Reply to BCC teacher has a problem

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "BCC teacher has a problem"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Folks, remember when you read a lawsuit, you're only hearing one side of the story. The teacher may be 100% right or he may be completely lying. When MCPS comes back with its formal response and/or when and if this goes to trial, I assume we'll hear things that conflict with the teacher's allegations. I don't know who's right but I won't assume that the lawsuit provides the exact accurate rendition of the events in question.

Also, it's interesting to note that his lawsuit also contains the allegation that the principal took this action out of jealousy because the principal himself was such a failure and the teacher is such a popular success story. Something's a little off there.[/quote]

There are some interesting inconsistencies if you read the whole suit and attachments.

Some paragraphs describe Engler as an “award-winning” IB teacher.  It’s true he was an IB English teacher a few years ago, but according to the lawsuit, he was teaching “Health” not IB classes when this incident occurred.  That’s pretty strange - an IB teacher doesn’t normally voluntarily go from teaching IB to teaching non-IB, non-Core classes like Health.

And, in the demand for the retraction, Engler’s lawyers write, “ It is our understanding that, prior to the start of the term, these students had informed the school administrators that they did not want to be in Mar. Engler’s class (something Mr. Engler did not know) because of an unrelated incident that had occurred in one of his classes the previous year.”

Knowing that there was a “previous incident,” makes me really wonder what other problems Engler had and makes me doubt (the somewhat over the top) paragraphs 96 & 97 of the complaint that describe Mooney as having a “personal dislike and animosity” and wanting to “interfere with the success of Engler’s teaching and coaching career and being “jealous”.

Granted, Mooney appears not to have handled this according to policy, but, as a PP notes, a pleading is a very one-sided document - it’s the plaintiff’s best characterization of the situation.  If the Engler case moves to trial, more facts may come out. [/quote]

You write a teacher doesn't "voluntarily go from teaching IB to teaching non-IB", but you don't realize teachers are at the whim of awful administrators who can vindictively assign them to teacher whatever class the administrator wants. If a principal doesn't like a teacher it is easy to imagine that teacher being moved from classes they like teaching like AP or IB classes full of dedicated students to Health where there are usually way more rowdy students who can be disruptive.[/quote]

Given the clues mentioned in the pleading, it seems rather unlikely that the principal vindictively demoted him to health teacher on a whim. I hope the reporter does more digging.  [/quote]

I'd like to see more digging too but have other types of questions. The lawsuit raises questions about why the principal reacted the way he did without waiting for the results of the investigation. It is clear is personal animosity between the teacher and the principal. There needs to be clarification on what the students said they heard and what they did not say they heard. According to the lawsuit they did not say what the principal's email said and I've heard nothing to contradict that. [b]It's also a red flag that there were no consequences from the school after their investigation and the logical conclusion is that they came up empty handed.[/b][/quote]

I do not think the bold is the most likely read of the situation based on the pleadings. In paras 134-150 of Engler’s pleading, Engler’s attorney describes how Engler came back to school on Feb.13 for a meeting, was told his administrative leave was over and he should go back to teaching but that there would be a disciplinary meeting on Feb. 15.  The pleading describes how Engler arrived to find a “restorative justice” meeting going on that excluded him and that he felt so uncomfortable that he could not teach for a full day on Feb.13th and left school after informing the admin of his anxiety. The next day, Feb.14th, Engler took a sick day. He never returned to school and went on disability leave. So, the disciplinary meeting Mooney said was scheduled for Feb. 15th was never held and therefore there were “no consequences”, because Engler went on disability leave before the scheduled disciplinary meeting, not necessarily because the school investigation came up “empty-handed”.

And then once on disability for the anxiety caused by the situation it can be inappropriate to still move forward with a disciplinary hearing because the law requires reasonable accommodations for disability. It probably would be unreasonable to expect a person on such leave to come back in less than 4 months - and then it becomes summer when the teacher isn’t required to teach anyway.  And then, Engler files suit at the opening of the school year when he might reasonably be expected to return.

I’m not saying the school is faultless here - it’s pretty messy process to end administrative leave without notice and put someone back in the classroom while at the same time notifying them of a disciplinary hearing.  I don’t know if Mooney was following procedure or not, but that seems like a recipe for continued conflict and confusion.

But, I also think the pleading record is pretty clear that there were some kind of past incidents that made those students object to being taught by him and that the fact that he went on sick and then disability leave mooted the disciplinary meeting.  (Not that no disciplinary meeting was ever held because there was no evidence.)

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics