructions as to how to react to every possible scenario that someone may face, without exception.
              No discretion or judgement needed. Ever.
              That’s what policy writers are for.

              1. That’s not the case at all. You can’t eliminate adjudication. You can only seek to minimize it.

                Fewer bright lines = More Adjudication

                Look, there’s no strong Moral argument as to which side of that equation is the right one to optimize. But you still have to pick a side. If you scrub the rules, you’ll have more incidents like the above and more adjudication to settle the opinion differences. If you draft lots of bright lines you have less adjudication and more expense (burden of regulatory enforcement) and a higher likelihood that bureaucrats will devolve responsibility.

                There is no right answer. But the wrong answer is to pretend there’s no trade-offs.

  6. Reading the article, the student’s special needs are not discussed in detail. Of course, the principal seems to have overreacted to the situation and should certainly have not “rolled ” the student down the steps, whatever that means and pinned him to the ground. I wonder if the kd did anything in particular to be pushed out of his seat or if his seatmates were just being typical assholes at that age.

    1. Yeah, I’m a bit confused at the “rolled” part. Was he in a wheelchair? It doesn’t seem like that. So did the principal actually make him tumble down the stairs?

    2. They have the video up on the site now. He actually rolls the kid down the aisle of the bus.

      The principal is much larger than the kid and kinda freaks out. It looks like a frustration beating rather than something that had to be done to clear the bus. If a guy can’t deal with little kids without raging out he shouldn’t be in education. There’s always openings in law enforcement for those with such personalities.

  7. I hope whoever might do that sort of thing to my kid isn’t too attached to his teeth, or his balls — because he’ll lose them promptly. What a fucking disgrace. Why wasn’t he fired immediately?

    1. Why wasn’t he fired immediately?

      *n**n

      Would you like to buy a vowel?

      1. This is a total shot in the dark, because us libertards is dum, but I’m going to go ahead and guess there’s a U in there, an I, and an O. Am I right?

        1. Close. It’s “onion”.

          1. Speculator!

        2. ONIONS! HE HAD ONIONS!

  8. Another soulless public school government bureaucrat whose just counting the days to his tax-funded pension.

  9. Just watched the video. Saw no “rolling” or “pinning”, but those words make for a more provocative story, I suppose.

    The kid seems to be the violently-insane variety of “special needs” child.

    1. He freaks on the kid and actually rolls the kid down the aisle of the bus. Maybe you watched a different video, or something.

      1. You can’t really see the pinning since it happens outside the bus, but the rolling is clear as day.

        1. As is the violently-insane child screaming, “I’m sorry” the entire time that the principal is manhandling him.

          1. Your point? Also, what violence did the kid do?

  10. That makes a lot of sense when you think abotu it dude.

    http://www.Privacy-Tools.tk

  11. As I pointed out yesterday, a “competent” principal would have called the police.

    1. Yeah. That kid needed to be put in handcuffs and charged with a felony.

  12. At least three adults saw the incident but did not respond.

    You know, they always say that people are less likely to do something when something fucked up like this is going down if a lot of people are around. But you know what I say? Fuck that, most people are just plain wimps. As someone who bartended for over a decade and jumped into the middle of numerous fights trying to break them up, I will state that I would not stand by and let this shit happen unchallenged. My advice: just be that person. Don’t even wait to see what others are (read: are not) doing.

  13. It’s Point Pleasant, so obviously Mothman is involved in some way. Why isn’t Reason reporting on the Mothman connection? This smells of conspiracy.

    1. What if the special-needs child is actually Mothman’s larva? They could be in real trouble if so.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.