[NU Sports] PSU and how this could have been so easily avoided….

[Jason Singer]

Dennis, you miss my point and I apologize if I wasn't specific. The school teacher in your example, would never have to go to the Principal. She reports directly to DCFS. DCFS then goes to the principal and says "a report has been made". No mention of the teachers name. Now, of course, chances are she would first go the principal, but if the perpetrator is still around kids, she can then go to DCFS, again, confidentially and pursue it then. No need to worry about job. And, of course, my reaction is I would happily risk my job if it meant shielding children who remain in harms way, especially if I have actually SEEN the abuse with my own eyes.

As for being sanctimonious, not so much. Just providing a different perspective of how this might have ended in 1999 at first knowledge of the crime. 

And, thanks Roy. I know they made this mandatory for PSU teachers as of two days ago. I should have added primary and secondary school teachers to my list of mandatory reporters.

Jason Singer
jintsjason at me.com
jason at jasonsinger.com




On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Dennis W. Brandt wrote:

> <One of the biggest issues here (and in hindsight, perhaps the biggest issue) that was finally (and thankfully) addressed yesterday by the PA legislature, is that employees of state educational institutions are not mandatory reporters of sexual and/or child abuse to child services in the manner that doctors, therapists, Psy D's, police and EMT's are.
> 
> You are wrong as far as public school teachers are concerned.  They are required to report abuse in Pennsylvania.  College teachers I can't speak to.
> 
> There is a lot of sanctimonious first-stone tossing going on here.  Isn't it amazing how everyone knows exactly what should have been done - after the fact.
> 
> Let's say you're a third-grade teacher.  (I happen to live with one who looking forward to retirement at the end of the school year.)  She suspects abuse of a student and reports it to the principal.  Some time goes by, and she hears nothing.  So, she checks back with the principal, who tells her, "It's being handled."  Each time she checks back, the principal says the situation is under control.  Her legal responsibility has ended, yet she still sees the possibility of the child being abused.  What does she do? Should she go over the boss's head to the school board president or perhaps contact the police?  There's a real job risker, not to mention offering fodder for a potentially crippling lawsuit if she can't prove the allegations, which aren't her job to prove.  The law could help by protecting teachers if they report suspected abuse whether their suspicions are right or wrong.  (They may; I don't know, but when did that ever stop a mega-million dollar lawsuit.)  But what if the child isn't being abused, and the problem is something altogether different?  The teacher may be trained to look for signs, but she isn't a trained psychiatrist.  A "mere" investigation of sexual abuse could destroy lives.  Ask the McMartin family about that.
> 
> It's not quite so easy before the fact.
>