There is a whole lot to unpack in your statements…
Eddie Velez

To address some of your points:

First, I never stated that the injury was justified, simply that the headline painted an extremely distorted picture of what happened. The injury was certainly not ‘justified’ but came at the end of a sequence of events that the student played no small role in — both the immediate situation regarding his attempt to leave the classroom and the long term issues that led to the student being placed in alternative school in the first place.

As far as what the kid may have been, when a student is sent to an alternative school, it’s no longer a question of ‘may have’ — the student has a lengthy and detailed history of serious infractions that makes their presence in an ordinary classroom untenable.

Regarding the disruption of allowing the phone call, interrupting instruction for those sorts of issues can indeed be incredibly disruptive, especially in an environment where all the students are BIC Spec Ed. Most alternative school programs are extremely regimented — the one I did a short term assignment in didn’t even allow the students to leave the classroom, limiting bathroom breaks and office visits to set times between instruction periods. It’s a very sensible practice given the nature of the students, who already have a long history of disrupting classrooms and violating conduct rules.

Finally the statement regarding consequences being proportional, is hyperbolic (to put it mildly) — the injured leg wasn’t a ‘consequence’, it was an accident and the violation in question wasn’t ‘making a phone call’, it was attempting to leave the classroom without permission.

I get it that you probably disagree with all of this, just giving you the courtesy of a reply.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Paul Frantizek’s story.