Mom arrested for "unauthorized entry to a school" after she was buzzed in but didn't sign in.

[Happy2BaMom]

How do we know that anything this woman claims to be true is actually true?

 

I guess I am surprised that so many people just assume that what she is reporting is: a) true, and b) the entire story.

 

The school will be unable to publicly comment on any such event and Lord knows the "news reporters" are only seeking sensationalism, not the truth.

 

One of the reasons I homeschool my children is so they can learn to be critical thinkers, not jump on the emotional bandwagon given the first opportunity.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Lol. To think of all the times DD and I have buzzed in to DW's school and walked right to her room. Still do. Only once did a new superintendent stop me. I think they have a training contract with the TSA.

 

And yeah, we do have 2 HS converts among the faculty so far. Watch for that tide to rise as PARCC gets rolling.

[LNC]

In my school district signing in requires scanning in your drivers license. Not sure what added measure of security that provides.

[Happy2BaMom]

If you read some of the comments, there is someone who posted, claiming to have some more knowledge of the arrested woman. This poster claims the woman has a long history of "issues" with the school, including making violent threats against other people.

 

I am wondering if she started making threats and the principal had enough.

 

We can't know, but I can say that the news media is completely worthless in this society.

[LibraryLover]

nm 

 

 

[bettyandbob]

We can't trust the comments on the story either.

 

How do the commenters know what the child's label is. And regarding ED v. Autism labeling, many children who are on the spectrum are often labeled ED. But the fact is whether or not the child is Autistic or ED no one besides the parent and school officials is supposed to know. It sounds like the mother is telling people her son has autism, so are school officials breaking confidentiality and telling people the child is really ED. Has some random person decided that the mother is lying because they don't like the behaviors of the child. Additionally, the wrong educational placement for a child with autism can create some bad behavior problems--in that situation the child is still autistic even though he may seem ED. The fact is a random comment on the story claiming the child is ED is either a serious break in confidentiality or a lie. 

 

 

[Happy2BaMom]

Yes, but it is just as likely that the arrested woman is lying. How do you know that what she is saying is the truth?

[JustEm]

Yeah, I'm going with there is more to this story than we've heard.  It seems a little too odd to take such extreme measures over someone going to see their child in the classroom.  In my dh's profession I have seen enough parents grossly exaggerate a situation to make the other party involved seem completely wrong when in fact the parent is the one who handled things badly.  

[Barb_]

Why would the teacher call the parent instead of the principal? Why would the child not be with the principal if he was freaking out to the extent that they called his mother? Why would she need to "go to her son" instead of heading straight to the main office where he'd been removed to? It almost sounds as if she were set up so they could be rid if her for whatever reason.

 

And as for the poster claiming to know more, how would she know the official diagnosis of the child? She obviously doesn't care for his mother. Someone else pointed out that if she attacked another mother at school the week before, why was she not arrested for that incident? Because it likely didn't happen.

[Happy2BaMom]

But, again, you are accepting the mother's story at face value. The only "facts" we have are from the story she is telling. Who really knows who called whom when?

 

I try to teach my children to not pass judgment until they know the full story. You can only know the full story when you have heard both sides.

 

I recognize that this story fills the "public schools are so awful" popular narrative. However, if we who homeschool don't do any better job than the public schools in teaching our children how to think their way through conflict, what's the point?

[bettyandbob]

But, again, you are accepting the mother's story at face value. The only "facts" we have are from the story she is telling. Who really knows who called whom when?

 

I try to teach my children to not pass judgment until they know the full story. You can only know the full story when you have heard both sides.

 

I recognize that this story fills the "public schools are so awful" popular narrative. However, if we who homeschool don't do any better job than the public schools in teaching our children how to sort through drama, what's the point?

 

I don't know who you are addressing. I am not accepting the mother's narrative, but I am also not accepting the statements of a person commenting on the story. If the person who commented is correct in her statements she is demonstrating that the school has made a serious breach of confidentiality, which means the school still has serious problems (just not the ones highlighted in the article) and is not safe place for children for different reasons. 

