Whitman Teacher and Crew Coach Arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't get it here. Why would a decent looking guy with a stable job and money throw it all away thinking he could get away with something you simply aren't going to get away with? I am not going to be an armchair psychologist here but there must be more going on. It's like shooting the queen or president in a crowd, you can do the deed but you aren't getting away. I understand it in a way, there's a power trip here going after teenage girls, but at the same time was it worth it to him?

My guess is he had been doing it for years, and when he started he was closer to the girls' age and found it more justifiable then (in his eyes). He got more brazen as the years went on of not getting caught -- typical criminal.

DP, and it’s probably also that he’s exclusively sexually attracted to teenage girls, so getting married and staying with the same partner (who would age) is unappealing to him.

He wants to have sex with young girls and has a job that grants him that access. It’s probably as simple as that, awful as it is. And, because he’s incredibly privileged, he’s used to getting away with things.

[Anonymous]

I was a Whitman student from 2001-05 which is long enough ago that today's students were toddlers or unborn.

I am curious to hear from students and parents about how Shipley was in the past few school years as a teacher and person?

16-20 years ago he was a guy in his late 20s who was single guy who had a house near Logan Circle, was passionate about rowing. He fit in the Whitman culture, clearly came from wealth, understood the pressure of the school. He had his quirks and was a little odd at times. As a teacher he was a little dry and droll at times but knew what he was talking about.

He had a bias toward the ladies and if I recall would have crew kids come over to his house on occasion (maybe I am not remembering correctly) or gave out rides but seemingly nothing nefarious.

I am curious to wonder what Alan Goodwin (a man who I think is a model principal) would think of all this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a Whitman student from 2001-05 which is long enough ago that today's students were toddlers or unborn.

I am curious to hear from students and parents about how Shipley was in the past few school years as a teacher and person?

16-20 years ago he was a guy in his late 20s who was single guy who had a house near Logan Circle, was passionate about rowing. He fit in the Whitman culture, clearly came from wealth, understood the pressure of the school. He had his quirks and was a little odd at times. As a teacher he was a little dry and droll at times but knew what he was talking about.

He had a bias toward the ladies and if I recall would have crew kids come over to his house on occasion (maybe I am not remembering correctly) or gave out rides but seemingly nothing nefarious.

I am curious to wonder what Alan Goodwin (a man who I think is a model principal) would think of all this?

So...16-20 years ago, his behavior was already inappropriate. I don't know the history of the MCPS Employee Code of Conduct, and it may not have existed back then, but these three things are all inappropriate, as the posts in this thread have discussed. The latter 2 are in the ECOC now, from what I understand, and I suspect there was no major battle over whether they should be in there or not when the ECOC was formulated.

PP, a question meant to be non-confrontational: Are you male? I ask because of the way you wrote "bias towards the ladies" in a way that implies there isn't anything wrong (or perhaps it's the way you refer to these fellow students as "the ladies", which is not how I as a female would refer to my female classmates...And if you are indeed male, I'm wondering whether this is why these behaviors apparently didn't set off red flags with you at the time (or why they apparently don't seem problematic to you at this point either, as you characterize them as "seemingly nothing nefarious").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a Whitman student from 2001-05 which is long enough ago that today's students were toddlers or unborn.

I am curious to hear from students and parents about how Shipley was in the past few school years as a teacher and person?

16-20 years ago he was a guy in his late 20s who was single guy who had a house near Logan Circle, was passionate about rowing. He fit in the Whitman culture, clearly came from wealth, understood the pressure of the school. He had his quirks and was a little odd at times. As a teacher he was a little dry and droll at times but knew what he was talking about.

He had a bias toward the ladies and if I recall would have crew kids come over to his house on occasion (maybe I am not remembering correctly) or gave out rides but seemingly nothing nefarious.

I am curious to wonder what Alan Goodwin (a man who I think is a model principal) would think of all this?

