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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I have no faith in MCPS but I truly believe Dr. Dodd cares. He couldn't even get through the letter he was so upset when he shared the news with staff. He was hand picked by Dr. Goodwin to be his successor, so Dr. Goodwin clearly thinks he's up to the task, too. This is a problem that runs deep. There are some principals who bury their head in the sand or worse, they know and do nothing, but this is not one of those cases. The real issue is the investigative piece and when MCPS decides, or doesn't decide, to do anything more than write a strongly worded letter for the teacher's record. [/quote]

Are you on Whitman staff?[/quote]
[b]
If there’s signs that an employee is breaking the Employee Code of Conduct (texting students, giving students rides, having students at his house, etc) but nothing criminal is known, what power does the principal have to get rid of the teacher/coach?[/b]

Can the principal put a teacher on par and not renew the athletic contract? Or is Central Office making the calls at that point? Who has the blame when criminal charges come forward later?

It seems like if a principal knows or should have known questionable behavior was occurring then that principal holds a good chunk of responsibility for not protecting children on his watch.  Same for everyone in Central Office that were aware of complaints but failed to step in to protect students.[/quote]

See the Employee Code of Conduct document (https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/staff/Employee_Code_of_Conduct/0503.21_EmployeeCodeofConduct_BOOKLET_ENG_Web.pdf), [u]page 8[/u]. Your question asks about when "nothing criminal is known" but keep in mind that there are also recommended procedures for when something criminal is alleged.

Technically, the answer is: "Except for serious infractions, including but not limited to the [i]prohibited criminal conduct discussed on the following pages[/i], the [b]lowest appropriate level of disciplinary action should be applied[/b] initially to focus on ensuring that an employee understands expectations and does not repeat the inappropriate conduct. In general, discipline should progress to a more severe level after a lesser disciplinary action has been implemented and proven to be ineffective. Nevertheless, a more serious infraction may warrant suspension or termination, even for a first-time offense, or repeated offenses, depending on the circumstances. This may be the case even when the infraction violates a standard of conduct that is not specifically enumerated in writing but involves common-sense application of governing principles or criminal law."

So it appears to leave the option open for the principal to pursue suspension or termination. But it's vague, saying it 'may warrant' either of those.

In trying to understand how this all works (as laid out in the 'enforcement' sections on page 8 and following, it makes me wonder about the Department of Compliance and Investigations (DCI) and whether it's one of the problems here. The document explains that DCI is basically doing all the 'investigations' and recommending all the disciplinary actions that may or may not arise. They sort of fill the role of the Inspector General for cases of sexual abuse by MCPS teachers staff, which was proposed upthread. But they aren't independent from MCPS.

I wonder if we need to look more there--perhaps a need to ask them further questions, try to hold them more accountable?[/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