[Happy2BaMom]

I don't know who you are addressing. I am not accepting the mother's narrative, but I am also not accepting the statements of a person commenting on the story. If the person who commented is correct in her statements she is demonstrating that the school has made a serious breach of confidentiality, which means the school still has serious problems (just not the ones highlighted in the article) and is not safe place for children for different reasons.

Neither am I.

 

My point above has absolutely nothing to do with any of the people commenting on the story.

 

My point is, we do not know. My concern is that people are jumping on the band wagon about how awful the school is based upon a one-sided story. Why is that so hard to see?

[Happy2BaMom]

And how do we know the commentor who made the supposed breach is a member of the school district? There are people bound to be personally involved in the situation who could have that knowledge. Maybe it is a member of the school. Maybe not. But you jump from a post on an internet site to "guilty school" to "not safe for children" in the space of a single breath.

 

Perhaps. And perhaps not.

 

Whatever. I need to leave and have expended enough energy trying to focus on what is known and what is not and what can be judged and what can not.

 

This will be my last post.

[JustEm]

Being buzzed in doesn't mean you have free range of the school.  You still have to check in with the office.  The woman even says in her interview that “I saw a teacher and she said Ms. Williams what is wrong? I said something is wrong with Mikey and proceeded to go straight to my son."  She didn't indicate whether or not she was escorted.  So, I see no reason for the principal, who probably had no idea what was going on, not to call the police when a frantic parent storms down the hall looking for their child.

 

With my knowledge of the police force I can completely picture what happened in order for her to get arrested.  Once the principal told her the cops had been called she probably got angry and even more frantic, causing more of a scene in front of other students.  Once the police got there she was likely still frantic and acting in a way that with so many students around there only option is to put her in cuffs.  

 

It all just seems like a huge misunderstanding and lack of communication.

[bettyandbob]

And how do we know the commentor who made the supposed breach is a member of the school district? There are people bound to be personally involved in the situation who could have that knowledge. Maybe it is a member of the school. Maybe not. But you jump from a post on an internet site to "guilty school" to "not safe for children" in the space of a single breath.

 

Perhaps. And perhaps not.

 

Whatever. I need to leave and have expended enough energy trying to focus on what is known and what is not and what can be judged and what can not.

 

This will be my last post.

 

The special ed labeling is absolutely confidential. Anyone at the school who knows the child's label should not be disclosing it. It doesn't matter if the mother has said publicly that the child is autistic and a teacher or therapist knows that is wrong. The teacher or therapist cannot correct the parent in a news article. The teacher or therapist cannot tell other parents (who then tell the news website) associated with the school. Teachers or therapists cannot tell anyone. 

 

The mother is telling people her son is autistic. So, who would know other than the school district that the label is otherwise. 

 

Sidenote here: even if the child is labeled ED he may still be autistic. So the mother may not be lying about that. It is extremely common for school districts to insist on ED labeling of children with autism. 

[chiguirre]

Sidenote here: even if the child is labeled ED he may still be autistic. So the mother may not be lying about that. It is extremely common for school districts to insist on ED labeling of children with autism. 

 

The ED label makes me even more suspicious of the school administration. The first thing I was warned about by ABA therapists before I enrolled my sons in ps speech was to NEVER, EVER let them use the ED label. Schools can take punitive measures against kids with an ED dx they can't take against kids with other disabilities.

[unsinkable]

Well, something happened for the mom to end up arrested. And she felt like she was wronged to the extent that she called the news.

 

Is she completely delusional about what happened to the point she'd let the fact that she was arrested become public knowledge even if she was in the wrong? maybe.

 

Or she truly was wronged and didn't know where to turn for help.

[Catwoman]

How do we know that anything this woman claims to be true is actually true?

 

I guess I am surprised that so many people just assume that what she is reporting is: a) true, and b) the entire story.

