DC School teacher arrested for having sex in classroom with student

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

This is a charter school. Why would the city be liable? I thought charters had to self-insure.

Isn't the Public Charter School Board also part of DC government? Or is it a private organization? As little actual power as PCSB has over individual charters, they are the governing agency, so they can definitely be sued, whether they are part of DC government or not.

I thought it was a private organization, not positive on this assumption. They are appointed by charter school members, not DC officials. And it is not an elected body. And yes, anyone can be sued. I was just wondering if liability falls on the taxpayers of DC. Also, there might be a finding of liability, but what are the damages. The boy disseminated the video.

The DCPCSB members are appointed by the mayor. I actually don't know all the legal aspects of where the liability lies, but I'd be surprise if any financial ramifications didn't find their way back to DC taxpayers one way or another.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

This is a charter school. Why would the city be liable? I thought charters had to self-insure.

Isn't the Public Charter School Board also part of DC government? Or is it a private organization? As little actual power as PCSB has over individual charters, they are the governing agency, so they can definitely be sued, whether they are part of DC government or not.

I thought it was a private organization, not positive on this assumption. They are appointed by charter school members, not DC officials. And it is not an elected body. And yes, anyone can be sued. I was just wondering if liability falls on the taxpayers of DC. Also, there might be a finding of liability, but what are the damages. The boy disseminated the video.

The DCPCSB members are appointed by the mayor. I actually don't know all the legal aspects of where the liability lies, but I'd be surprise if any financial ramifications didn't find their way back to DC taxpayers one way or another.

Re: the bolded and Jeff's point about it finding it's way back to DC taxpayers somehow, I think these are the key points:

1. Liability is not just about who disseminated the video. While I know other minors who disseminate video of minors having sex can be charged with a sexual offense (distribution of child p- - - - (afraid to type the full work while at work!), I don't know what happens if you're the only minor in the video and you disseminate it. I don't think you'd be charged for that.

2. What it IS about is that a teacher hired by a public school system and entrusted to do her job and not cross professional, ethical and fiduciary boundaries, that she engaged in a sexual act with a student. That alone there is liability for the school and probably PCSB for (possibly for not keeping a tight enough rein (sp?) on how charters screen/hire/train?). Definitely liability for the school, because they hired her and they are responsible overall for supervision in the school.

3. Then add the fact that the act took place on school grounds and yeah, you basically probably will be draining DC taxpayers of some funds because that is an egregious act. NOT that schools are supposed to have cameras and people monitoring every room of the school every minute of the day. But just knowing courts and juries, the fact that it took place in a classroom is going to increase the school's culpability.

A lot of whether the parents will win or not will depend on how the school's screening, hiring and training of substitute teachers looks. If they can show they did a thorough job and she passed with flying colors, they may not lose since it was her 1st day on the job (do I have that right? I know it was the first day of school, but was it also her first day as a teacher?). If so, it's not like there are years of allegations of inappropriate behavior that the school ignored, etc. So if the school can show they were thorough and had no reason to doubt her judgement, and it was her first day, they probably will not lose much.

[Anonymous]

Here's a question. The Post article states that the $11 M lawsuit was filed in Prince George's circuit court in Maryland. Does that mean that the plaintiffs (mother and son) are PG residents? If so, why is the son attending a DC charter school

[Anonymous]

What are the damages? How do you get anywhere near $1 million let alone 11 absent gross negligence by the school in its hiring/screening practices?

This sounds like a case of the victim's family thinking they have won the jackpot. I hope there is a residency investigation. The teacher is clearly liable for something but everyone in the chain is a stretch, there will have to be a lot more to this story that does not appear obvious now. What exactly were this child's special needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First day on the job and you bang a student?

Guess she offers extra credit?


I can't open the articles, but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion of force on his part? A 17-year old boy can be pretty strong.

There does not seem to be a suggestion of force. Apparently she gave him oral behind the teachers desk in the classroom while he recorded it.

Was it legal to record it? That seems to be almost as troubling to me.

NP - I gotta believe that you're joking about being almost as troubled by whether it was legal for the student to record it or not... you are joking, right? A teacher (regardless of whether she's 5 years or 25 years older than the student) has the ridiculously awful and unethical judgement to engage in a sex act with a student... IN A CLASSROOM... and you're saying the question of whether the student was legal in taping it or not is a big question?

