LCPS sexual assualt - who is held accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the focus is unnecessarily on trans students, the rewrite of Title IX under Betsy Davos/Trump seems to be a much bigger deal here. Those rule changes give the accused more protection.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/activists-increase-pressure-biden-scrap-betsy-devos-title-ix-rules-n1261017

The rules, which DeVos called a signature achievement of her tenure as education secretary, give accused students more avenues to defend themselves, restrict how a school can investigate sexual assault allegations, and limit schools to only investigating incidents that happen at school or as part of a school activity.

These rules did not go into effect until the end of July 2021. The May situation should have been, or should be, handled under the regulations in place at the time. If the student was charged in May, LCPS could have placed the student in a smaller, more secure educational program pending what happened in court. That is if the police instructed the school not to speak with any of the people involved. If not, they could investigate and take a discipline action including suspension or expulsion. If not, they would have no details of what was alleged to have happened other than what people say to one another informally. Even though this allegedly happened in school, they could not expel the student from school until they could investigate and give due process through the school process. But if the boy was charged back in May, they could have removed him from regular high schools. And they should have if that were the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone needs to stop talking about the suspect's gender. It means NOTHING in this case.

From what I know from having kids at Stone Bridge, the suspect wasn't trans. The suspect identifies as nonbinary. The suspect's gender identity is incorrectly being made the focus of the first incident instead of the assault itself. The suspect went into that bathroom to assault the victim at Stone Bridge and held her against her will just like he did at Broad Run.

The gender identity of the suspect nor the rooms matter... the GD act of violence matters!

Also, calls for the school board to resign need to stop as well. That's taking focus off of the facts: the freakin' school board hadn't even been notified on June 22 when Mr. Smith came to the meeting as an upset parent. The SB members took him as a nutcase "anti-trans" parent because no one had notified them that almost a month prior, there had been a rape! The superintendent hadn't even been informed on June 22!

Shut up about the gender identity, shut up about the stupid school board, even shut up about Ziegler... WHO kept the rape allegation from the SB and Superintendent? That is what I want to know. I want that made public ASAP and those people GONE. Unacceptable.

Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is not surprising. I would be unsurprised if this wasn't the case in all districts.

Although at least this one made the news.

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2021/10/man-charged-with-sexually-assaulting-student-at-chantilly-high-school/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the focus is unnecessarily on trans students, the rewrite of Title IX under Betsy Davos/Trump seems to be a much bigger deal here. Those rule changes give the accused more protection.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/activists-increase-pressure-biden-scrap-betsy-devos-title-ix-rules-n1261017

The rules, which DeVos called a signature achievement of her tenure as education secretary, give accused students more avenues to defend themselves, restrict how a school can investigate sexual assault allegations, and limit schools to only investigating incidents that happen at school or as part of a school activity.

These rules did not go into effect until the end of July 2021. The May situation should have been, or should be, handled under the regulations in place at the time. If the student was charged in May, LCPS could have placed the student in a smaller, more secure educational program pending what happened in court. That is if the police instructed the school not to speak with any of the people involved. If not, they could investigate and take a discipline action including suspension or expulsion. If not, they would have no details of what was alleged to have happened other than what people say to one another informally. Even though this allegedly happened in school, they could not expel the student from school until they could investigate and give due process through the school process. But if the boy was charged back in May, they could have removed him from regular high schools. And they should have if that were the case.

That should have been If so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why LCPS needs an alternative school again.

It used to be when a kid did something like this the first time, the kid was sent to Douglas School.

When I was growing up in the LCPS system, kids got sent there who started lots of fights, fought with teachers physically, groped a fellow student, got caught with drugs, etc.

Two girls got caught snorting pixie sticks in middle school and got sent to Douglas until they started high school. A teacher caught a boy grope a cheerleader until her skirt and was sent there when I was in 10th grade to finish out his high school career.

I asked my friend in LCPS if there was an Alternative school. She said that it’s not considered “adequate education”? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone needs to stop talking about the suspect's gender. It means NOTHING in this case.

From what I know from having kids at Stone Bridge, the suspect wasn't trans. The suspect identifies as nonbinary. The suspect's gender identity is incorrectly being made the focus of the first incident instead of the assault itself. The suspect went into that bathroom to assault the victim at Stone Bridge and held her against her will just like he did at Broad Run.

The gender identity of the suspect nor the rooms matter... the GD act of violence matters!