 

The school will be unable to publicly comment on any such event and Lord knows the "news reporters" are only seeking sensationalism, not the truth.

 

One of the reasons I homeschool my children is so they can learn to be critical thinkers, not jump on the emotional bandwagon given the first opportunity.

Thank you for treating everyone who has disagreed with you as though we are unthinking, overly emotional morons. :glare:

 

Clearly, you support the school's actions in this matter, and you have every right to do so, but please don't suggest that anyone here has taken either side's story at face value. No one has suggested that the mother did absolutely nothing wrong. No one has suggested that there weren't probably some past issues between the mom and the school.

 

If you're going to disagree with us, at least disagree with things we've actually said, instead of making blanket generalizations.

 

Again, I agree with you that we don't know the whole story, but I don't appreciate your implications that anyone who disagrees with you is not a critical thinker and that they "jump on emotional bandwagons." It's entirely inaccurate, and quite frankly, it's offensive as well.

[FaithManor]

Why would the teacher call the parent instead of the principal? Why would the child not be with the principal if he was freaking out to the extent that they called his mother? Why would she need to "go to her son" instead of heading straight to the main office where he'd been removed to? It almost sounds as if she were set up so they could be rid if her for whatever reason.

 

And as for the poster claiming to know more, how would she know the official diagnosis of the child? She obviously doesn't care for his mother. Someone else pointed out that if she attacked another mother at school the week before, why was she not arrested for that incident? Because it likely didn't happen.

In most schools, one can not remove the child because it would require handling the child. The protocol mny times involves removing the rest of the class from the room and calling whomever is supposed to be called when the child melts down. If the child is not a danger to self, this can be a parent. If a danger, than it can be paramedics with police back up because they have the authority from the state touch the child and even force onto a guerney or into restraints. Extreme I know! But this is what the "Lawyer up every single time I'm ticked off" crowd has brought us. There are only very rare instances in which a teacher or principal can touch a child and most of thats related to giving first aid. If the boy had been under control enough to walk to the principal's office of his own accord, they would likely not have called the mother, and instead allowed him some time to calm down and then returned him to his room.

 

As for HIPPA, the mother can say what she wants about his condition, but if any employee of the school says anything about the specifics of his diagnosis or his IEP, they can be in big trouble. That is one reason we often do nothear the school's side of the story.

 

So under the circumstances, the child being in the classroom would be common. In many states, a teacher can not EVER restrain a child, hold their hand to lead them anywhere, pick them up or carry them, try to prevent them from doing much of anything. It's too great a legal risk. Just think back to some of the threads here in which parents have been upset about teachers or speech therapists, etc. touching a child in order to help them calm or restrain them from hurting themselves or the therapist. MANY people have responded in the vein of "do not toich my child ever" with many advising to lodge formal complaints, fire the person, or get a lawyer. If I were back in the classroom, I would never touch a child ever! The riskto me legally is too great. If they need a band aid, they goto the school nurse who is bonded for being in physical contactwith the child. If it is worse, call 911 and let the medics deal with it. If the child has a meltdown, take the other students into the hallway and call the principal. No way would I touch a child. That is just asking to be on the wrong end of a legal cattle prod.

 

Welcome to America, the land of lawsuits!

[Haiku]

One of the reasons I homeschool my children is so they can learn to be critical thinkers, not jump on the emotional bandwagon given the first opportunity.

 

Rude much?

 

I don't know what happened, and, frankly, I don't care. But my oldest dd was in public school, and my experience with that renders me completely unsurprised if everything the mom says is true. Ime, schools don't want involve parents who question and advocate. They want quiet, obedient lemmings who happily march to the school's tune.

[Alicia64]

 

 

I don't know what happened, and, frankly, I don't care. But my oldest dd was in public school, and my experience with that renders me completely unsurprised if everything the mom says is true. Ime, schools don't want involve parents who question and advocate. They want quiet, obedient lemmings who happily march to the school's tune.