One of the first things that came to my mind when I first heard the news was Dr. Goodwin. I wonder how much he knew. He was such an important figure for the school and the kids loved him. I would like to believe that if I came forth with any qualms on Shipley, that Dr. Goodwin would have taken me seriously and done something tangible. I can't say I ever had evidence of wrongdoing, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a Whitman student from 2001-05 which is long enough ago that today's students were toddlers or unborn.

I am curious to hear from students and parents about how Shipley was in the past few school years as a teacher and person?

16-20 years ago he was a guy in his late 20s who was single guy who had a house near Logan Circle, was passionate about rowing. He fit in the Whitman culture, clearly came from wealth, understood the pressure of the school. He had his quirks and was a little odd at times. As a teacher he was a little dry and droll at times but knew what he was talking about.

He had a bias toward the ladies and if I recall would have crew kids come over to his house on occasion (maybe I am not remembering correctly) or gave out rides but seemingly nothing nefarious.

I am curious to wonder what Alan Goodwin (a man who I think is a model principal) would think of all this?

So...16-20 years ago, his behavior was already inappropriate. I don't know the history of the MCPS Employee Code of Conduct, and it may not have existed back then, but these three things are all inappropriate, as the posts in this thread have discussed. The latter 2 are in the ECOC now, from what I understand, and I suspect there was no major battle over whether they should be in there or not when the ECOC was formulated.

PP, a question meant to be non-confrontational: Are you male? I ask because of the way you wrote "bias towards the ladies" in a way that implies there isn't anything wrong (or perhaps it's the way you refer to these fellow students as "the ladies", which is not how I as a female would refer to my female classmates...And if you are indeed male, I'm wondering whether this is why these behaviors apparently didn't set off red flags with you at the time (or why they apparently don't seem problematic to you at this point either, as you characterize them as "seemingly nothing nefarious").

You'd have a field day reading the team's emails, then, because the crew was always referred to as "ladies" in emails. I always thought it was trying to make the team appear more mentally mature on the road to college, and would have been ok with "team" or even "guys." Ladies didn't feel right for me, but that doesn't mean other girls agreed with me. I'm sure many were fine with it. Pronouns weren't a big deal back then like they are now.

[Anonymous]

I am disgusted with CPS. Did they not investigate this???? I know they investigate ridiculous stuff. So the fact they didn’t investigate this guy makes me furious. They are useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a Whitman student from 2001-05 which is long enough ago that today's students were toddlers or unborn.

I am curious to hear from students and parents about how Shipley was in the past few school years as a teacher and person?

16-20 years ago he was a guy in his late 20s who was single guy who had a house near Logan Circle, was passionate about rowing. He fit in the Whitman culture, clearly came from wealth, understood the pressure of the school. He had his quirks and was a little odd at times. As a teacher he was a little dry and droll at times but knew what he was talking about.

He had a bias toward the ladies and if I recall would have crew kids come over to his house on occasion (maybe I am not remembering correctly) or gave out rides but seemingly nothing nefarious.

I am curious to wonder what Alan Goodwin (a man who I think is a model principal) would think of all this?

So...16-20 years ago, his behavior was already inappropriate. I don't know the history of the MCPS Employee Code of Conduct, and it may not have existed back then, but these three things are all inappropriate, as the posts in this thread have discussed. The latter 2 are in the ECOC now, from what I understand, and I suspect there was no major battle over whether they should be in there or not when the ECOC was formulated.

PP, a question meant to be non-confrontational: Are you male? I ask because of the way you wrote "bias towards the ladies" in a way that implies there isn't anything wrong (or perhaps it's the way you refer to these fellow students as "the ladies", which is not how I as a female would refer to my female classmates...And if you are indeed male, I'm wondering whether this is why these behaviors apparently didn't set off red flags with you at the time (or why they apparently don't seem problematic to you at this point either, as you characterize them as "seemingly nothing nefarious").

