26 May 2006

KingCast Presents: Columbus West High teacher speaks out against criminal negligence; parent is not allowed to speak at CPS Board meeting.

this is an audio post - click to play
Livin' foul

"...I have met all three of Mrs. Stokes' children and I have nothing bad to say about her or her children. She is soft-spoken and her children have always been respectful. I also know the other student and she, also, has always been respectful..... Right now, I know he's trying to expel both the girls .....I was able to get the girl's discipline records. Before they were attacked on February 14, 2006. They both had a tardy. That was it. Sounds like retaliation, Mr. Holmes... Your staff is watching Mr. Holmes and we are not rooting for you!!!"
Columbus Public School Board President Terry Boyd, and Superintendent Gene Harris are in my opinion criminally negligent. Read Gene Harris' letter to Ms. Stokes here. And the Ohio "Justice" system, including Judge Sargus, is in my opinion negligent in like measure for raining down inappropriate sanctions on me so that they could help cover up more abuse back in the 1990's. Link here for more background on that and expand the scans when they open.

BTW, a former administrator at West High and co-director of PASS informs me that Ms. Stokes is not allowed to speak at the school board meeting on 6 June 2006 because the CPS crooks and liars issued her a 'no-trespass' letter. At least she can honestly say that the Board is paying her more attention than the felon James Drennen, who attacked her child because not even he has a no-trespass letter.

KingCast.net: 21st Century Civil Rights.


an anonymous teacher said...

Mr. Holmes has done exactly what I said he was trying to do in my last comment. He continued to punish the children. Mr. Holmes had no problem filing assault charges because "a student pushed him". After that push, he didn't leave his job, and he definitely didn't go to the hospital. The girls went to the hospital Mr. Holmes but I guess your body is more precious than a child's. Hope not to see you next year. You already know we don't want you there and you already know the big people at the top don't want you there. You've made a mess for them. I hope the mother keeps pushing. Mr. Holmes needs to go and after hearing the president of our board talk to Mrs. Stokes, he needs to go too. Obviously these men do not value women or our children.

Anonymous said...

drennen on the blog trying to defend himself...said the girls were asked that night if he had hit them and they said no. only problem, that's not what the police report said. sounds weak and i agree with donthitgirls. whats the motive...don't get it man...they were girls...no excuse

Christopher King said...

Yeah I read that sorry-assed blog myself.

Whatever, man.

Even if he were an angel (he's not) it wouldn't excuse the School Board responses to the Ms. Stokes or Ms. Kennedy.

"You can talk all that concerned mother stuff you want...."

Say, what?

Then the NAACP hiding out back behind the Plantation, trying to pretend they don't know how to read or something. And I got in trouble for addressing all this mess when I was there 6, 8, 10 years ago.

Their shame, not mine.


JAMED_D said...

You people are either DUMB or STUPID what part dont you understand!! I never touched those kids so ill meetwhoever whenever and however any time or place to prove it
anytime fools!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I realize that this blog is old news, I just stumbled on it. I am also a West High School parent. I find this situation very frightening, particularly since I have recently encountered instances of Mr. Holmes lying. I don't think he's a bad person--albeit somewhat incompetent (it only took 2 years for a new principal to clean up the mess he left behind at Alum Crest--where the expectations approached zero). But the overall culture in Columbus casts parents in the role of not too bright folks who don't know the difference between good and bad education or the truth and a lie. For many years the practice (if not policy) has been to accept the word of the paid adults over that of students, and parents.

This sets up a situation in which there can be no accountability. When the manuky hits the fan and some parent starts working their way up the chain of command--first off it's nearly impossible short of headlines in the Dispatch, to get anyone to listen, because, afterall, it's just a parent, and they are inferior beings. "Customer Relations" was set up so that regular staff people didn't even have to listen. Of course they didn't hire anyone with education or experience related to Customer Service. It's an out to pasture position for former Principals (makes you wonder why they aren't allowed in a building anymore, doesn't it/)

But if someone in an upper echelon does take it into their head to look into a situation, the best response is just to lie, lie, lie. It will be believed if the only contradictory voice is a student or a parent. (BTW--that is where things went amiss at Mifflin--Ms. Crenshaw became the volunteer scapegoat because she wouldn't lie her way out).

