Possible Confrontation to Jonathan Leigh at Lowell Exhibit: 3d-3

Parent@yahoo.com

Monday, June 16, 2008 1:06:04 AM

To: Susan Wong <wongs@sfusd.edu>; HOOVER LIDDELL <LiddellH@sfusd.edu>

Cc: Margaret Chiu <ChiuM@sfusd.edu>; Richard Maggi <MaggiR@sfusd.edu>; sanchezM5@sfusd.edu; MaufasKS@sfusd.edu; KimJ7@sfusd.edu; MarE@sfusd.edu; MendozaH@sfusd.edu; WynnsJ@sfusd.edu; YeeN1@sfusd.edu; CarlosGarcia@sfusd.edu; thaisdarosa@saber.net; lowellchemistry@gmail.com

Susan and Hoover:

This e-mail is to confirm our scheduled meeting (My wife xxxx and son XXXX are included) with you on 6/13/08 at 8:30 a.m.

During our discussion, we informed you the following situation and happened events:

1. On 6/9/08 during a discussion with Mr. Jeff David (Counselor) and Ms. Holly Giles (Assistant Principal) about the confusion of the classes for the next semester, Jonathan chose his classes for next semester, yet school’s records show another class was chosen for him without his awareness. In addition, we learned that Lowell Principal Mr. Ishibashi had instructed Mr. David that whenever we are on the Lowell campus, we need to be accompanied by another administrator. That was why Ms. Holly Giles was in our meeting. During this meeting , I sense that someone is going to unfairly work on Jonathan’s next semester’s class schedules.

You (Susan Wong) stated that you had investigated this matter and received a written response from Mr. David dated 6/12/08, which you gave us a copy.

Jonathan read through Mr. David’s response and replied, which I will forward to you right next to this e-mail. At this point in time, I am in agreement with my son Jonathan which is to request to switch Jonathan’s counselor because of the following reasons:

a. During the whole semester of the first semester of 10th grade, Mr. Jeff David had never had a one on one counseling with Jonathan.

b. At the Committee Meeting on 4/21/08, you (Susan) had instructed Mr. Jeff David to have counseling sessions with Jonathan once a while.

Mr. David failed to do so. Therefore, the two “Fs” for the Chemistry and AP World History became a total surprise to all of us.

c. A counselor with years of experience presented the proof that he went through “the Program Worksheet For 11th Graders” together with Jonathan,             unfortunately, without the date and Jonathan’s signature on it. Whereas Jonathan presented another proof which indicates the date and signature on the                     sheet. Additionally, Jonathan stated that Mr. Jeff David never spoke to him about their meeting of working together.

2. On 6/11/08, it is Lowell’s graduation day. Out of the blue, a concerned teacher approached Jonathan and said, “If you are walking home today, you should walk straight home immediately after school. There are strangers from Burton on the campus.” Jonathan did not want to have another confrontation. He was frightened, and called us to pick him up.

3. On 6/11/08 evening, Jonathan’s classmate Cynthia warned him by using the internet Chat Line that “ ur gunna be living a life of hell … I heard this during 4-5 … Jonathan is going to be jumped by dean during the self-scheduling …im telling u how to watch ur back …”

After we described these events, Mr. Liddell made copies of the police report number, the computer print out of children’s dialogs, and Jonathan’s selected Classes. You (Susan) stated you will try to change the English Comedy and Satire to Epic and Myth. Brother and I suggested let us try, however, if possible, not to affect the rest of the chosen classes. If fact, Jonathan had a plan attached to his e-mail as for how to switch to have the least amount of disturbance.

Brother and I stated all these events happened to Jonathan cannot be coincidence any more. Now, it is becoming a safety and harassment issue. I said if Mr. Ishibashi does not like the child’s father, please come down to me directly. Don’t underhand to a 15-year-old child. If that being the case, I would not mind to apology to Mr. Ishibashi openly so that he can keep his face and let go of the child.

Mr. Liddell said Mr. Ishibashi and you (Parent) had respect before. The respect was gone because Mr. Ishibashi stated in his reply memo, “…. I will not communicate with you any longer without legal representation.” Mr. Liddell said Ms. Margaret Chiu is busy with graduation today and not available. It is important that Margaret needs to get involved in this matter. We will write our response pertaining the meeting held on 6/3/08 in next week.

Mr. Liddell left the meeting early, and we informed you that we are still expect a meeting scheduled for us to meet the child (Felicity Lau, aka Sachi) and her parents by Dean Cordoba in the afternoon. Up-to-date, we have not had meeting with Felicity and her parents.

If the content of this e-mail is not correct, please respond with correct version.

Parent

Parent/Teacher Conference Regarding to Jonathan’s School Performance on 5/28/08

parent@yahoo.com

Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:38:41 AM Exhibit: 3d

To:Susan Wong <wongs@sfusd.edu>; HOOVER LIDDELL <LiddellH@sfusd.edu>

Cc:Richard Maggi <MaggiR@sfusd.edu>; Margaret Chiu <ChiuM@sfusd.edu>

Susan and Hoover.

After we received a letter dated May 9, 2008 from Lowell counseling department indicating the Danger of Probation to Jonathan’s school performance. My elder son, Brother went to school and discuss the letter with counselor, Mr. Jeff David. While discussing the circumstance, Brother learned that Jonathan was falling behind based on his report card, which Brother and the family never received once again. Mr. David promised to send a copy of the report card to us attached with a letter dated 5/14/08.

While in school on 5/14/08, Brother observed that Jonathan was marked absence while he was taking AP Examines. Brother wrote a letter dated 5/15/08 complained to school administration how attendance system is flawed. Another letter dated 5/15/08, Brother address to the SFUSD administrators of the outraged of the attendance problems, teacher’s harassment and abuse. Brother demanded to have a written response by 5/26/08.

In response to SFUSD letter dated 4/23/08, I wrote an e-mail dated 5/16/08 to indicate that SFUSD ignored our complaints and covered up the administrative errors and harassment my child from the Lowell administration. I hand carried this e-mail to your office and have your staff stamp the date (5/19/08) on it.

Up-to-date we have not received any response to our letters dated 5/15/08 and e-mail 5/16/08. Please respond them in writing.

On 5/19/08 my wife and I brought the copy of the report card and met you two to express our anger/concern/complaints. Lowell/SFUSD have done it again, Lowell administration has not notified us about Jonathan’s 24 absences in this semester, which indicated on the report card, and we have not received the report card once again same as Jonathan’s last semester. During our discussion, Susan recommended us to conduct an investigation about the current absences and why Jonathan was not improving on Chemistry and World History AP. She also suggested me to ask for course curriculum from Lowell Administration.

On 5/20/08, recommended by Susan Wong, we were at Lowell looking for the course curriculum. My wife and I were directed to Mary Streshly, the assistant principal, She said Lowell does not have the course curriculum, however, they have the teacher’s handbooks, yet she needs to look for them. At this time Mr. Ishibashi came in, and they were ready to go for a meeting. However, Ms. Strethly said to me that she was to prepare these handbooks for me to pick up in next week. In order to be sure because Mr. Ishibashi was wondering around while I asked for these handbooks. On 5/22/08, I wrote an e-mail just to remind/reaffirm Ms. Strethly of obtaining these handbooks. On the same day, I wrote e-mails to Jonathan’s current teachers suggested by Susan to investigate the absences and “F” grade from the teachers.

On 5/28/08 appointments set to meet teachers of Chinese, PE, World History AP, Adv Algebra, and Chemistry. Music AP and English will be scheduled in another day. According to teachers of Chinese and PE, if things go accordingly, Jonathan is to get “A” for the semester. Same to Adv Algebra, he will get a “B”. For the Chemistry and World History, please refer to my e-mails to you today in the early time.

My wife and I went to Ms. Mary Strethly first because we could not file complaints toward Lowell if we do not have basis - the handbooks. Unfortunately, Ms. Strethly said she received instructions from Mr. Ishibashi not to give us the handbooks because these handbooks were incomplete. I said Ms. Strethly are you fully aware that these handbooks are public information. Even if they are incomplete, I am entitled to see them. It is within my rights to see them. Ms. Strethly said she knows I am right but she received clear instructions from Mr. Ishibashi not to allow me to see these handbooks. I said there are some very serious matters here. 1. these public information - handbooks or course curriculum, any parents or teachers has the rights to see them. Mr. Ishibashi denied me the rights 2. When Brother initially presented all these identified problems, you were in agreement and willing to schedule some re-tests for xxxx. Once Mr. Ishibashi was aware of it, he instructed you not to proceed. 3. Mr. Ishibashi called on Jonathan’s classmates and when they return they tell Jonathan that “You don’t like Lowell and you don’t like Mr. Ishibashi.” I found that extremely inappropriate and alarming and could be abusing his authority 4. We are in dispute whether Jonathan is cutting classes in this semester, yet Lowell post Jonathan’s name on the “Cut List” in front of the Dean’s office. Without giving Jonathan the benefit of doubt, Lowell openly humiliate Jonathan’s pride just like Ms. Pang did. Please relate these statements to Mr. Ishibashi, and stop doing these immediately.

After visiting all the scheduled teachers, Mr. Nott, PE substitute suggested us to speak to Ms. Jank, who was the previous PE teacher in Jonathan’s last semester to clarify what was actually happened about Jonathan’s attendance and grade. Mr. Nott pointed to us that she was right down there in the office and she was available.

We spoke to Ms. Jank trying to identify what actually what went on in the last semester’s third grading period. We asked questions as for when and who was there to call the roll? How many absences did Jonathan actually have? Who bring the roll slip paper to the office. Ms. Jank went and brought a computer print out back. On the print out, which shows 8 absences (11/27, 12/4, 12/5, 12/6, 12/7, 1/3, 1/9, and 1/17) were marked on it and she also lindicated that Jonathan did not take the golf test and never make up the test.  She insisted (with an attitude)that she called the roll and she marked Jonathan absence personally before 1/15/08 because she went and had a surgery after that day. When I asked did you talk to Jonathan about his absences. She said yes. But, I dig out the letter (written by Carolyn Sanders dated 3/7/08) and pointed out to her that Ms. Sanders wrote down that she talked to Jonathan instead of her. Ms. Jank could not respond. I asked how did you call the roll or you just looked around in the beginning of the class. She refused to respond with an attitude again. I said initially there were four version of absences. Are you able to explain it? She did not answer again. Instead, she responded  they gave Jonathan a “D” not just because the 8 absences but because Jonathan failed to take - the golf test. Then she showed me on the print out that Jonathan is the only person who did not have a grade on it. I said Jonathan took the test and further, he wrote an e-mail to me to rebut Ms. Sanders’ letter dated 3/7/08. Ms. Jank looked at me with an attitude again and said Jonathan got 2 Fs. He is not a good student and he needs to work on these Fs to make improvement. She said she did what Mr. Ishibashi told her to do and she supports what Ms. Sanders wrote on the paper. Ms. Jank stood up and said with an attitude, you should speak to Mr. Ishibashi and left.

My wife and I were shocked by her attitude again and again. We were amazed what was going on here and there were no clear answer form her at all. We were ready to sort out all the scattered paper on the table. Three security guards came and said some one reported to have us out of the building. During our way walking out, one security guard suggested us to speak to Mr. Ishibashi. I said why? Is he the person who gave the instruction. He said he could not tell. He just followed the order.

Your written response on this e-mail plus the previous e-mail and letters is demanded.

Parent

Golf test partner ’s name Randy Van, both of them got ‘B’ in the test

XXXXXXXX’s Class for 11th Grade Exhibit: 3d-1

xxxxx@yahoo.com

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 3:06:37 PM

To: jeffdavid@gmail.com

Cc: Susan Wong <wongs@sfusd.edu>; HOOVER LIDDELL <LiddellH@sfusd.edu>

Jeff.