 

I agree. This situation is completely in keeping with our "great" school system. The "little guy" often goes to the media -- because they don't have money for a lawyer (and that long, drawn out process) -- and they don't know what else to do.

 

I've seen this happen with a sane mom and a "great" but corrupt school.

 

Personally, I think schools have gone power-crazy and, yes, very much want -- no, expect! -- lemmings (love that!)

 

Alley

[BigMamaBird]

More stupidity to add to the growing list of "Why We Homeschool."

[SKL]

The thing is, call me crazy, but my kids are my kids.  I don't need permission to go get my kids.  It isn't a crime to go see my kids.

 

This is disturbing.  The school building is a community building, paid for by the taxpayers (usually).  When I was young it never crossed my mind to think I might not have a right to be in a school.  I used to go there to blab with my ex-teachers after I graduated.  They thought it was kinda cool.  Or I'd go to the elementary school to chat with my kid brother's teacher about some trouble he was having.  Later I was a volunteer in schools and I never had to go through any of this nonsense.

 

The world has become so strange.  I hate these changes.

[katilac]

The thing is, call me crazy, but my kids are my kids.  I don't need permission to go get my kids.  It isn't a crime to go see my kids.

 

 

For every parent insisting that they don't need permission to go get their kids, there is another parent insisting that check-in protocols are required for safety. In many ways, the schools can't win. 

 

There isn't enough known about the story to pick a side, imo. 

 

And, am I the only one who was amused that the mom said she was lying in bed when she got the call? Not that I've never been in bed in the middle of the day, but I sure hope it's not the way I begin my story to the media - I was at home would have sufficed  :lol:

[katilac]

The thing is, call me crazy, but my kids are my kids.  I don't need permission to go get my kids.   

 

I also wanted to add that, unless your kids are at a very small school, how do you expect everyone to know who you are? If some woman strolled past the office without checking in, and went on to harm kids, do you think people would forgive the school if they said, oh, we figured it was a mom going to get her kids. 

 

Let me point out that I don't necessarily agree with the standard safety protocols. I think that losing a more friendly, relaxed atmosphere in exchange for reducing the already low chances of something bad happening may come at too high of a cost, but schools really don't have a choice. The media and the public are on them like gravy on rice when something bad happens, and heaven help them if it happened because they didn't follow protocol. 

 

If your kids are in school, you do need permission to get them. When your kids attend school, they leave a lot of their rights at the school house door, and so do you. While some of the particulars may be relatively new, it's been pretty well established for a long time that students give up a lot of privacy rights, and parents give up a lot of parenting rights. 

 

Again, not saying I agree, but that's how it is. One reason I home school is b/c I cannot easily give up that level of control. dh says that home schooling is cheaper than bailing me out of jail  :laugh:

[Catwoman]

And, am I the only one who was amused that the mom said she was lying in bed when she got the call? Not that I've never been in bed in the middle of the day, but I sure hope it's not the way I begin my story to the media - I was at home would have sufficed :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I was thinking the same thing!!!

[SKL]

Like once every 5 years, we need to have some force like The Logic Police sweep through and get rid of all the BS that we all know is stupid but supposedly has to exist because "they have no choice."  Blah.

 

I am trying so hard to raise my kids without the distorted view that stranger = danger, unexpected = scary, alone = doomed.  It gets harder every year.  At some point kids will be in greater danger because they're afraid to ask for help (or help themselves) when they need to.

[trulycrabby]

Actually, I side with the school on this one. There's a strict sign-in procedure, everyone knows the rules, everyone must sign in, or face the consequences. A panicked parent cannot just rush back to the classroom. The school administrators have a huge responsibility to keep hundreds of kids safe every day, and parents need to realize that they just do not have immediate access to their kids when they are in school. It's sad, but schools are kind of in a daily lock-down since the Sandy Hook shootings, and even before that, really. After the shootings, parents demanded increased school securiy; and now parents must follow the safety protocols that they asked to be put into place.

