Reply to Whitman Teacher and Crew Coach Arrested

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Whitman Teacher and Crew Coach Arrested"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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 [i]allegations or findings "[b]of sexual or physical misconduct[/b]."[/I] 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 [b]the Employee Code of Conduct isn't tight enough to forbid the kind of grooming behaviors[/b] 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."[i] 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.[/i]
• "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." [i]Again, the ECOC should specify that [u]any contact[/u] w/out parents being included will be treated as attempts to socialize.[/i]
• "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. [b]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.[/b] (is my understanding correct?)
Therefore, [b]it is possible for MCPS to ignore (/disregard) any and all complaints it receives directly from parent/students and these complaints can be buried,[/b] 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. [b]CPS is apparently understaffed, so gives barely any attention to the MCPS complaints and dismisses them[/b]. CPS shouldn't be ignoring all of these--doing so presents a danger to the children.
--Problem 4: [b]MCPS can use, as 'cover', a decision by CPS not to investigate further[/b].

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 [b]ECOC even says [i]they will typically apply the lowest disciplinary measures[/i].[/b]  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). [i]This policy needs to be changed, if only with regard to violations of the ECOC's with respect to interactions w/ students[/i]. 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 [u]aggregate[/u] and [u]for one year only.[/u]. [b]Giving the #s this way allows them to avoid acknowledging problem employees.[/b] 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).)
[/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