On 6/9/08, I visited you with accompany of Ms. Holly Giles (under Mr. Ishibashi’s instruction that whenever my wife and I are in campus. We must be accompanied by an administrator).

I brought up an issue which is Jonathan had submitted “the Program Worksheet for 11th Grades” dated 3/29/08 (Jonathan kept a copy). On this copy, Jonathan chose Epic & Myth in English, yet the school record shows Comedy and Satire in English for his 11th grade.

You showed me another piece of original “the Program Worksheet for 11th Grades”. On this original document, it indicates that you put Jonathan down as Comedy & Satire for English.  After the meeting with you and Ms. Giles, I spoke to Jonathan. He responded he never discussed with you about his future class selection nor did he sign any paper concerning courses selection with you.

So, if Jonathan chose Epic & Myth for English with copy of proof is correct, please change the record so that he can attend his choice.  I have been calling you today (6/11/08) to no avail, and 6/12/08 is the only day left to change. If you may, please change it. If not, please give us written response and tell us why the records is not correct or even why we are wrong.

Your written response is appreciated.

Thanks

Parent

Principal Ishibashi not only once verbally implied to the parents that Lowell may not be the right school for the child since the parents have so many complaints. On 2/22/08 when the attendance records (6 absences) appeared on the school computer, which was not in accord with the district Report Card (9 absences on PE) and when the parents insisted Principal Ishibashi to proceed the re-evaluation processes, which was approved by Ms. Strethly, Principal Ishibashi was irritated and he wrote an e-mail dated 3/7/08, “Please contact Mr. Maggi at High School Operations. I will not communicate with you any longer without legal representation.”

Thereafter, the child and parents received various forms of harassment from Lowell Administration.

Please refer to Exhibit: 1b. On 5/12/08, the child’s name was put on the cut list and posted in front of the Dean’s office while the child never cut class for this semester, and the attendance on records were in dispute for the previous semester.

Please refer to exhibit: 3b-3. On 5/12/08, the child was taking National AP Examination, yet he was marked absences. Not only so, while the dispute about truancy was going on for previous semester, Lowell administrators continuously marked the child excused absences into unexcused absences and further failed to inform the parents.

On or about 03/08, Principal Ishibashi called the best friends of the child into his office and talked to each one of them separately at length. After they came out and they informed the child that he was in trouble with the principal.

Attached is Exhibit: 3d, a memo dated 5/29/08, from the parent to Ms. Wong and Mr. Liddell, in second page, point 3, the it wrote, “ … Mr. Ishibashi called on XXXXXX’s classmates and when they return they tell XXXXXX that “You don’t like Lowell and you don’t like Mr. Ishibashi.” I found that extremely inappropriate and alarming and could be abusing his authority …”

Please again refer to Exhibit: 3d, second page, middle paragraph. Lowell Administrator sent three security guards to have the parents remove from the campus after a parent teacher conference. On 5/29/08, the father wrote, “… Ms. Jank … said XXXXX got 2 Fs. He is not a good student and he needs to work on these Fs to make improvement. She said she did what Mr. Ishibashi told her to do and she supports what Ms. Sanders wrote on the paper. Ms. Jank stood up and said with an attitude, you should speak to Mr. Ishibashi and left.

My wife and I were shocked by her attitude again and again. We were amazed what was going on here and there were no clear answer form her at all. We were ready to sort out all the scattered paper on the table. Three security guards came and said some one reported to have us out of the building. During our way walking out, one security guard suggested us to speak to Mr. Ishibashi. I said why? Is he the person who gave the intruction. He said he could not tell. He just followed the order. …”

Attached is Exhibit: 3d - 1, a memo from the father to Ms. Susan Wong and Mr. Hoover Liddell dated 06/11/08. Principal Ishibashi further gave instructions to all administrative staff at Lowell that whenever the parents are in campus, an administrator must accompany them. In this memo, the father wrote, “On 6/9/08, I visited you with accompany of Ms. Holly Giles (under Mr. Ishibashi’s instruction that whenever my wife and I are in campus. We must be accompanied by an administrator)….”