Also, calls for the school board to resign need to stop as well. That's taking focus off of the facts: the freakin' school board hadn't even been notified on June 22 when Mr. Smith came to the meeting as an upset parent. The SB members took him as a nutcase "anti-trans" parent because no one had notified them that almost a month prior, there had been a rape! The superintendent hadn't even been informed on June 22!

Shut up about the gender identity, shut up about the stupid school board, even shut up about Ziegler... WHO kept the rape allegation from the SB and Superintendent? That is what I want to know. I want that made public ASAP and those people GONE. Unacceptable.

Forcible sodomy generally requires a penis.

Regardless of gender identity.

In that respect, you are absolutely correct. It doesn't matter what is the accused's gender identity

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's the part on the timeline when the Superintendent is directly questioned by a SB member (Beth Barts) if any assaults occurred in the girls' bathroom and he says no?

Do you have a transcript of this that you can point me to?

Anonymous wrote:
Also the part where the Superintendent is supposed to report sexual assaults to the SSIR and he didn't? https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/selection.do

My guess is that they were waiting for the investigation to determine what had occurred.

It is pretty clear from the police statement that they did not view this has an open and shut case.

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/loudoun-county-school-assaults-students-1638899

Also here it is on video. I know you probably don't like Ian Prior, but this is a video tape of the June 22 meeting. https://twitter.com/iandprior/status/1447733118010486785


Regarding the second point, the rape that occurred in May of 2021 should have been reported. They are required to report for each school year. It doesn't need to be a closed case.

“The division superintendent shall annually report all such incidents to the Department of Education for the purpose of recording the frequency of such incidents on forms that shall be provided by the Department and shall make such information available to the public.”

[Anonymous]

^^ The SSIR manual says sexual assault is “Required to be reported regardless of sanction.”

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where's the part on the timeline when the Superintendent is directly questioned by a SB member (Beth Barts) if any assaults occurred in the girls' bathroom and he says no?

Do you have a transcript of this that you can point me to?

Anonymous wrote:
Also the part where the Superintendent is supposed to report sexual assaults to the SSIR and he didn't? https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/pti/selection.do

My guess is that they were waiting for the investigation to determine what had occurred.

It is pretty clear from the police statement that they did not view this has an open and shut case.

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/loudoun-county-school-assaults-students-1638899

Also here it is on video. I know you probably don't like Ian Prior, but this is a video tape of the June 22 meeting. https://twitter.com/iandprior/status/1447733118010486785


Regarding the second point, the rape that occurred in May of 2021 should have been reported. They are required to report for each school year. It doesn't need to be a closed case.

“The division superintendent shall annually report all such incidents to the Department of Education for the purpose of recording the frequency of such incidents on forms that shall be provided by the Department and shall make such information available to the public.”

Thanks. I probably won't get to those links until tomorrow, but I will definitely review them.

With regard to the reporting requirement, I guess there is a Clintonesque question concerning what's the definition of "incident"? Obviously, on May 28 there was an incident. But, the Sheriff's Office had not determined exactly what that incident was until almost two months later.

The fact that the investigation took weeks and is described as "complex" by the Sheriff's office suggests that there may be a back story here that we probably shouldn't speculate about and will likely never know due to privacy concerns. But, it's possible that the incident was not immediately considered to have met the reporting requirements.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

Thanks for that clarification. And the school could not report to VDOE an incident for which they have not made a finding. If they do, then it will be reported to VDOE. Allegations are not reported, findings are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virginia law requires the court to notify a school superintendent when any student in the school system is charged with any sexual assault. If the student was charged, a notice that the student was charged would have been sent to the superintendent. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/chapter14/section22.1-279.3:1/

The suspect was not charged until July 8. The school board meeting at which the father was arrested was prior to that on June 22. So there was no legal requirement that the superintendent be notified prior to the board meeting.

Thanks for that clarification. And the school could not report to VDOE an incident for which they have not made a finding. If they do, then it will be reported to VDOE. Allegations are not reported, findings are.

Are you implying they had no knowledge of the sexual assault?

[Anonymous]

No, I am sure they were aware of the allegation. They can't report them to the VDOE until they make a finding, but that does not address when they learned of the incident. As soon as the SRO was informed there is no doubt the school was informed. I have not read all of the timelines, but the school knew as soon as it was reported, or very soon thereafter.

[Anonymous]

And I just read Jefff's timeline. Seems as if the report went to school officials first who in turn reported it to law enforcement "within minutes" of receiving the report. So clearly the school new.

[Anonymous]

*knew