No shit...wtf?!

[Anonymous]

I think the silver lining to this whole situation is that the sub/teacher didn't allow the students to watch the video during recess. That would have sent me over the edge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the silver lining to this whole situation is that the sub/teacher didn't allow the students to watch the video during recess. That would have sent me over the edge.

Hope that wasn't the video they were watching in the K video thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the damages? How do you get anywhere near $1 million let alone 11 absent gross negligence by the school in its hiring/screening practices?

This sounds like a case of the victim's family thinking they have won the jackpot. I hope there is a residency investigation. The teacher is clearly liable for something but everyone in the chain is a stretch, there will have to be a lot more to this story that does not appear obvious now. What exactly were this child's special needs?

I think he made his 'special needs' clear to the sub when he asked her to perform a certain sexual act.

[Anonymous]

How about the staffing agency who selected and sent the sub to the charter school?
How low is their bar? Has anyone seen the girl's profiles on social media?
http://www.iheartmyteacher.org/index.php?threads/symone-greene-washington-d-c-arrested-oct-2014.18004/

Does this mean that no matter what DC public or charter school I send my preschooler to next year, she might get a substitute teacher who doesn't know the difference between to and too, or how not do commit sex crimes while caring for children? Or does Options PCS somehow get much worse subs than the other charter schools through the same staffing agency?

I get how some of the typos are shortcuts, but typing "too" instead of "to" is adding a letter. Or is "too" the cool "to"?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

I was wondering this as well. Is it common for students from PG to go to DCPS? Or is this residency fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

I was wondering this as well. Is it common for students from PG to go to DCPS? Or is this residency fraud.

.

It is residency fraud and also unfortunately is very common at traditional DCPS schools, charters and in the program whereby DC pays tuition for certain students at private schools.

If the mother and son are in fact PG residents, then it reminds one of the case a few years ago where a student brought cocaine from home to her DC elementary school. When DC child and family services tried to step in and place the child in temporary foster care, the parents fought it, saying that DC had no jurisdiction over them because they were PG residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

I was wondering this as well. Is it common for students from PG to go to DCPS? Or is this residency fraud.

.

It is residency fraud and also unfortunately is very common at traditional DCPS schools, charters and in the program whereby DC pays tuition for certain students at private schools.

If the mother and son are in fact PG residents, then it reminds one of the case a few years ago where a student brought cocaine from home to her DC elementary school. When DC child and family services tried to step in and place the child in temporary foster care, the parents fought it, saying that DC had no jurisdiction over them because they were PG residents.

So did DC end up collecting tuition from the parents?

[Anonymous]

If mother and son (particularly son) are indeed PG residents, surely the charter has an argument that they can't ask for damages for something that happened at a school that they lied to get into, right? Not that that by itself will wash Options (or the temp agency) clean of liability, but if he wasn't supposed to be enrolled in the school and the parents gave a fake/inaccurate address to get him in, that may be a big blow to their claim.

Wonder what residency checks Options does? I'm assuming that that - like so much with Options - is murky and shady. Maybe Options will learn its lesson if they can't get out of a lawsuit because they keep lousy records and bend the rules.

[Anonymous]

Seems surprising the wash post has not investigated/ reported on this residency angle of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students parents are mow suing for $3 million.

According to the Post, it is actually $11 million. Strangely, the lawsuit was filed in PG County. I wonder if that is where the student lives?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/parent-of-teen-in-charter-school-sex-case-files-11-million-suit-against-school-others/2014/10/28/38fa5f44-5ed5-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

That would be almost perfect if the District ends up paying $11 million to a PG resident who attended a corruptly-run charter schools and was on the receiving end of this particular act, which was performed by another Maryland resident.

I was wondering this as well. Is it common for students from PG to go to DCPS? Or is this residency fraud.

.

It is residency fraud and also unfortunately is very common at traditional DCPS schools, charters and in the program whereby DC pays tuition for certain students at private schools.

If the mother and son are in fact PG residents, then it reminds one of the case a few years ago where a student brought cocaine from home to her DC elementary school. When DC child and family services tried to step in and place the child in temporary foster care, the parents fought it, saying that DC had no jurisdiction over them because they were PG residents.

So did DC end up collecting tuition from the parents?

What do you think?