Attached is Exhibit: 3d-2, a copy of a letter dated 6/13/08 written by the father under the district’s instruction to avoid further physical danger to the child. In the letter, the father wrote, “XXXXXX Leigh is not coming to school today under the instruction of Ms. Susan Wong and Mr. Liddell Hoover of SFUSD. This is for his safety concern. …”

Attached is Exhibit 3d-3, a memo dated 06/16/08 from the parent to Ms. Susan Wong and Mr. Hoover Liddell. Further threat and harassment were coming to the child. In this memo, the parent wrote, “ …

2. On 6/11/08, it is Lowell’s graduation day. Out of the blue, a concerned teacher approached XXXXX and said, “If you are walking home today, you should walk straight home immediately after school. There are strangers from Burton on the campus.” XXXXX did not want to have another confrontation. He was frightened, and called us to pick him up. (Please also refer to Exhibit: 1d, cover page, third paragraph)

3. On 6/11/08 evening, XXXXX’s classmate Cynthia warned him by using the internet Chat Line that “ ur gunna be living a life of hell … I heard this during 4-5 … XXXXX is going to be jumped by dean during the self-scheduling …im telling u how to watch ur back …” (Please also refer to Exhibit: 1c)

No matter what, the parents were unable to get the first hand documents from Lowell Administration. Here are several examples to identify the facts.

Initially, the child’s elder brother presented all these identified problems, Lowell Assistant Principal Ms. Mary Strethly verbally approved the child’s re-evaluation because the child had gone through bully without supportive services and parental guidance. However, Principal Ishibashi later denied the approval without giving any explanation.

When the complaints move up to the district level, SFUSD Equity Coordinator Ms. Susan Wong advised the parents to obtain the Course Curriculum and Syllabus for further investigation from Lowell Administration. Assistant Principal Ms. Mary Strethly verbally promised to prepare them for the parents to pick up. Nevertheless, Principal Ishibashi later instructed Ms. Strethly not to give these request materials to the parents.

Please refer back to Exhibit: 3-2, a memo from the father to the Ms. Wong and Mr. Liddell. In the memo, the father gives chronological order of the events happened from 5/9/08 through 5/29/08.

On 5/20/08, the memo states, “ … recommended by Susan Wong, we were at Lowell looking for the course curriculum. … Mary Streshly, … yet she needs to look for them. At this time Mr. Ishibashi came in, … However, Ms. Strethly said to me that she was to prepare these handbooks for me to pick up in next week. …”

On 5/29/08, the memo states, “ … Unfortunately, Ms. Strethly said she received instructions from Mr. Ishibashi not to give us the handbooks because these handbooks were incomplete. I said Ms. Strethly are you fully aware that these handbooks are public information. Even if they are incomplete, I am entitled to see them. It is within my rights to see them. Ms. Strethly said she knows I am right but she received clear instructions from Mr. Ishibashi not to allow me to see these handbooks …”

Ms. Strethly is no longer working as the Lowell Assistant Principal, yet she and the Equity Coordinator Ms. Susan Wong are still able to attest the facts of what happened. Unfortunately, the Lowell Principal Ishibashi, Assistant Superintendent Ms. Margaret Chiu, and Director of Operation Mr. Richard Maggi never even wanted to mention any and all of these. In order to ensure there shall be no trace of evidence in the future, Ms. Strethly is better not to be around.