[JustEm]

Actually, I side with the school on this one. There's a strict sign-in procedure, everyone knows the rules, everyone must sign in, or face the consequences. A panicked parent cannot just rush back to the classroom. The school administrators have a huge responsibility to keep hundreds of kids safe every day, and parents need to realize that they just do not have immediate access to their kids when they are in school. It's sad, but schools are kind of in a daily lock-down since the Sandy Hook shootings, and even before that, really. After the shootings, parents demanded increased school securiy; and now parents must follow the safety protocols that they asked to be put into place.

I agree with you. It reminds me of an argument my sister and I had about a husband being arrested after being pulled over for speeding. He was speeding because his wife was in danger, many would do that. But when he got out of the car in hysterics rushing toward a cop car the cops only option was to arrest him. Because no matter what was happening in the car the man was potentially putting other people in danger by speeding and causing a scene on the side of a very busy road. Had the man waited for the cop and explained the situation he would have likely gotten escorted to the hospital. Instead he chose to potentially endanger other people.

[BarbecueMom]

Since the article's commenter said this child had "permission" to attend this school, I'm assuming this child was a transfer student from one of two failing, unaccredited districts in our area. Kids from the unaccredited schools had the option this year to attend a different district, on the dime of their zoned school, including transportation for some of them. While the official line of everyone is that it's all hunky-dory and sunshine and rainbows, I wouldn't doubt there's still tension between transfer parents and those who live in the district, especially if the transfer parent is rumored to be causing problems. It doesn't explain or justify anyone's actions here, but adds another layer of complexity beyond the "parent said-school said" situation.

 

Everyone is focusing on the school's or mom's actions, but I still think this would be a non-story with no arrest if there'd been larger, more experienced police department handling this.

[bettyandbob]

Actually, I side with the school on this one. There's a strict sign-in procedure, everyone knows the rules, everyone must sign in, or face the consequences. A panicked parent cannot just rush back to the classroom. The school administrators have a huge responsibility to keep hundreds of kids safe every day, and parents need to realize that they just do not have immediate access to their kids when they are in school. It's sad, but schools are kind of in a daily lock-down since the Sandy Hook shootings, and even before that, really. After the shootings, parents demanded increased school securiy; and now parents must follow the safety protocols that they asked to be put into place.

 

I won't dispute that the school should have sign in procedures. What is disturbing is the principal's response. There may be facts that make the response somewhat reasonable. However, I have to think that there are many ways of handling a parent, known to school staff, who has not followed the sign in procedures.

 

At our local schools, a nametag sticker is given when at sign in. If a person is seen in the building without a sticker or employee badge that person is told to return to the office by staff. It is important that every person in the building be visibly authorized to be there. Where I live elementary schools have 600-1100 students. The neighborhood high school has 2400+. There's no way for most staff to know and recognize all parents.

 

In the situation described the parent was known. Her child is a sp ed student. Being in sp ed means the parent is in the building for meetings regularly and several staff members would know her. It was acknowledged that the parent was recognized by staff upon entering the building. The principal knew exactly where the parent would be. So, it seems the situation might have been handled better than to call the police immediately. We don't know and will never find out if there were other reasons for calling the police. I do think it is reasonable to consider that the principal may have chosen a nuclear weapon when some other intervention might have been reasonable.

[momma2three]

Actually, I side with the school on this one. There's a strict sign-in procedure, everyone knows the rules, everyone must sign in, or face the consequences. A panicked parent cannot just rush back to the classroom. The school administrators have a huge responsibility to keep hundreds of kids safe every day, and parents need to realize that they just do not have immediate access to their kids when they are in school. It's sad, but schools are kind of in a daily lock-down since the Sandy Hook shootings, and even before that, really. After the shootings, parents demanded increased school securiy; and now parents must follow the safety protocols that they asked to be put into place.

 

I agree with you.

