05-18-2022, 09:15 PM
What stands out to me in the article is that there is a big difference between “insufficient information to substantiate the former student’s claims/no proof of wrongdoing” and “inaccurate allegations/claims” as presented by the principal in his letter to the parents.
Assuming the reporting is accurate, there is clear proof that the principal changed the wording of the DOE report in an effort to slant it in favor of the teacher and against the former student. He is essentially calling the former student a liar, with no more proof of that than the former student has of her statements’ accuracy.
This action was not necessary, and it casts more doubt on the principal than it does on the former student. And it becomes more understandable why the students at the school are dissatisfied with the actions of the administration.
Assuming the reporting is accurate, there is clear proof that the principal changed the wording of the DOE report in an effort to slant it in favor of the teacher and against the former student. He is essentially calling the former student a liar, with no more proof of that than the former student has of her statements’ accuracy.
This action was not necessary, and it casts more doubt on the principal than it does on the former student. And it becomes more understandable why the students at the school are dissatisfied with the actions of the administration.