I am a male, aged 33. "bias toward the ladies" is that as a teacher he treated my female classmates in a more friendly manner than the male students but to a degree that it was detrimental such as females getting better grades. In general it is probably not good but many other Whitman teachers or teachers at Wood Acres Elem or professors in college had their biases toward either males or females or students they clearly liked better. It's a natural human tendency, I have coworkers who I like better than others.

As for the term lady or ladies, I am not sure what a better term is, for me I prefer not to think of 17 year old as girls. During my WW years they called the female teams the "Lady Vikes" and that was fair game.

Back when I was in high school, it was a different world, smartphones and free texting were still a decade away. Shipley giving rides didn't set off red flags since crew kids had to be on the Potomac at dawn. The house thing was weird but at the time not illegal nor against any rules.

That said, we live in a different world today. I have a two year old son and my wife and I plan on having discussions with him about grooming, and the actions of adults in positions of authority bestowing special favors.

[Anonymous]

Edit

I am a male, aged 33. "bias toward the ladies" is that as a teacher he treated my female classmates in a more friendly manner than the male students but to a degree that it was NOT detrimental such as females getting better grades. In general it is probably not good but many other Whitman teachers or teachers at Wood Acres Elem or professors in college had their biases toward either males or females or students they clearly liked better. It's a natural human tendency, I have coworkers who I like better than others.

As for the term lady or ladies, I am not sure what a better term is, for me I prefer not to think of 17 year old as girls. During my WW years they called the female teams the "Lady Vikes" and that was fair game.

Back when I was in high school, it was a different world, smartphones and free texting were still a decade away. Shipley giving rides didn't set off red flags since crew kids had to be on the Potomac at dawn. The house thing was weird but at the time not illegal nor against any rules.

That said, we live in a different world today. I have a two year old son and my wife and I plan on having discussions with him about grooming, and the actions of adults in positions of authority bestowing special favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Edit

I am a male, aged 33. "bias toward the ladies" is that as a teacher he treated my female classmates in a more friendly manner than the male students but to a degree that it was NOT detrimental such as females getting better grades. In general it is probably not good but many other Whitman teachers or teachers at Wood Acres Elem or professors in college had their biases toward either males or females or students they clearly liked better. It's a natural human tendency, I have coworkers who I like better than others.

As for the term lady or ladies, I am not sure what a better term is, for me I prefer not to think of 17 year old as girls. During my WW years they called the female teams the "Lady Vikes" and that was fair game.

Back when I was in high school, it was a different world, smartphones and free texting were still a decade away. Shipley giving rides didn't set off red flags since crew kids had to be on the Potomac at dawn. The house thing was weird but at the time not illegal nor against any rules.

That said, we live in a different world today. I have a two year old son and my wife and I plan on having discussions with him about grooming, and the actions of adults in positions of authority bestowing special favors.

Thank you for your honesty there. I think what I draw from your observations is that ---as a high school male--ou thought some things, such as having students at his home, didn't make sense as suitable teacher behavior (or as you say, 'weird'). Other things (rides) didn't set off alarm bells because you rationalized them away, as Shipley expected everyone to do...but they still stood out to you at the time as ways that his behavior deviated from the norm. I think this indicates that teenagers have instincts when something is off, but that they don't trust those instincts or listen to them all the time, probably because no one else questions it, or that it doesn't rise to the level that the teenagers know is black-and-white wrong.

(Btw, fair enough about the 'ladies' terminology).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I said this upthread, but CPS and police concerns can lead to criminal charges, but MCPS should be firing people for offenses that don't rise to the level of a crime (at least not at the moment) but whose behavior violates the code of conduct, is unprofessional or suggests they could pose a risk to children. The harm mitigation shouldn't be about whether MCPS will get bad press or sued but whether the teacher is interacting appropriately with students. MCPS protects teachers not kids.