Re: next meeting Exhibit:3b

Parent <@yahoo.com>

Monday, April 21, 2008 4:10:36 AM

To:”Maggi,Richard” <MaggiR@sfusd.edu>

Cc:”Chiu, Margaret” <ChiuM@sfusd.edu>; “Wong, Susan” <wongs@sfusd.edu>; HOOVER LIDDELL <LiddellH@sfusd.edu>; “Ishibashi,Andrew W.” <IshibashiA@sfusd.edu>; Parent @yahoo.com; Chlld@yahoo.com>; Brother@mail.com>

Maggi.

After received your letter dated April 11, 2008, we dropped in your office on April 17, 2008 and demanded to have another appointment because we need clarification and elaboration of your decisions listed on your letter. Our family is determined to have immediate response from SFUSD.

During our brief meeting, you said to me that you would like to have more facts about Lowell. Therefore, we prepared the following facts to support our statements.

Child is entitled to receive his education in a functional school environment. Unfortunately, in Fall 2007, XXXX did not have a fair chance to attend all classes, receive family supports, school counseling, and SFUSD support services.

XXXXX was in a disadvantageous position. Therefore, XXXXX is entitled to be re-evaluated by a panel which consist of Lowell teacher(s) and at least one professional staff from SFUSD (to monitor) for the whole semester of Fall 2007, not just for the final, not just for certain subjects, but the whole subjects including citizenship.

The facts to support xxxxxx’s re-evaluation:

1. According to the Grade Report dated 2/5/08, xxxxxx had total of 64 absences and 6 tardies in one semester and the parents were not notified.
2. After a physical fight, the other child continuously threatened xxxxxx with physical harm, which affects his school performance. Not until parents found out, there had been no intervention from any teacher or counselor.
3. A child’s grades were failing so bad and so many home work assignments were not turned in. No one from school gave parents a note or call.

Had the school informed us about xxxxx’s absences, tardies, or potential physical harm. we would have intervened. Since the school failed to inform, xxxxx should not be penalized and deprived his opportunities to compete with other students in attempt to enter a prestigious University in the future.

About one week before the Winter Break, xxxxxx’s English teacher, Ms. Zamboldi, called and informed us that xxxxx was failing in her class. Both my wife and I were in shock because we have never received any notice nor phone call from the school about xxxxxxx’s performance. Immediately, our family members intervened the situation and tried to assist and support xxxxxx ; Thereafter, we discover the following facts exist in Lowell High, which is quite alarming.

The facts about Physical Education Class

1. xxxxxx was marked 9 absences in the third reporting period. He had no absence in the first reporting period and got B+. He was marked 1 absence in the second reporting period and got an A. Because xxxxxx got 9 absences in the third grading period, therefore, he got a D. Grade is solely based on attendance?

2. Ms. Carolyn Sanders - the substitute wrote a letter dated 3/7/08 claimed that she had personally spoken to xxxxxxx about his 8 absences in the third reporting period - xxxxxx wrote an e-mail (available upon request) to re-butt Ms. Sanders and claimed Ms. Sanders never spoke to him. In the letter, because xxxxxxx had 8 absence, therefore, she gave him a D.

3. On 2/20/08, Mr. Ishibashi denied to call three students listed down by xxxxxxx to attest xxxxxx did not miss any class in PE. Mr. Ishibashi said, “Students lies and covers for each other.” I responded to Mr. Ishibashi, ” Are you sure?” Mr. Ishibashi said, “I used to be the principal of Washington High. I know.”

4. On 2/22/08, Mr. Ishibashi scheduled to obtain the Roll Book to resolve the puzzle we had. Unfortunately, Mr. Ishibashi was unable to obtain the Roll Book at our appointment day. Instead, Mr. Ishibashi decided to look it up from the computer. According to the computer records, xxxxxx had 6 absences (12/4/07, 12/5, 12/6, 12/7, 1/9/08, and 1/17) in the third grading period.

These facts raise a lot of questions. How many absence are we really talking about here, 9, 8, 6, or 0? What is going on there?

