Washington Post article about Former Farquhar Administrator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we sure the state dept of Ed should be investigating? Seems like they have their own bully they are protecting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/21/mohammed-choudhury-maryland-schools-superintendent-criticism/

The Attorney General would be an acceptable independent investigator.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately this is widespread. My DD reported it in her school and specifically the after care which is why I pulled her from it. Nothing like having to do push ups. But yelling, kids being yelled at as a group and some kind of reward taken away from the whole group.

Anonymous wrote:Lakewood to become a chaotic environment for our children and teachers. Parents and students reported multiple incidents of children being subjected to unjustified group punishment and public humiliation, where children were forced to perform push-ups or stand on the stage as punishment for being too loud at lunch or recess. As a direct result, some students

Alexandra Robbins: Please look into the prevalence of GROUP PUNISHMENTS in MCPS. Its very unfortunately part of the culture under current principal at Woodlin ES. Parents complain to no avail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

The feds? What do the feds have to do with this?

If the allegations in the Post story are true, then MCPS has violated Title IX. The Department of Education has a large office to investigate such things.

Has someone reported it to them? It would probably help if they hear about it more than once. Here is the form:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These smiling administrators should be embarrassed- I would be if I were in their shoes. They are a bunch of sheep with no backbones. Anyone that stood and applauded supports what she stands for- harassment, bullying, and deceit; hopefully their staff retaliate and demand for these admin to sit back and remain in their offices all year.

She stands for a fair investigation. You people want to see this man suffer. This is AMERICA! Fair investigation is what is needed. These women should get ready!

Smearing the victims is not going to work this time. The paper trail is too long and too detailed; there are too many eyewitnesses, and his behavior was too egregious.

Assuming you know him personally, focus on convincing this man to get some treatment. He's going to be losing his job in addition to his marriage and it should be a moment of reflection for him.

He won’t lose his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These smiling administrators should be embarrassed- I would be if I were in their shoes. They are a bunch of sheep with no backbones. Anyone that stood and applauded supports what she stands for- harassment, bullying, and deceit; hopefully their staff retaliate and demand for these admin to sit back and remain in their offices all year.

Pathetic followers who can’t practice what they preach. And certainly don’t care for students OR staff

Easy to say that from an anonymous post. Not so easy when you are the one in the room. Not everyone in that room is bad. If the culture of fear is as high as folks are saying on here, who would dare interrupt their boss in front of all their colleagues to address? You wouldn't have been the hero in the room if you were a school admin at that meeting.

You don’t need to “call her out “ or “speak up” but you could certainly excuse yourself or ask questions. Why not ask a question about the matter? I’m an mcps teacher and have heard nothing from my administration. Where is their personal email denouncing this type of behavior & conduct? There is none because every single administrator in mcps has been brainwashed by McKnight and are her sheep , blindly following her

It is quite simple. It isn't your admins job to email you about this. It has nothing do with you unless it is a school you work at. Do you have issues with your leadership? By all means take it up with them. I'll make sure to denounce all teachers the next time there is a scandal involving a teacher and bash everyone who doesn't feel the need to get on a soapbox to let the world know how they feel.

JFC. If you are an admin and don't think this is impacting your staff, you are incompetent. You should resign. Please.

+1

Admin are tone deaf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.laborlab.us/jackson_lewis_the_notorious_law_firm_at_the_forefront_of_union_busting

Jackson Lewis is a law firm with a notorious reputation for union-busting. The firm represents employers in labor disputes, lawsuits, and other matters related to unions, and its clients are often large corporations that seek to prevent or dismantle labor unions. Some of these clients include Google, Amazon, and the numerous universities and colleges.

Well, that won't go over well with the MCEA or with the County Council.

So basically, the Board of Education lied and told us they were hiring an independent investigative firm when that's clearly not the case. Let's call them out for it. Here's their contact information: nhttps://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/members/

It is an independent investigative firm - just an independent investigative firm that also gets hired, by others, for union-busting.

You can call the BoE out until the cows come home and it won't accomplish anything, because the only real power BoE has over MCPS is hiring the superintendent.

The only way we get change is going to the media. The only thing MCPS is scared of is bad publicity.