 

This case is easily sympathetic because it's a mom with a SN kid.  But is there anyone you wouldn't feel safe bypassing the normal security and going straight into a classroom?  If yes, then the rules about access to classrooms should be applied to everyone.

[Haiku]

Actually, I side with the school on this one. There's a strict sign-in procedure, everyone knows the rules, everyone must sign in, or face the consequences. 

 

And the consequence is calling the police? Really? Fly, meet sledgehammer.

 

I am for both student safety AND prudent use of municipal resources. They are not mutually exclusive.

[momma2three]

Unless there is an actual law on the books codifying the school's policy, I can't see how she was arrested for what she did.  Which leads me to believe that there's more to the story. 

[Catwoman]

Does anyone know if there have been any updates to this story?

[katilac]

 

In the situation described the parent was known. Her child is a sp ed student. Being in sp ed means the parent is in the building for meetings regularly and several staff members would know her. It was acknowledged that the parent was recognized by staff upon entering the building. The principal knew exactly where the parent would be. So, it seems the situation might have been handled better than to call the police immediately. We don't know and will never find out if there were other reasons for calling the police. I do think it is reasonable to consider that the principal may have chosen a nuclear weapon when some other intervention might have been reasonable.

 

See, I think many people are assuming way too  much. According to her, she was recognized by a staff member when walking past the office. That does mean that staff member turned around and alerted the principal - why would they, unless the parent was acting erratically? 

 

One scenario is that several members of the staff, including the principal, knew exactly when she entered, who she was, and why she was there, and chose to call the police for either foolish or nefarious reasons. That scenario could certainly be true. 

 

However, with so little known, I consider it just as likely that the principal had no idea that she had been called, and did not see her enter the building. Someone saw her rushing down the hall with no badge, and either didn't recognize her or felt her behavior was erratic. Police were called, because every second counts. This resulted in her arrest - possibly because the officers were inexperienced, but possibly because she was belligerent and non-cooperative. 

 

If it turns out they knew exactly who she was and exactly where she was going, and they called the police ONLY because she did not sign the book, then yes, that is probably an over-reacton. It has certainly happened before. However, we are only getting ONE side of the story so far. 

[Butter]

"Make sure the visitor is who they say they are"??  None of the schools I've ever had to sign in to required any sort of id.

 

While my little guys were in public school I volunteered in the front office of my oldest son's middle school two hours a week.  I had to ask for every person's name and print a badge for them.  If they weren't in the system I had to ask for their driver's license and scan it.  Then they were in the system.  The badge printed a terrible black and white version of their picture on their license.  They also had to sign a book with their name and the location they were going in the school.  This is how it works in all the schools in our district.  The system automatically searches the sex offender database (and one father had the unfortunate circumstance of having the same name as not one, but two, sex offenders - we then could override saying it wasn't him - neither sex offender looked even remotely like he did and did not have his same birth date - it's a name only match).  Actual sex offenders would have to be cleared for entry via the administration.  I'm not sure all that truly helps security but they at least feel like they are doing something to protect the kids.

[Butter]

At my dds' middle school you can't get past the front office unless you have had a background check. We always have to show ID even though they know us by name. My dh hadn't done the background check and we had no idea (since it is usually always me there during school hours) and he went one day and was denied entrance. He had to submit to the full background check and now he is allowed inside. As far as I know, all the schools in our district are the same.

 

Our district also requires background checks, but only to volunteer in the school, not just to enter.  Volunteering also includes accompanying the kids on a field trip so they encourage parents who haven't already to just do the background check at the beginning of the year so they aren't caught too late and can't help with something they wanted to do since the check takes a few days.  None of the schools require ID once they know you.  The high schools aren't nearly as strict with visitor IDs as the middle and elementary schools.

[Annie G]

Seems they could eliminate this problem by having the sign in located BEFORE the buzz in area. 

 

I wonder if they made the cops sign in. g

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

My boys went to a small town school. We had to check into the office. I had the teacher directly contact me when a problem occurred with my younger son. I was horrified by the situation and left work to go see him. It was difficult to get to see my child in the middle of the school day.