The facts about Chinese 3 Class

1. Ms. Lani Nahle Pang refused to give out her e-mail address to the parents. She did not make appointment with us after xxxxxx had informed her 3 times that we wished to see her. We finally met her by waiting until the class  was over, yet she cut our discussion short. During our discussion, Ms. Pang said, “O! You are the parents. You are outside of the country. It is your responsibility. That is why your son is not doing well in school.” Both my wife and I felt that such remarks coming from a teacher is not appropriate.”

2. Furthermore, Ms. Pang said, “I spoke to your son twice that he had not turned 24 homework assignments and he still did not turn in.” That night, xxxxxx re-butted Ms. Pang statements (4 pages of chronological order from xxxxx upon request). According to xxxxxx that Ms. Pang was on leave during the time she claimed that she spoke to xxxxxxx. When we went home, xxxxxx showed us his 24 assignments some of them were stamped by the substitute and graded.

3. xxxxxxx reported that during Ms. Pang’s absence (at least 5 weeks. please check on school record), the substitute - a French teacher who speaks no Chinese. On occasion, the French substitute played the video of Buffy the Vampire Slayer in French. ( the reason is to widen students’ knowledge of other cultures. During Ms. Pang’s absence, students class assignment were so little that students were chatting or playing card games in most of the time.

4. On 1/3/08, when 24 assignments became a discussing issue with Mr. Ishibashi,  Ms. Pang threatened xxxxxx to sign a contract (available upon request) alleged that xxxxxx had not turned in his 24 assignments. This was done after the class. Mr. Pang did not allow xxxxxxx to leave if he did not sign it.

5. On1/15/08, Ms. Pang announced to the class that a class tape was stolen. After Ms. Pang’s implication, the classmates were saying loudly, “xxxxxx, why did you take it? and Dude, xxxxxxx that’s  h**** messed up.”

6. On1/24/08, xxxxxxx and 5 other students were sent to another classroom to take the final test. These 6 students were situated in the back of another classroom where the teacher was still teaching class with discussion. These 6 students had to endure 20 minutes of instructions of how to do their finals in totaly different subject.

7. On 1/25/08, Ms. Pang did not allow xxxxxx to see his final score on the final test, but to show the final test results to the other 5 students who went to another class to take final.

8. Ms. Pang told Ms. Ishibashi that xxxxxx failed the first final test; therefore, she gave xxxxxxx a second chance to make up as a courtesy.  xxxxxxx claimed that he took one final test with page 1 and 2  not two tests. In addition, Ms. Pang did not teach what is in the final. Therefore, after xxxxxxx’s mom and grand-mom used the whole Winter Break to prepare xxxxxxx for the Chinese final. xxxxxxx still failed final according to Ms. Pang and the test result.

9. As for the disputed 24 assignments, Ms. Pang finally gave xxxxxx an A as the third grading period on homework assignment because xxxxx’s father and brother’s strong assertions - this is in the written response which she gave it to Mr. Ishibashi. According to xxxxxx, the fact is that the disputed 24 assignments were for the second grading period not the third grading period. Ms. Pang totally missed the point of our pursuit and missed the point again by giving xxxxxxx the grade in the wrong grading period.

10. There are so many instances which I rather not to address them here. A little effort of investigation on Ms. Pang shall give you a lot of answer.

The facts about Lowell’s administration

1. On 2/22/08, Mr. Ishibashi claimed to obtain the Roll Book for us to look into the truth of xxxxxx’s absences. He was not able to have the book on that day. Mr. Ishibathi informed me that Ms. Sanders verbally told him that she spoke to xxxxxx twice of his absence and he ignored. Mr. Ishibashi claimed that he also does not take student’s words against the teacher because they are good teachers but students  lie and cover for each other. However, Mr Ishibashi did admit that school is responsible for not contacting student’s parents about his absences.

2. Mr. Isibashi investigated the situation with Ms. Pang and claimed that Ms. Pang did what she could do the best to help xxxxxx. Ms. Pang even gave xxxxxx two finals. It was xxxxxx who failed. Was it one or two final?