Not really. MCPS Central Office and the BOE really just don't seem to care. They're not scared of anything. McKnight knows that she can keep her job, no matter what happens. The well-paid Central Office employees will never be held accountable for anything.

MCPS is a huge entity with little oversight. They have nothing to be scared of.

They know taxpayers will continue to fund their corrupt nonsense, no matter what.

Its a cash cow for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

You’re talking about honest companies that are soundly run. They’re not good analogs for MCPS. They need to discourage more people from coming forward and bury those who do. Hence this approach.

[Anonymous]

At the very least they should stop saying it’s an independent investigation-“we’ve asked our defense attorneys to give a look see.” is more accurate.

[Anonymous]

If a kid doesn't want to have to stand on the stage for being rowdy at lunch they could stop being rowdy at lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a kid doesn't want to have to stand on the stage for being rowdy at lunch they could stop being rowdy at lunch.

Off topic and ignoring the issue was group punishments where all children are punished when only a few are out of line. Would you like the kids that behave to jump the bad kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

$110K
https://wjla.com/news/local/mcps-montgomery-county-principal-accused-of-sexual-harassment-paint-branch-law-firm-jackson-lewis-pc-investigation-county-executive-marc-elrich-parents-coalition#

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

Really hope they take some heat for this “independent “ investigation in the news . Come on Alexandra Robbins!

Also looking at County Council to make some changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

$110K
https://wjla.com/news/local/mcps-montgomery-county-principal-accused-of-sexual-harassment-paint-branch-law-firm-jackson-lewis-pc-investigation-county-executive-marc-elrich-parents-coalition#

Janis got Monifa real good this time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I understand the logic of those on here who are saying that because MCPS is paying Jackson Lewis, they are not independent. Wouldn’t that be the same for any outside investigator retained by MCPS? And the County Council has made clear this is an MCPS investigation and it doesn’t look like they choose to use whatever investigatory authority/resources they have in the schools (if any) to pursue this. So it’s either MCPS does it themselves or they pay someone outside to do it. I suppose it is the issue of payment from MCPS that has some questioning “independence” but it seems the only alternative right now to MCPS self-investigating.

It’s standard practice for companies that undertake to have an independent investigation conducted to hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship. On its face, it suggests the firm will exercise independent judgment.

If you hire a firm with which you already have a relationship, the appearance of independence is compromised, because people will assume the firm is going to pull its punches to preserve the existing business relationship.

In practice, things are more complicated, because a firm is more likely to get hired to perform such an investigation even for a company or business with which it had no existing relationship if it has a reputation for being moderate, not digging too deep, and finding people other than those at the top to blame.

But in this case the fix would already appear to be in from the inception. A report will get prepared that calls for improving policies and processes, but the venality of McKnight and her gaggle of sycophants will not be fully revealed. And they’ll likely claim the full report is privileged and only release a summary with the recommendations to improve protocols for reporting and investigation of harassment claims.

The practice of hiring a firm with which there is an existing relationship is standard because no hiring entity wants an independent investigation. What the hiring wants is trial prep. But saying you’ve hired someone to prepare your defense is terrible optics so they call it an independent investigation. No one should stand for this. The state and the feds should intervene and conduct their own investigations, which will be truly independent.

Well, no. When large businesses get into trouble, they regularly hire a firm with which they have no pre-existing relationship to conduct an independent investigation. Then, if the investigation is reasonably thorough and the results are shared with the public and other authorities, they may be able to avoid a follow-up investigation by a government authority.

In this case, if MCPS is hiring a firm that's already gotten business from MCPS, the investigation is tainted from the get-go, and no one else at the state or federal level who might scrutinize what's been happening in MCPS should give any deference to any report prepared by Jackson Lewis. They should just go ahead and start their own investigations now.

$110K
https://wjla.com/news/local/mcps-montgomery-county-principal-accused-of-sexual-harassment-paint-branch-law-firm-jackson-lewis-pc-investigation-county-executive-marc-elrich-parents-coalition#

Janis got Monifa real good this time!

Elrich doesn’t seem too troubled by it. Our elected officials don’t seem sophisticated enough to recognize why hiring this firm hurts the integrity of the investigation and is bad for victims. I hope that MCEA gets some help from the NEA to put pressure on the county to do this the right way.