Before I respond to this important point you raise, I want to flag that according to the Bethesda Magazine's article (https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/police-fire/whitman-crew-team-suspends-fall-program-following-coachs-sexual-abuse-arrest/), the Whitman crew board's letter repeatedly uses the phrase allegations or findings "of sexual or physical misconduct." Over the course of these years, they had gotten complaints and even had investigations about Shipley, but the board isn't admitting to anything it knew other than "sexual or physical" misconduct. Presumably inappropriate behaviors like giving rides to students, having them at his home, texting them in an intimate manner, etc., could be brushed aside as not "sexual misconduct." And would a relationship with an athlete over 18 be 'sexual misconduct'? Interestingly, the crew board reported the July 2018 allegation to MCPS and CPS. Why did CPS and MCPS take no effective action? Did they take any action?

Back to the post about what MCPS should do...one thing that's been helpful for me is to read the posts that have laid out the problem. Correct me if I've erred, but the following seems to be some of the 'structural' problems:

The first issue (Problem #1) which hasn't been teased out enough yet (IMO), is that the Employee Code of Conduct isn't tight enough to forbid the kind of grooming behaviors that Shipley etc. did, and would allow them to use the grey areas for their defense. I just looked at this ECOC for the first time, actually (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf).
Examples of loose areas:
• "Do not have one-on-one interactions with MCPS students through social media, email, text messages, messaging apps, or other electronic communication about subjects not directly related to instruction or your MCPS work responsibilities. Communication with students via temporary or anonymous messaging apps, is prohibited." What if a teacher/staff says that they are just "helping," as if with a personal problem? Unless it's a problem with a parent (in which case the teacher should involve another staff member, I think), it's still inappropriate to do these interactions w/out copying in a parent. This should be specified.
• "Do not use personal email accounts, social media networking sites, text messages, messaging apps, or other electronic communications to socialize or become “friends” with students." Again, the ECOC should specify that any contact w/out parents being included will be treated as attempts to socialize.
• "Do not transport a student in a personal vehicle without written permission from a parent/guardian and a school administrator, and, if possible, arrange for a second adult to accompany the driver and the student." I just filled out an athletics form online which allowed me to permit my DD to have rides from a staff member--a blanket permission, not a case-by-case permission. These permissions need to be tightened up, so that teachers/staff giving rides are only done w/case-by-case permissions (and a record of school admin permissions)--this way it is a hassle for teachers to abide by them and more clear when they are skirted. Also, the ECOC needs to specify that these prohibitions apply to any occasion, not simply school-related ones (i.e., it's still not OK to drive a student to church if he/she happens to be in your congregation.).

Another main issue is the reporting lines/entities and how this impacts MCPS's legal obligation (if any) to investigate. So, a complaint may be lodged to CPS or MCPD, and MCPS is informed of these. MCPS must do an investigation on its own regardless of what happens with the CPS/MCPD investigation. (pp. 8-9 of the ECOC, or page 6-7 on the linked memo, https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/childabuseandneglect/Annual%20CAN%20MEMO%20to%20BOE_Update%20Policy%20JHC%20CAN_FY20.pdf)
--Problem 2: MCPS follows this process (and reports the outcomes/numbers, as in this memo) only for the charges that it receives from CPS or MCPD. If a complaint comes directly from a parent/student etc to MCPS, and is not a glaring, explicit case of abuse, MCPS is not obligated to investigate it, nor to report it either to CPS or MCPD, nor to include it in the figures summarized in this memo. (is my understanding correct?)
Therefore, it is possible for MCPS to ignore (/disregard) any and all complaints it receives directly from parent/students and these complaints can be buried, since they will not be relayed to any other authorities by MCPS.
--Problem 3: CPS can (and in the view of PPs, often does) choose to not follow up on any of the complaints it receives. CPS is apparently understaffed, so gives barely any attention to the MCPS complaints and dismisses them. CPS shouldn't be ignoring all of these--doing so presents a danger to the children.
--Problem 4: MCPS can use, as 'cover', a decision by CPS not to investigate further.

