Jackson Lewis Report Who is Who?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

This is about the teacher that was sexting him nude photos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

This is about the teacher that was sexting him nude photos?

You seem quite hung up on this one piece. I don't know any of the people in the story personally, but what has been reported suggests there was a consensual relationship that ended. At that time, JB began a campaign of public humiliation, stalking, and retaliation.

Yes, sometimes adults in consensual relationships send each other nudes. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's common. When that relationship ends, however, it is not appropriate for one party to publicly humiliate the other, nor to abuse his power to ensure that his former affair partner is professionally punished for ending the affair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

I agree that it isn't responsible, but not being in said subordinate's shoes and being unsure of how much things escalate and seeing workplace bullying go unaddressed (not just in this situation, it's a countywide pox), I'm still on the teacher's side. Fear is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

You must be an insider. So much juicy gossip on these folks!

Yes, a lot of gossip and few facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

This is about the teacher that was sexting him nude photos?

Yes, I believe so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

This is about the teacher that was sexting him nude photos?

Yes, I believe so.

Joel, your continued bullying fails. But you are keeping this topic alive so that no one can forget what you did and the horror of MCPS administrators covering up your harassment of teachers and students. See if you can keep this thread active until August for a one year anniversary expose by the Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

Not according to the staff directory. She’s still in charge of district operations.

The staff directory isn't always up to date. Kimball is still in there as acting chief of school support and improvement, but we know she left shortly after McKnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

The staff directory is always behind, sometimes for months. Hull sent principals a message yesterday that Edwards is on leave until March 25. Rachel DeBois is acting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

The staff directory is always behind, sometimes for months. Hull sent principals a message yesterday that Edwards is on leave until March 25. Rachel DeBois is acting.

Thanks for clarifying. So the question is, did she get put BACK on admin leave after Chris Cram confirmed she'd returned or was Chris Cram just wrong in confirming she'd returned from admin leave at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

COO:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0165-3

Chief, District Operations:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0453-1388

Executive Director of COO office:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0464-1508

Executive Director of District Operations office:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0464-1551

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

COO:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0165-3

Chief, District Operations:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0453-1388

Executive Director of COO office:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0464-1508

Executive Director of District Operations office:
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/personnel/classification/descriptions/description.aspx?fn=0464-1551

So what does all this gossip about these people have to do with the 30+ anonymous complaints against Beidleman again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get rid of the rubbish. You’re telling me a grown woman who had an affair gone bad can get a principal fired but a child is sexually assaulted under the neglect of a principal and she keeps her job?

First of all, she was not the only person that complained about his toxic leadership. Second, a principal should absolutely be fired for having sex with their subordinates whether or not the affair included stalking and retaliation like it did in this case.

You can’t stalk someone that sends you nude pics, calls you babe and hangs out with you after work. Subordinates should be fired as well that engage in sexual acts with their bosses. These are not children. I bet that this teacher was afraid of getting found out by the higher ups and decided to flip the script. That’s when Beidleman got scared and in her mind she called it harassment. The social studies teacher is the main culprit. Everything else are anonymous complaints and were either dealt with or just plain dumb.

If I recall, the employee code of conduct condemns having a relationship with people you supervise, not having a relationship with your superior. It's a conflict of interest, but the supervisor should know better. It's a violation of that.

So are subordinates that dumb that they don’t know better? Are teachers looked at as dumb and irrational? I believe teachers are very smart and know better than to have a relationship or come onto their bosses. New policies will be implemented stating that subordinates too will be held accountable for having sexual relationships with their supervisors as the should be.

Even if we leave aside the consensual relationship (in which the supervisor absolutely deserves more serious ramifications than the employee), JB still apparently sexually harassed and stalked this person for months/years following the end of the consensual portion of their relationship.

From the WaPo article:

"When six Farquhar Middle School educators gathered at a math teacher’s house to keep the party going after a staff happy hour in 2020, they did not invite their principal. But Joel Beidleman showed up anyway, looking for the social studies teacher he had been sexually harassing, according to two witnesses and a complaint the teacher filed with Montgomery County Public Schools. When the door opened, he bellowed her name.

In the living room, Beidleman told her: “You should just f--- me. Everybody thinks you should,” according to the complaint and two of those present. He turned to his co-workers and asked them: “Don’t you think she should just f--- me?” The teacher, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she fears retaliation from Beidleman and MCPS, quickly left."

That does not sound like a consensual encounter. No means no, and it even means no if someone said yes previously.

This is about the teacher that was sexting him nude photos?

Yes, I believe so.

Joel, your continued bullying fails. But you are keeping this topic alive so that no one can forget what you did and the horror of MCPS administrators covering up your harassment of teachers and students. See if you can keep this thread active until August for a one year anniversary expose by the Post.

So putting the source being quoted in context is bullying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

ModeratelyMoco wrote:New report out on Dana Edwards and more about who knew what regarding Beidleman investigation and other issues in MCPS:
https://moderatelymoco.com/return-amidst-controversy-navigating-the-reinstatement-of-dana-edwards-to-mcps-chief-of-districtwide-services-and-support/

Dana Edwards is back on leave.

What the heck? Why would Chris Cram confirms she's back only for her to go on admin leave again?

She is not on admin leave.

This is correct. Still in the directory. No acting announced. What is the difference between her job, Brian Hull’s job, and the executive director of operations?

The staff directory is always behind, sometimes for months. Hull sent principals a message yesterday that Edwards is on leave until March 25. Rachel DeBois is acting.

Thanks for clarifying. So the question is, did she get put BACK on admin leave after Chris Cram confirmed she'd returned or was Chris Cram just wrong in confirming she'd returned from admin leave at all?

It sounds like she returned and then went back out. It may be her leave and not admin leave.