I suspect, gentle readers, you’ve heard of the shooting of Newport News elementary school teacher Abby Zwerner. I also suspect you were shocked to learn the student that shot her was six-years-old! What you may not know is despite being shot in the hand and chest, Zwerner managed to get the rest of her little students to safety. She nearly died, but is undergoing a slow and painful recovery.
I’ve often written about school discipline issues. When adults abrogate responsibility for discipline, little or no learning happens and students and teachers are routinely preyed upon, injured, even killed. It is every principal’s primary job to ensure teachers are able to teach. Without policies in force to ensure kids who disrupt school are punished and/or removed, the kids that want to learn are denied the opportunity.
Why would “educated” adults allow chaos to reign in schools? Education remains largely a female-dominated occupation, and women tend to shy away from confrontation and violence. Yes, there are differences between men and women, yet most teachers have dealt with fearful administrators as well. Many “educators” are D/S/Cs with all the pathologies that mindset embraces and imposes. They see juvenile criminals and sociopaths as victims of society, who can be “fixed” by the correct policies, such as “restorative justice,” and merely talking about why their purposeful, even insane, behaviors are not nice. The Parkland killer was the beneficiary of that kind of non-thinking.
In Texas, for example, if a student is removed from a class by a teacher, state law requires that student not be returned to the classroom that period. This is absolutely essential to minimal discipline. If a student’s disruptions are so serious as to require immediate removal, if they’re sent right back to class, smirking and arrogant, the principal involved has removed that teacher’s control of their classroom. Misbehaving kids are emboldened, kids that want to learn are convinced they won’t have that opportunity and juvenile criminals will be able to prey on them at will. It’s state law in Texas, yet principals routinely break the law, refuse to allow teachers to remove kids, or sending them back to class.
Why, apart from incompetence, fear of confrontation, and political ideology would principals refuse to discipline misbehaving, even overtly dangerous students? Fear of exposure and public condemnation. Schools routinely refuse to report drug dealing and use and violent crime, crimes that if occurring outside school property would likely result in arrest, because they want to maintain the illusion there is no crime in their school. They’re professionals. They have it all under control, and their D/S/C policies, which cannot possibly fail because they’re perfect, dreamed up and imposed by perfect, intellectually and morally superior, people, are succeeding beyond all expectation, as such policies must. Such concealment can be a policy handed down from the school board, superintendent, or limited to individual schools. However, in such districts, any principal involving the police when necessary against a superintendent or school board’s wishes, even if not in a formal policy, will soon find themselves an ex-principal.
With that background in mind, let’s visit The Blaze:
A Richneck, Virginia, woman who was shot by a 6-year-old in early January 2023 has filed a $40 million lawsuit against the Newport News School Board, claiming negligence led to the shooting, according to Yahoo News.
Richneck Elementary went into lockdown on Jan. 6, 2023, after first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot in the hand and chest by a child who reportedly obtained a gun belonging to his mother, which was allegedly secured.
Zwerner says she told the school’s administration that the boy, whose family says he has an ‘acute disability,’ had threatened another student at the school, but nothing was done.
‘They didn’t call security, they didn’t remove the student from the classroom, the school administration failed to act,’ said her attorney Diane Toscano in January.
In the 20-page complaint, many of the previous assertions about the small boy are made, with expansions on key individuals involved in different incidents. he lawsuit claims that the 6-year-old ‘had a history of random violence,’ including attacking ‘students and teachers alike.’
This is another factor in schools that refuse to enforce civilized behavior: the age of students. One doesn’t normally think of a 6-year-old as inherently dangerous, but teachers know otherwise. However, such tender age often gives incompetent, fearful principals license to do even less to restraint horrible behavior and real threats.
In a confirmed incident, the boy had previously ‘strangled and choked a teacher,’ along with allegedly inappropriately touching a female student who fell in a playground, resulting in moving the boy from Richneck Elementary to the Denbigh Early Childhood Center.
Did the “Early Childhood Center” certify the child cured and safe for return to regular classes, or as so often happens, did they, recognizing the danger to their staff, have the political juice to get him off their hands? Were the teachers at Richneck Elementary fully informed of the danger? Were they informed at all? I’ve not been able to find any information regarding this transfer. Local station WTFR provides additional details about the day of the shooting:
Zwerner’s lawyers claim the following information in the filed court documents:
*On Jan. 4, two days before the shooting, the student took Zwerner’s cell phone and slammed it on the ground so hard that it shattered. Zwerner took the student to the lead teacher and called school security. School security did not respond, so she called the guidance department. The guidance counselor came to the classroom and the student called them all ‘bitches’. He was suspended for one day.