Problem 5 is that MCPS is uses a low bar to determine if something is dangerous enough for them to take serious action on. Apparently, as PP suggests, MCPS doesn't think violations of the Employee Code of Conduct are wrong enough for suspension or dismissal; page 8 of the ECOC even says they will typically apply the lowest disciplinary measures. And the memo shows that indeed, "conference/memo", "no action", and "reprimand/letter" being their most common responses, in that order (according to the linked memo). This policy needs to be changed, if only with regard to violations of the ECOC's with respect to interactions w/ students. We need to work with teachers, the many good ones, to get this change made. As is, this is mainly protecting bad teachers.

Problem 6 is the 'reporting' in a different sense--MCPS's annual memo disclosing the #s. The tables on page 6 and 7 of the linked memo show these MCPS reports/outcomes in aggregate and for one year only.. Giving the #s this way allows them to avoid acknowledging problem employees. They need to report on 1) how many times a single employee was the subject of more than 1 complaint. And 2) they need to report these for cumulative years. So 1 report per year for 3 years=reported in year 3's memo as 3 reports over the last 3 years for that teacher.

(A side note about Problem 5....I also wonder about the barometer that the crew board was/is using to determine that Shipley's activities were wrong. For the first Safesport investigation, of the July 2018 allegations, the reported crew board letter doesn't mention the results, only that it did not report "any findings of sexual or physical misconduct." And so on. (see my first paragraph).)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am disgusted with CPS. Did they not investigate this???? I know they investigate ridiculous stuff. So the fact they didn’t investigate this guy makes me furious. They are useless.

This is a police/MCPS issue, not CPS. CPS handles abuse and neglect from parents/guardians, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I said this upthread, but CPS and police concerns can lead to criminal charges, but MCPS should be firing people for offenses that don't rise to the level of a crime (at least not at the moment) but whose behavior violates the code of conduct, is unprofessional or suggests they could pose a risk to children. The harm mitigation shouldn't be about whether MCPS will get bad press or sued but whether the teacher is interacting appropriately with students. MCPS protects teachers not kids.

Before I respond to this important point you raise, I want to flag that according to the Bethesda Magazine's article (https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/police-fire/whitman-crew-team-suspends-fall-program-following-coachs-sexual-abuse-arrest/), the Whitman crew board's letter repeatedly uses the phrase allegations or findings "of sexual or physical misconduct." Over the course of these years, they had gotten complaints and even had investigations about Shipley, but the board isn't admitting to anything it knew other than "sexual or physical" misconduct. Presumably inappropriate behaviors like giving rides to students, having them at his home, texting them in an intimate manner, etc., could be brushed aside as not "sexual misconduct." And would a relationship with an athlete over 18 be 'sexual misconduct'? Interestingly, the crew board reported the July 2018 allegation to MCPS and CPS. Why did CPS and MCPS take no effective action? Did they take any action?

Back to the post about what MCPS should do...one thing that's been helpful for me is to read the posts that have laid out the problem. Correct me if I've erred, but the following seems to be some of the 'structural' problems:

The first issue (Problem #1) which hasn't been teased out enough yet (IMO), is that the Employee Code of Conduct isn't tight enough to forbid the kind of grooming behaviors that Shipley etc. did, and would allow them to use the grey areas for their defense. I just looked at this ECOC for the first time, actually (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf).
Examples of loose areas:
• "Do not have one-on-one interactions with MCPS students through social media, email, text messages, messaging apps, or other electronic communication about subjects not directly related to instruction or your MCPS work responsibilities. Communication with students via temporary or anonymous messaging apps, is prohibited." What if a teacher/staff says that they are just "helping," as if with a personal problem? Unless it's a problem with a parent (in which case the teacher should involve another staff member, I think), it's still inappropriate to do these interactions w/out copying in a parent. This should be specified.
• "Do not use personal email accounts, social media networking sites, text messages, messaging apps, or other electronic communications to socialize or become “friends” with students." Again, the ECOC should specify that any contact w/out parents being included will be treated as attempts to socialize.
• "Do not transport a student in a personal vehicle without written permission from a parent/guardian and a school administrator, and, if possible, arrange for a second adult to accompany the driver and the student." I just filled out an athletics form online which allowed me to permit my DD to have rides from a staff member--a blanket permission, not a case-by-case permission. These permissions need to be tightened up, so that teachers/staff giving rides are only done w/case-by-case permissions (and a record of school admin permissions)--this way it is a hassle for teachers to abide by them and more clear when they are skirted. Also, the ECOC needs to specify that these prohibitions apply to any occasion, not simply school-related ones (i.e., it's still not OK to drive a student to church if he/she happens to be in your congregation.).

Another main issue is the reporting lines/entities and how this impacts MCPS's legal obligation (if any) to investigate. So, a complaint may be lodged to CPS or MCPD, and MCPS is informed of these. MCPS must do an investigation on its own regardless of what happens with the CPS/MCPD investigation. (pp. 8-9 of the ECOC, or page 6-7 on the linked memo, https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/childabuseandneglect/Annual%20CAN%20MEMO%20to%20BOE_Update%20Policy%20JHC%20CAN_FY20.pdf)
--Problem 2: MCPS follows this process (and reports the outcomes/numbers, as in this memo) only for the charges that it receives from CPS or MCPD. If a complaint comes directly from a parent/student etc to MCPS, and is not a glaring, explicit case of abuse, MCPS is not obligated to investigate it, nor to report it either to CPS or MCPD, nor to include it in the figures summarized in this memo. (is my understanding correct?)
Therefore, it is possible for MCPS to ignore (/disregard) any and all complaints it receives directly from parent/students and these complaints can be buried, since they will not be relayed to any other authorities by MCPS.
--Problem 3: CPS can (and in the view of PPs, often does) choose to not follow up on any of the complaints it receives. CPS is apparently understaffed, so gives barely any attention to the MCPS complaints and dismisses them. CPS shouldn't be ignoring all of these--doing so presents a danger to the children.
--Problem 4: MCPS can use, as 'cover', a decision by CPS not to investigate further.

Problem 5 is that MCPS is uses a low bar to determine if something is dangerous enough for them to take serious action on. Apparently, as PP suggests, MCPS doesn't think violations of the Employee Code of Conduct are wrong enough for suspension or dismissal; page 8 of the ECOC even says they will typically apply the lowest disciplinary measures. And the memo shows that indeed, "conference/memo", "no action", and "reprimand/letter" being their most common responses, in that order (according to the linked memo). This policy needs to be changed, if only with regard to violations of the ECOC's with respect to interactions w/ students. We need to work with teachers, the many good ones, to get this change made. As is, this is mainly protecting bad teachers.

Problem 6 is the 'reporting' in a different sense--MCPS's annual memo disclosing the #s. The tables on page 6 and 7 of the linked memo show these MCPS reports/outcomes in aggregate and for one year only.. Giving the #s this way allows them to avoid acknowledging problem employees. They need to report on 1) how many times a single employee was the subject of more than 1 complaint. And 2) they need to report these for cumulative years. So 1 report per year for 3 years=reported in year 3's memo as 3 reports over the last 3 years for that teacher.

(A side note about Problem 5....I also wonder about the barometer that the crew board was/is using to determine that Shipley's activities were wrong. For the first Safesport investigation, of the July 2018 allegations, the reported crew board letter doesn't mention the results, only that it did not report "any findings of sexual or physical misconduct." And so on. (see my first paragraph).)

Pp said: Another main issue is the reporting lines/entities and how this impacts MCPS's legal obligation (if any) to investigate. So, a complaint may be lodged to CPS or MCPD, and MCPS is informed of these. MCPS must do an investigation on its own regardless of what happens with the CPS/MCPD investigation. (pp. 8-9 of the ECOC, or page 6-7 on the linked memo,

They “must,” but what MCPS calls an investigation is the most cursory of investigations. They do not even interview the person’s colleagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Edit

I am a male, aged 33. "bias toward the ladies" is that as a teacher he treated my female classmates in a more friendly manner than the male students but to a degree that it was NOT detrimental such as females getting better grades. In general it is probably not good but many other Whitman teachers or teachers at Wood Acres Elem or professors in college had their biases toward either males or females or students they clearly liked better. It's a natural human tendency, I have coworkers who I like better than others.

As for the term lady or ladies, I am not sure what a better term is, for me I prefer not to think of 17 year old as girls. During my WW years they called the female teams the "Lady Vikes" and that was fair game.

Back when I was in high school, it was a different world, smartphones and free texting were still a decade away. Shipley giving rides didn't set off red flags since crew kids had to be on the Potomac at dawn. The house thing was weird but at the time not illegal nor against any rules.

That said, we live in a different world today. I have a two year old son and my wife and I plan on having discussions with him about grooming, and the actions of adults in positions of authority bestowing special favors.

Thank you for your honesty there. I think what I draw from your observations is that ---as a high school male--ou thought some things, such as having students at his home, didn't make sense as suitable teacher behavior (or as you say, 'weird'). Other things (rides) didn't set off alarm bells because you rationalized them away, as Shipley expected everyone to do...but they still stood out to you at the time as ways that his behavior deviated from the norm. I think this indicates that teenagers have instincts when something is off, but that they don't trust those instincts or listen to them all the time, probably because no one else questions it, or that it doesn't rise to the level that the teenagers know is black-and-white wrong.

(Btw, fair enough about the 'ladies' terminology).

I dont think me being a male really matters here. I would say as a high school student in an unpleasant environment like Whitman (other students not the staff) I was one of ~420 in my class and one of 200 kids taught by Kirkland (like the city on the Eastside) that year who just wanted to get by. My goal that year was to take AP Euro and burnish my transcript for college applications. Weird stuff, rumors and things that aren't right occur all the time on the periphery (not just in HS) but what am I going to do about it if it doesn't impact me directly, it's not really my business. For years there was rumors that another social studies teacher would have male students "mow his/her lawn" even though s/he lived in an apartment. It's not that I rationalized this (or Shipley's behavior) or thought it was okay, I didn't really think much of it because ultimately it wasn't my life and I am not out to monitor those relationships.

Life is full of gray areas, zero tolerance and black and white rules don't always work as intended. For instance I am friends with an old teacher, we still talk to this day. While I was in high school and middle school we would talk offline and I would get lunch with them. My parents were aware and didnt have any issues with this, there was a lot of trust and it was abundantly clear that they were not grooming me. But in today's age, some may see this as weird and creepy.

I am curious to hear from folks who had him as a teacher more recently to see if things changed or if there were other red flags? 17 years ago was a long time ago, I can see now there were signs here and there. But it was a different time, back then he was the young cool teacher who was only a decade older than his students.

I am wonder how Alan Goodwin or the late Michael Doran (my principal at Pyle and later at Wooton) would have responded to this? Even though at this point is a parlor game at best. I would have the utmost confidence in Goodwin in handling the aftermath--he was a man who truly cared about his students.

[Anonymous]

Maybe I am cynical here but the goal of MCPS is to "investigate" in an effort to cover their backside. Students coming first, that's just window dressing. Any investigation will either find MCPS not culpable or identify issues or policy changes that will never be implemented.

I am confident in saying that if this happened under Alan Goodwin's watch, he would do everything in his power to make everyone felt heard in a graceful manner. I could see him doing everything to try to prevent this from ever happening again. The new guy, well I don't know him--for all I know he could be a stooge for MCPS administration or the school board.

[Anonymous]

I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record.