Freedom Hill principal going to Haycock

[Anonymous]

I am another FHES parent. I am devastated, upset, and angry. My son is one of the special needs children at the school. "Luckily" he is also a high-functioning boy, so he can stand up for himself. I have dealt with Scott Bloom on multiple occasions and never once did he show that he was not a level headed administrator. I am very disappointed. My DS genuinely liked him and so did we.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am another FHES parent. I am devastated, upset, and angry. My son is one of the special needs children at the school. "Luckily" he is also a high-functioning boy, so he can stand up for himself. I have dealt with Scott Bloom on multiple occasions and never once did he show that he was not a level headed administrator. I am very disappointed. My DS genuinely liked him and so did we.

I find it far fetched that he’d have reason to cover up this abuse. I’ll be interested to see how this shakes out in court - exactly what was reported to him, and so on. Why was this other employe allegedly keeping a log of all this abuse? Why not call the cops immediately? Lots of questions...

[Anonymous]

WTF -- does anyone know if Josh DeSmyter was aware of any of this? As a Shrevewood parent, I am freaking out that someone who potentially had awareness of child abuse is leading our school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF -- does anyone know if Josh DeSmyter was aware of any of this? As a Shrevewood parent, I am freaking out that someone who potentially had awareness of child abuse is leading our school.

You’re “freaking out?” Calm down. Seriously. Don’t you think he would have been interviewed as part of the investigation? And if he did know anything, he, too, would have been charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the amount of abusive treatment FCPS thinks is reasonable/ok (see-seclusion lawsuit) —this must have been really bad.

Today just keeps getting better! That entire Board needs to be wiped clean, including Brabrand and his underlings.

Are you drunk? The majority of the school board was just voted in last month and sworn in last week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why you don't mix leadership from highly and low rated schools

What the hell are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why you don't mix leadership from highly and low rated schools

Uh really? What are you saying? That leaders in poorly rated schools are automatically bad and ones from highly rated schools are good? This comment makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am another FHES parent. I am devastated, upset, and angry. My son is one of the special needs children at the school. "Luckily" he is also a high-functioning boy, so he can stand up for himself. I have dealt with Scott Bloom on multiple occasions and never once did he show that he was not a level headed administrator. I am very disappointed. My DS genuinely liked him and so did we.

I find it far fetched that he’d have reason to cover up this abuse. I’ll be interested to see how this shakes out in court - exactly what was reported to him, and so on. Why was this other employe allegedly keeping a log of all this abuse? Why not call the cops immediately? Lots of questions...

Agree. I’ve known him for years. Always been positive and professional. My guess is that he didn’t know the extent of the abuse and thought he handled it by speaking to the teacher. If that’s the case, it was a lapse in judgment by not erring on the side of reporting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be even fairer, it sounds like FCPS upper admin did everything correctly. New FHES admin came in (breath of fresh air, thank God), immediately reported what happened under Bloom, and he was immediately placed on leave. I’m not sure how they could’ve responded any speedier and I’m having trouble appropriating any blame other than to Bloom and these women.

Agree, with the only caveat that some Haycock parents were told the issues relating to Bloom did not involve students. They apparently weren’t told the truth, which was that the matter did not involve students at Haycock. It does raise an issue about the officials’ candor, even if they acted promptly when advised that Bloom had been aware of the abuse at Freedom Hill and should not themselves be held criminally liable.

I think the caveat is bigger here, but unfortunately I deleted my emails from FCPS and someone can correct my memory here. Maybe I am recalling reported conversations? The way I remember it: the first email Haycock parents got was a one-line message saying the principal was being placed on leave and welcome back Interim Principal. There was general confusion and frustration in the community, which triggered a follow-up email that assured the community that it was a "personnel issue" and not one involving children. To call this -- a mandated reporter not reporting a situation of suspected abuse -- "a personnel issue" is highly disingenuous and misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be even fairer, it sounds like FCPS upper admin did everything correctly. New FHES admin came in (breath of fresh air, thank God), immediately reported what happened under Bloom, and he was immediately placed on leave. I’m not sure how they could’ve responded any speedier and I’m having trouble appropriating any blame other than to Bloom and these women.

Agree, with the only caveat that some Haycock parents were told the issues relating to Bloom did not involve students. They apparently weren’t told the truth, which was that the matter did not involve students at Haycock. It does raise an issue about the officials’ candor, even if they acted promptly when advised that Bloom had been aware of the abuse at Freedom Hill and should not themselves be held criminally liable.

I think the caveat is bigger here, but unfortunately I deleted my emails from FCPS and someone can correct my memory here. Maybe I am recalling reported conversations? The way I remember it: the first email Haycock parents got was a one-line message saying the principal was being placed on leave and welcome back Interim Principal. There was general confusion and frustration in the community, which triggered a follow-up email that assured the community that it was a "personnel issue" and not one involving children. To call this -- a mandated reporter not reporting a situation of suspected abuse -- "a personnel issue" is highly disingenuous and misleading.

I agree!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be even fairer, it sounds like FCPS upper admin did everything correctly. New FHES admin came in (breath of fresh air, thank God), immediately reported what happened under Bloom, and he was immediately placed on leave. I’m not sure how they could’ve responded any speedier and I’m having trouble appropriating any blame other than to Bloom and these women.