*On the morning of Jan. 6, the day of the shooting, the student came back to school with his mom who then left.
She was supposed to accompany her son to class every day, which is an admission by the school district of how dangerous and uncontrollable he is.
*During lunchtime, Zwerner told the then-Assistant Principal of Richneck Elementary, Ebony Parker, that the student was in a ‘violent mood’ and had threatened to beat up a kindergartner during lunchtime. Parker had no response and didn’t even look up at Zwerner when she expressed concern. Another teacher was in the room during this time and witnessed Zwerner being practically ignored.
These are allegations, but one presumes Zwerner’s attorneys would not make them if they couldn’t reasonably prove them. Competent attorneys would have already interviewed witnesses and gathered other evidence before filing the lawsuit. I can attest from experience this kind of behavior in a principal is hardly, sadly, unusual.
*Assistant Principal Parker had a reputation for ignoring concerns from teachers. Teachers expressed similar concerns when she was the assistant principal at Newsome Park Elementary School. Teachers say Parker would let students get away with misconduct and students would often brag about getting candy from the assistant principal.
Another mark of an ineffective principal is an intense, juvenile and destructive, desire to be a student’s “friend.” Such principals, and teachers, try to be children’s peers, and want students to like them, above all else. They want students to think they’re “cool.” I always told my students, on the first day of class, we could be friends, but I would be their adult friend who was responsible for their behavior and safety, and they could absolutely expect me to “rat on them” if they did anything wrong or illegal. Kids who understood that became my friends—within the limitations of a professional relationship. The rest understood I was a teacher they dare not push. Those few that did immediately came to that understanding, because I had the good fortune to work in a school with adults in charge.
*At 11:45 a.m., two students informed a reading specialist, Amy Kovac, that the student had a gun in his backpack. When Kovac asked the student if he had a gun, he said he did not, but he refused to hand over his backpack and told her he was angry people were picking on his classmate.
Any suggestion a kid has a gun in their possession is grounds for immediate action; everything stops until the gun is found or the kid is cleared. Merely refusing to hand over the backpack should never have been allowed. Unfortunately, in schools that refuse to discipline students, teachers know they have no power to enforce discipline, and any teacher who dares to demand principals do their jobs, or who goes around them to involve the police, will likely be out of a job. Principals fearful of disciplining children aren’t afraid to discipline teachers who do the right, sane, thing when it exposes principal’s incompetence.
*When recess began at 12:30 p.m., Zwerner told another first-grade teacher, Jennifer West, that she saw the student take something out of his backpack and thought it may be a weapon. West observed the student and his friend and noticed they kept going behind a rock-climbing wall on the playground.
Another chance to deal with a potentially dangerous issue. Why didn’t Zwerner call for a principal? I suspect because she already did and knew nothing would be done. They probably wouldn’t even acknowledge her complaint.
*During recess, Kovac also told Zwerner that she saw the student take something out of his book bag and put it in his hoodie pocket. Kovac searched the student’s backpack but didn’t find a weapon.
*Kovac still went to the school office and told Assistant Principal Parker that the student told other kids he had a gun and that Zwerner saw the student put something in his hoodie pocket. Parker responded that the student’s pockets were too small to hold a handgun and took no further action.
Insanity and incompetence that nearly got Zwerner killed.
*West pulled the student’s friend aside after recess, who was crying, and told West that he couldn’t share what the student told him out of fear of being hurt. The friend then told West that the student showed him a gun in his pocket.
See what I mean about kids being preyed upon by unrestrained juvenile criminals and lunatics?
*West kept the friend in her classroom because she feared him being near the student. She then contacted the school’s office. A music teacher, John Sims, answered the phone and told West he would inform Parker of the situation.
*At 1:11 p.m., Sims called West to tell her that he had told Assistant Principal Parker. Parker told Sims that she was aware of the threat and that the student’s backpack had already been searched. No further action was taken, despite clarification that it was believed the gun was on the student’s person rather than in the backpack.
In any competent school, at this point the building would have gone into lockdown, the police would have been called, and the student isolated, and his person, and any place he could have put a weapon, thoroughly searched. Actually, that should have happened at the first intimation the kid had a gun.
