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.