Agree, with the only caveat that some Haycock parents were told the issues relating to Bloom did not involve students. They apparently weren’t told the truth, which was that the matter did not involve students at Haycock. It does raise an issue about the officials’ candor, even if they acted promptly when advised that Bloom had been aware of the abuse at Freedom Hill and should not themselves be held criminally liable.

I think the caveat is bigger here, but unfortunately I deleted my emails from FCPS and someone can correct my memory here. Maybe I am recalling reported conversations? The way I remember it: the first email Haycock parents got was a one-line message saying the principal was being placed on leave and welcome back Interim Principal. There was general confusion and frustration in the community, which triggered a follow-up email that assured the community that it was a "personnel issue" and not one involving children. To call this -- a mandated reporter not reporting a situation of suspected abuse -- "a personnel issue" is highly disingenuous and misleading.

I agree!

meh.. certainly sounds like a "personnel issue" to me. And there are no accusations that he abused any child so the fact that the message to Haycock said that the issue with Bloom did not "involve children" is accurate at least on some level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point these school administrators (almost always men) who don’t do the right thing when put on notice of misconduct by teachers and coaches under their supervision are going to realize this is a career-killer. Same thing happened to the Lake Braddock principal and the former principal at Langley.

They are supposed to have the backs of the kids, not just the staff.

Who the hell in their right mind would back abusive teachers?! This is despicable. These poor children.

Administrators can also be abusers or instigate and/or condone the abuse. What happened at Lake Braddock and Langley...any info?
Abuse we learned of in FCPS wasn't limited to physical or special needs by employees- racial comments, poor safety procedures, etc.

FCPS has moved administrators around like the Catholic Church moved priests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am another FHES parent. I am devastated, upset, and angry. My son is one of the special needs children at the school. "Luckily" he is also a high-functioning boy, so he can stand up for himself. I have dealt with Scott Bloom on multiple occasions and never once did he show that he was not a level headed administrator. I am very disappointed. My DS genuinely liked him and so did we.

I find it far fetched that he’d have reason to cover up this abuse. I’ll be interested to see how this shakes out in court - exactly what was reported to him, and so on. Why was this other employe allegedly keeping a log of all this abuse? Why not call the cops immediately? Lots of questions...

Agree. I’ve known him for years. Always been positive and professional. My guess is that he didn’t know the extent of the abuse and thought he handled it by speaking to the teacher. If that’s the case, it was a lapse in judgment by not erring on the side of reporting it.

Get real. The one with a log book of details is the one who apparently went to him. You think he/she didn't take the log book with them! The grand jury probably heard ALL the evidence against him and then decided to hold him accountable. I'm sure his life sucks at the moment, but deservingly so! For FCPD to hold the kind of dog-and-pony show they did over news, Twitter, FB and everything else, you can bet they have a very strong case. And, quite frankly, the law on this matter is crystal clear. You suspect abuse, you MUST report. There's nothing in the law about using "judgment" and "handling it" ... give it a break!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be even fairer, it sounds like FCPS upper admin did everything correctly. New FHES admin came in (breath of fresh air, thank God), immediately reported what happened under Bloom, and he was immediately placed on leave. I’m not sure how they could’ve responded any speedier and I’m having trouble appropriating any blame other than to Bloom and these women.

Agree, with the only caveat that some Haycock parents were told the issues relating to Bloom did not involve students. They apparently weren’t told the truth, which was that the matter did not involve students at Haycock. It does raise an issue about the officials’ candor, even if they acted promptly when advised that Bloom had been aware of the abuse at Freedom Hill and should not themselves be held criminally liable.

I think the caveat is bigger here, but unfortunately I deleted my emails from FCPS and someone can correct my memory here. Maybe I am recalling reported conversations? The way I remember it: the first email Haycock parents got was a one-line message saying the principal was being placed on leave and welcome back Interim Principal. There was general confusion and frustration in the community, which triggered a follow-up email that assured the community that it was a "personnel issue" and not one involving children. To call this -- a mandated reporter not reporting a situation of suspected abuse -- "a personnel issue" is highly disingenuous and misleading.

I agree!

meh.. certainly sounds like a "personnel issue" to me. And there are no accusations that he abused any child so the fact that the message to Haycock said that the issue with Bloom did not "involve children" is accurate at least on some level.

The fact that you have to add a qualifier makes it inaccurate! You're splitting hair. The issue absolutely involved the welfare of children, which is what many parents questioned Fabio about directly. And, he did what he is known to do, LIE. I'm sure they won't reassign him, but he really does need to go. No on trusts a word that comes out of his mouth and it's sad that he doesn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At some point these school administrators (almost always men) who don’t do the right thing when put on notice of misconduct by teachers and coaches under their supervision are going to realize this is a career-killer. Same thing happened to the Lake Braddock principal and the former principal at Langley.

They are supposed to have the backs of the kids, not just the staff.

Who the hell in their right mind would back abusive teachers?! This is despicable. These poor children.

Administrators can also be abusers or instigate and/or condone the abuse. What happened at Lake Braddock and Langley...any info?
Abuse we learned of in FCPS wasn't limited to physical or special needs by employees- racial comments, poor safety procedures, etc.

FCPS has moved administrators around like the Catholic Church moved priests.

Disgusting! So much for Brabrand's zero-policy ...