Just try to get a straight answer out of anyone employed by Columbus Public Schools.

Christopher King said...


This blog is not old news because Columbus Public Schools continues on its path of negativity, thereby rendering everything going back to my days as a lawyer suing CPS imminently relevant.

Let's see what the federal investigation turns up, and I am making a new blawg entry about your comment.

Have you contacted Justice for Kids?


Anonymous said...

I am trying to keep my involvement on the DL. I have a kid in school to think about. JFK seems to make a lot of noise without necessarily making any change. I think I have a couple of other options that might keep me from losing any credibility I might have OUTSIDE of CPS (lol).

I sure would love to feed some info to the federal audit, however. NCLB requires CPS to have a Parent Involvement Policy--seen it? NCLB also requires all schools in SI to notify parents of their rights to be involved in improvement planning at their kid's school. Has anybody seen that? They also have to set aside a % of Title I $ to involve parents in meaningful ways. Heard anything about it?

What they have spent money on is hiring a couple of "parent liaisons" for each school. These are "good parents" who have "good kids" and don't make waves. Officially their job is to recruit parents, serve as a go between with the schools. In reality they become proxy parents to serve in the "advisory" positions that the schools are required to make available to parents.

Check out the results of the parent survey (you'll find it somewhere on the CPS website). Albeit only 10% of parents responded (par for a mail in survey--makes you wonder if they really wanted to know), but when it got to the question about whether the parent liaisons helped to improve communication, a whopping 1 in 4 responded "Huh?"

Luck to you--and I'll keep watching.

Christopher King said...

I understand your position but I will say this in favor of JFK:

They've been on the forefront of pushing for answers for 10 years now, since I was practicing. Those old video clips were the product of my relationship with Brother Whitaker, and people even said I "made a lot of noise" without doing much even though I was suing the pants off of CPS -- and getting dogged in court for being a fly in the ointment.

Eventually of course you are aware that Jerry Doyle's First Amendment case that I started resulted in a finding that the board public speaking policy was unconstitutional. Google "Jerry Doyle and Freedom Forum."

My point is that it takes effort from every side, and JFK and I are working together to help inform a whole lot of people and they are doing all the right things in terms of whom they are addressing their concerns and queries.

The fact that some of these people are ignoring them only buttresses your contentions that CPS is, in some measure, a non-responsive pig.

As for your other substantive comments on the parent involvement policy that is extremely interesting:

Before my ridiculous extortion charges that forced my resignation as Ops Director of HELP Organization (designed to offer supplemental education to at-risk youth) my business partner in NH was a man qualified to be an NCLB provider.

He and I are due for a chat soon, I'll have to share that with him and JFK -- so they can ask some more questions and receive some more stonewalled responses, no doubt.

I pray the Feds do a thorough job:


.....because something doesn't smell right at CPS, and if you knew what I knew that JFK has shared with me, you would be on the edge of your chair.

Stay tuned.


Christopher King said...

BTW here is the link to the blawg entry I promised when you wrote me the other day:


See, unlike some folks at CPS, we actually do what we say we're going to do.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know--has this Mr. Holmes been divorced 3-4 times in the last 6-8 years? Someone sharing his name has been (3 using the same address, according to court records).

I don't normally think of marital status as a qualification for the job of principal--but when you consider the pathology inherent in multiple errors in a short time it does make one wonder--as does a protection order filed against the namesake.

And the police reports indicate that he gets "assaulted" a whole lot more than any of the other principals in Columbus.

Christopher King said...

Interesting, that. Can you verify the divorces? I would hate to get hit with a Defamation action, even though the law is pretty clear on anonymous postings I would hate to have a mistake.


Anonymous said...

Well, it's like this. Go to http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/ and search for Holmes, Arnold.

All that I know is that one or more persons with the same name have been involved in divorces in Franklin County. The most recent, still pending, has a restraining order.

I don't know how to confirm the exact person without a home address for Mr. Holmes.

Christopher King said...

Yeah it is tough to tell who is whom. Note that the '85 and '06 cases are "Divorce, No Children," whereas the '88 and '01 cases are "Divorce, With Children."

Let me know what else you discover though; perhaps Justiceforkids/PASS knows his addy.