*A guidance counselor, Rolonzo Rawles, then asked Assistant Principal Parker for permission to search the student’s person for a firearm. Parker refused to grant permission and said the student’s mother would be arriving soon to pick him up.
Imagine, gentle readers, how all this is going to play before a jury. I’m sure depositions will expose even more damaging information, which will probably lead to a substantial settlement. Even knowing only what appears in media accounts, few, if any, school districts, would want a case like this to go to trial.
*At 1:59 p.m., the student pulled a firearm out of his pocket, aimed it at Zwerner, and shot her while she was seated at her reading table in the classroom.
Let’s return to The Blaze:
The legal complaint insists that ‘concerns with [the boy’s] behavior were regularly brought to the attention of Richneck Elementary School administration, and the concerns were always dismissed.’ [skip]
According to the lawsuit, that very day of the shooting, around 11:15 a.m., Zwerner told the assistant principal that the child was ‘in a violent mood’ and ‘threatened to beat up a kindergartner during lunchtime, and angrily stared down a security officer.’
Then, at about 2 p.m., the boy shot Zwerner while she was sitting at a table after pulling a gun out of the front pocket of his hoodie.
The single shot went through the teacher’s left hand and into her chest.
This sounds like a classic case of defense wounds. Seeing the gun, Zwerner likely reflexively raised her hand to ward off danger, which is why the bullet pierced her hand on the way to hitting her chest.
The lawsuit names Newport News School Board as the lead defendant, along with Assistant Principal Ebony Parker, former school Principal Briana Foster Newton, and the superintendent.
Amazingly, the school district is threatening to file a counter-suit against Zwerner! For what? Getting shot? NBC has information on Zwerner’s continuing recovery:
Zwerner was praised for her handling of the shooting, in which she escorted about 20 students to safety. She was hospitalized for nearly two weeks.
She said in an interview with NBC News on Monday that she still doesn’t have full function of her left hand, making the most simple tasks, such as making a fist, opening a water bottle and getting dressed, extremely difficult. She said her doctors are still uncertain about whether she will be able to use her hand like before.
‘Physical therapy is not only physically exhausting but mentally exhausting as well. I’m supposed to be moving them once every hour, throughout the hour,’ she said of her fingers, ‘just manipulating them to get that blood flowing and to get that movement back into the hand.’
Americans are conditioned by TV and movies to believe people can shrug off gunshot wounds. TV cops are often shot in the shoulder, and after wearing a sling for a week or so, are good as new. In reality, gunshot wounds, even in the limbs or shoulder, can be absolutely debilitating, and cause permanent, life-long pain, suffering and loss of function. This is telling:
School board members voted to oust Schools Superintendent George Parker III ‘without cause’ less than three weeks later. Richneck’s principal was transferred to a different role within the school district, while Richneck’s assistant principal resigned.
I’m sure Parker did. What we don’t know is whether she was forced out, as she should have been. My guess is the school district wanted her gone, but firing her would have been too obvious an admission of incompetence and liability. How do you defend Parker refusing to ensure the kid didn’t have a gun, when repeatedly told by multiple people? It certainly sounds like the school district is trying to cut it’s losses.
Final Thoughts: This, gentle readers, is what happens when the inmates, even six-year-old inmates, are allowed to run the asylum. It’s a reminder of how dangerous human beings of even tender age can be. It’s a reminder of how important it is that parents in every school district in the country make it their business to know what’s happening in their schools, and demand school officials not only follow the law, but behave as responsible adults.
Unsurprisingly, local authorities are suggesting there will be no criminal—juvenile justice—consequences for the attempted killer. State law does allow such, but they’re apparently choosing not to invoke it. How would you, gentle readers, like to be a teacher in whatever school is forced to enroll this kid in the future?
More as it develops.
States are realizing there is a much-needed alternative to today's watered-down, useless standardized tests: the Classic Learning Test.
The demo ratings released yesterday from Tuesday night reveal every show on Fox from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. significantly dropped in numbers.
Regardless of one’s station in life, we must turn to God to find true peace.
The governor's office did not respond to a clarification request about whether transgenderism would be considered a 'psychological disorder.'
It's tempting to shrug off the annoying pronoun questions from your doctor because they're not hurting you. That's where you'd be wrong.
In his 67-page straight-talking opinion, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stuck to the facts — something Americans desperately need to hear after decades of euphemistic discussions about abortion.