 

I'm not surprised by the original story, and could see it being true. I realize we only have one side of the story but it is certainly plausible.

[katilac]

Seems they could eliminate this problem by having the sign in located BEFORE the buzz in area. 

 

I wonder if they made the cops sign in. g

 

Outside? 

[Annie G]

Outside? 

 

Depends on the setup. Our local high school has a lobby that anyone can be in and then another small room where visitors go to be buzzed in. Then after that they proceed to the office to sign in.  In a setup like that, I always wondered why they don't have the parents sign in, then buzz them in. Because in our school, you get buzzed in and they stop watching and just tell you to turn right and go down to the office. But they don't know that you ever do. They can't even see the office from where they sit. 

 

They also don't check ID.  You just sign and print your name and write the purpose for your visit. Then you pick up a visitor badge out of a basket and go on your way. Nobody asks you anything. You drop the badge off after you're done and go.( If a scary looking guy was signing in, they would probably ask.  So I should have said that nobody has ever asked ME anything)

 

I never really thought this did anything for security.  

 

We have that lobby because we live where it's cold most of the school year- I guess other schools don't have that.  Without that, yeah, I guess you'd have to buzz someone in before checking out who they are. But then how is that safe? If I have a gun and I get buzzed in, I'm in.  Damage is done. Same for an angry parent, non-custodial parent, escaped convict, whatever.   Seems that they should somehow figure out how to verify identify before unlocking the door. 

 

We teach our children not to open the door to strangers. But schools buzz people in and THEN figure out if it's ok for them to be there. Just seems backwards. 

 

FTR, I think there's more to the original story than just the mother's side. 

[zoobie]

Outside?

Exactly. :) Usually the outer doors are locked with only the doors by the office used for people entering and exiting during school hours. There's a huge sign that says ALL VISITORS MUST REGISTER AT THE FRONT OFFICE. You press a buzzer, the secretary/receptionist says Yes? And you say, "I'm Sally's mom coming to do whatever it is I'm here to do." Secretary says "Okay, please come to the front desk to register as a visitor."

 

If Sally's mom does not follow these directions and makes a beeline for the classrooms, the secretary has safety protocols to follow which likely include calling the police and notifying admin. It's not the secretary's job to discern who is and is not a threat. She makes ten bucks an hour answering phones and isn't a security expert. She's not going to want it on her head if a bunch of kids get hurt because she didn't follow protocol.

 

The admin person immediately goes to where Sally's mom is to monitor the situation. Admin probably has a walkie talkie to communicate with the front office. Do they need to issue warnings to the rest of the school? What to tell police rep?

 

Once the police arrive, it's up to them to deal with the person who is trespassing. They don't have to arrest anyone. If Sally's mom had gone back to the front office, they'd probably just discuss the situation with her and warn her not to bypass school security and scare the crap out if everyone. If Sally's mom remains near children and is acting in an unsafe manner, yeah, they're going to remove her and probably arrest her.

 

My kids' former small, private school had to institute security measures after a messy custody dispute. It was clearly communicated to all of the parents that you had to go straight to the front office and anyone bypassing security would trigger a lockdown and police call. I imagine large, public schools have to deal with custody issues on a fairly regular basis, and it's a much more likely scenario than a school shooter, but still a threat to student safety. They are responsible if a student gets kidnapped or hurt on their watch! No, you can't just walk back to your child's classroom without permission. YOU may be a stable, well-intentioned parent, but you're still disrupting the classroom. If a child is leaving early for an medical appointment or family emergency, the school will have procedures in place. Maybe they call the classroom and send the kid to the office or maybe there's a staff/admin who goes to fetch them. Whatever the procedure is, it's not in place to annoy and harass you as a parent. It's for the kids' and staff's safety. Many places have security measures in place for visitors--hospitals, office buildings... It's not unique to schools, nor is a safety protocol of calling the police/security as soon as there is a "breach."