3. For all the issues we raised to Mr. Ishibashi, he decided to call xxxxxx in and had a face to face. On 3/4/08, I responded to Mr. Ishibashi’s e-mail by saying, ” I am glad that you are fully aware that xxxxxx is a good boy because you actually spoke to him and checked him out. As a principal, I think, it is appropriate to acknowledge the child while you are trying to solve his difficult situation, which is severely impairing his future.

4. On 3/7/08, Mr. ishibashi wrote, “Please contact Mr. Maggi at High School Operations.  I will not communicate with you any longer without legal representation.”
5. As I am doing PT meeting with all xxxxxx’s current and previous teachers, some commented that Lowell’s current administration has room for improvements including …..

Our family’s main concern is xxxxxx’s future. Our prime goal is give him another chance. Please don’t take his future away because of our negligence.

Lowell is the best public school in town. My two sons are the students of Lowell and our family are proud of Lowell. So, please investigate this matter and take necessary actions. Just look into these a bit more.

SFUSD shall find that the current Lowell High has room for improvement.

Parent

Re: Lowell High Administrative Error

Parent@yahoo.com> Exhibit: 3b-1

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 5:58:08 PM

To:”Ishibashi,Andrew W.” <IshibashiA@sfusd.edu>

Cc:maggir@sfusd.edu; SanchezM5@sfusd.edu; MaufasKS@sfusd.edu; KimJ7@sfusd.edu; MarE@sfusd.edu; MendozaH@sfusd.edu; WynnsJ@sfusd.edu; YeeN1@sfusd.edu; CarlosGarcia@sfusd.edu; brother@mail.com; xxxxx@yahoo.com>

Mr. Ishibashi.

I am glad that you are fully aware that xxxx is a good boy because you actually spoke to him and checked him out. As a principal, I think, it is appropriate to acknowledge the child while you are trying to solve his difficult situation, which is severely impairing his future.

Tell me what did xxxxx do wrong in this semester of Fall 2007?

Yes, I can think of one, he did not ask for help.

However, he did every thing right to avoid another physical fight because he loves Lowell and likes to stay in Lowell. He said, “I do not want to get into trouble.” Therefore, he had 8 absences in the first reporting period, 22 absences in second reporting period, and 34 absences in the final reporting period. In addition, his grades were so alarmingly low. Besides, xxxxx had a physical fight with his debate team mate and thereafter, this child continuously threatened him with physical harm. xxxxxx suddenly grew at least 3 inches in the year 2007. He was frightened and does not know how to handle himself.  All these and more are valid reasons for the school administrative staff simply just give us - parents a note or call. Both psychologically and physically, xxxxx had encountered problems and he needed help from us in the beginning of the semester. Where is the counselor? Where is the administrator?  Where are the teachers?

Finally, one teacher called right before the Winter Break, yet it is too late and the damage was done.

We are a very supportive family. Brother (my son) is a Lowell graduate. He attended Berkeley and now work in the Law Office. Parent (my wife) is a full time housewife. xxxxxx Leigh is her concentration of daily major task. Answering machine is on all day and every day. Parent (myself) was a 25 years professional social worker. Had any member of the school informed us right from the beginning of the problem, xxxxxx would not have encountered such damage.

Now, the problems are identified. Please “stop” covering up for the teachers, substitutes, and administrative staff. Let’s work out the way so that xxxx had the fair chance to earn his grades.

There is no way xxxxx is to take the consequence if the school administration has failed its duties first.

Yes, xxxxxx needs to be re-evaluated for the whole semester of Fall 2007 not just the final, not just for certain subjects, but the whole subjects.

Parent

RE: Lowell High Administrative Error Exhibit: 3b-2

“Ishibashi,Andrew W.” <IshibashiA@sfusd.edu>

Friday, March 7, 2008 4:48:39 PM

To: Parent@yahoo.com>

Cc:maggir@sfisd.edu

Mr. Parent,

Please contact Mr. Maggi at High School Operations.  I will not communicate with you any longer without legal representation.

Mr. Ishibashi