Man Accused of Raping Girl Was Working ‘Unauthorized’ at Montgomery Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

He could have done the exact same thing regardless of where he was working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

He could have done the exact same thing regardless of where he was working.

So it is ok for convicted felons to be working at a public school where children are present unless they hurt a child at the school where they work? Keeping felons out of schools is supposed to be a preventative safety measure. MCPS is ignoring their responsibility for school security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Guess what? There would be plenty of money for both if they trimmed some of the useless admin positions and extra bloat in central Office. MCPS is just too big and in any large organization, there is a risk of this type of situation - where there is a completely lack of accountability and people know they will keep their job, regardless of how poorly they do it.

Which "useless admin positions and extra bloat" in the central office, specifically? And how much money would that free up for other uses, specifically? And how much do the other uses cost, specifically?

Otherwise you're just hand-waving.

Let’s start with the Damascus principal who was given a cushy Central Office job after failing to act when she found out about the rapes. Her salary is now $130K and they basically created a position for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

He could have done the exact same thing regardless of where he was working.

So it is ok for convicted felons to be working at a public school where children are present unless they hurt a child at the school where they work? Keeping felons out of schools is supposed to be a preventative safety measure. MCPS is ignoring their responsibility for school security.

The UPS guy who delivers paper to the school attacks a child on a Saturday. MCPS's fault? I guess so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

MCPS put him in the neighborhood with easy access to small children. They gave him clearance to be around children. Just because the victim did not go to this particular school doesn't mean she wasn't a neighborhood child. She was too young to be in high school, but not too young to live across the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

He could have done the exact same thing regardless of where he was working.

So it is ok for convicted felons to be working at a public school where children are present unless they hurt a child at the school where they work? Keeping felons out of schools is supposed to be a preventative safety measure. MCPS is ignoring their responsibility for school security.

The UPS guy who delivers paper to the school attacks a child on a Saturday. MCPS's fault? I guess so!

The UPS worker has to go to the office for the delivery. He would not be admitted past the front desk. Not the same level of access to students as a construction worker doing a job on a school site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the person should not have been working at an MCPS site, I do not think MCPS is responsible for what happened to the child off school property. It sounds like she accepted a ride from a stranger which was an unfortunate choice of a 12 year old. She did not even attend the HS he was working at.

MCPS put him in the neighborhood with easy access to small children. They gave him clearance to be around children. Just because the victim did not go to this particular school doesn't mean she wasn't a neighborhood child. She was too young to be in high school, but not too young to live across the street.

MCPS is responsible for restricting which neighborhoods he could be in?? His access to her had nothing to do with his job. He was on a public road.

[Anonymous]

School safety starts with preventing convicted felons from having access to children at a school. What parent would want their child in contact with the contractor at Wheaton HS?

[Anonymous]

To exempt MCPS for their negligence and the risk to children at Wheaton HS and Edison Center just because the sexual assault occurred off school grounds is missing the point. MCPS is not closing a safety risk to children because they are not checking whether or not contractors who are on site have all passed the background check. MCPS didn’t approve the contractor to work at a school. MCPS knew about the contractor's criminal record yet the construction company had the worker on site anyway. Why? Because MCPS is not having anyone check who are the construction workers at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A complete disgrace. I am so embarrassed to have a child in MCPS. I wish I could move or afford private. This is getting very scary.

The article clearly states that it was the fault of the construction company. The school system did run his background check and said he was not allowed to work. Read past the headlines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS once again fails to keep someone with a criminal record from working at a school with children present. Instead of focusing how to do better in the future, the MCPS response is to deflect and blame the contractor.

As a parent, I have to scan my driver's license to enter a school. Why isn't MCPS checking who is working at their school? Delegating the responsibility to a contractor who knows that there is no MCPS check as to who is on site and who may have a financial incentive to let someone who can't pass the background check work on site is negligent by MCPS.

Why don’t people read the article? It clearly says he failed mcps’s background check and the construction company employed him illegally anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS once again fails to keep someone with a criminal record from working at a school with children present. Instead of focusing how to do better in the future, the MCPS response is to deflect and blame the contractor.

As a parent, I have to scan my driver's license to enter a school. Why isn't MCPS checking who is working at their school? Delegating the responsibility to a contractor who knows that there is no MCPS check as to who is on site and who may have a financial incentive to let someone who can't pass the background check work on site is negligent by MCPS.

Why don’t people read the article? It clearly says he failed mcps’s background check and the construction company employed him illegally anyway.

I did read the article. It shows a huge gap in school security by MCPS.

Who hires that particular construction company? MCPS

Why was the construction worker at a MCPS high school with children present? Because MCPS is not checking that the workers at the school have the credentials to be working in an area with children. School security needs a method to know who is cleared to work at the school and who is not. That's MCPS' falt.

MCPS has a history of contract workers abusing children in schools yet they haven't closed this gap in school security. The problem should be addressed by the Board of Education asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS once again fails to keep someone with a criminal record from working at a school with children present. Instead of focusing how to do better in the future, the MCPS response is to deflect and blame the contractor.

As a parent, I have to scan my driver's license to enter a school. Why isn't MCPS checking who is working at their school? Delegating the responsibility to a contractor who knows that there is no MCPS check as to who is on site and who may have a financial incentive to let someone who can't pass the background check work on site is negligent by MCPS.

Why don’t people read the article? It clearly says he failed mcps’s background check and the construction company employed him illegally anyway.

I did read the article. It shows a huge gap in school security by MCPS.

Who hires that particular construction company? MCPS

Why was the construction worker at a MCPS high school with children present? Because MCPS is not checking that the workers at the school have the credentials to be working in an area with children. School security needs a method to know who is cleared to work at the school and who is not. That's MCPS' falt.

MCPS has a history of contract workers abusing children in schools yet they haven't closed this gap in school security. The problem should be addressed by the Board of Education asap.

From the article: "the construction company employing Booker was responsible for ensuring he was eligible to work on school grounds."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS once again fails to keep someone with a criminal record from working at a school with children present. Instead of focusing how to do better in the future, the MCPS response is to deflect and blame the contractor.

As a parent, I have to scan my driver's license to enter a school. Why isn't MCPS checking who is working at their school? Delegating the responsibility to a contractor who knows that there is no MCPS check as to who is on site and who may have a financial incentive to let someone who can't pass the background check work on site is negligent by MCPS.

Why don’t people read the article? It clearly says he failed mcps’s background check and the construction company employed him illegally anyway.

I did read the article. It shows a huge gap in school security by MCPS.

Who hires that particular construction company? MCPS

Why was the construction worker at a MCPS high school with children present? Because MCPS is not checking that the workers at the school have the credentials to be working in an area with children. School security needs a method to know who is cleared to work at the school and who is not. That's MCPS' falt.

MCPS has a history of contract workers abusing children in schools yet they haven't closed this gap in school security. The problem should be addressed by the Board of Education asap.

From the article: "the construction company employing Booker was responsible for ensuring he was eligible to work on school grounds."

That is MCPS lame excuse. Security is not something that MCPS should delegate to a contractor.

MCPS is ultimately responsible for school security. They should be checking who is in their schools and not do business with a contractor who we now knows cuts corners to have convicted felons working in a school with students.

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear, there's no suggestion the contractor was "in the school." He was working on an under-construction athletic field, where no students were. He met the victim on a neighborhood street. The assault occurred in his car, in front of the her house.