Anonymous wrote:MCPS is probably breathing a sigh of relief that this happened in a lower SES school. One of the biggest inequities is that MCPS can get away with anything at schools where parents don't have resources to fight them. If this happened in the Churchill cluster, the parents have the money and connections to tear MCPS apart. I know that I would if this ever happened to my child.

MCPS talks a big game about doing things to help disadvantaged kids, but when it lets them down in the worst way possible, it lawyers up and sits on the sidelines and acts like there's nothing to see here. How many kids in this school come from non-traditional or undocumented families that fear approaching the authorities? How many of the victims had already moved out of the area or didn't learn about the completely unannounced informational meetings? How heavily is MCPS relying on poverty and language barriers to get away with being complicit in this crime? I hope the prosecutor is looking very closely at those questions. MCPS, why worry about the achievement gap? Maybe we should start a tally of the crimes against children gap. Does this happen and get swept under the rug in Bethesda?

MCPS is probably breathing a sigh of relief that this happened in a lower SES school. One of the biggest inequities is that MCPS can get away with anything at schools where parents don't have resources to fight them. If this happened in the Churchill cluster, the parents have the money and connections to tear MCPS apart. I know that I would if this ever happened to my child.

Anonymous wrote:What about the area superintendent? Way back when coverage of this first began, I seem to recall an explanation about how the protocol was to bring this kind of thing to the area superintendent rather than to the authorities, everyone was just doing things by the book so nobody is responsible, nothing to see here and have a nice day.

Mandatory reporters who don't report can lose their professional licenses. Joshua Starr kept Joynes in the classroom.

Why haven't the teachers called up the states attorney, said they have relevant info, and offered to come in for an interview? Any chance MCPS has made it clear to the teachers at NHE that they should not volunteer information? Any chance MCPS has already shredded copies of incident reports? Any chance MCPS is intimidating teachers who witnessed suspicious behavior into remaining silent?
Just wondering.

What about the area superintendent? Way back when coverage of this first began, I seem to recall an explanation about how the protocol was to bring this kind of thing to the area superintendent rather than to the authorities, everyone was just doing things by the book so nobody is responsible, nothing to see here and have a nice day.

Anonymous wrote:I think the press should out the names of the administrators who received complaints from parents and did not act.

Joshua Starr
Jerry Weast

I think the press should out the names of the administrators who received complaints from parents and did not act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are MCPS teachers who want to attend and are willing to testify. However, the trial is scheduled for the first week of school. I suspect that is no coinidence.

So you suggest that the states attorney's office and the defendant have conspired to have the court during the first week of school? What crap.

Testify to what? The rules of evidence do not allow teachers to waltz into court and testify about their suspicions or what they have overheard. If a teacher has witnessed an illegal act the states attorney would make sure that the teacher was in court that day.

Why are you so angry that somebody is suggesting that teachers want to testify? It baffles me. You have no idea what they may or may not be able to testify to. Part of what happened involved the principal choosing to take observations of non-illegal but highly questionable conduct not seriously, or just dealing with it in an administrative fashion rather than involving the authorities. I don't think witness testimony would be limited to illegal acts. For example, locking the door to the classroom with children inside probably isn't illegal, but it would presumably violate all sorts of rules for what MCPS allows its teachers to do (and if not, that's a whole other can of worms). That kind of testimony would reinforce any claim that he was up to no good in his classroom. What legitimate reason would there be to lock the door? I don't think anyone is conspiring - sounds very far fetched - but the timing does sound frustrating. There is plenty of reason to be angry here, but it's not at the teachers who want to testify or who are either confused or frustrated by the trial procedures and timing. Maybe take a deep breath and remember that MCPS let us think our kids were safe in a classroom with this teacher long after MCPS had reason to suspect he couldn't be trusted with children. Be mad at Joynes and the system and administrators that let him take advantage of our children.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are MCPS teachers who want to attend and are willing to testify. However, the trial is scheduled for the first week of school. I suspect that is no coinidence.

So you suggest that the states attorney's office and the defendant have conspired to have the court during the first week of school? What crap.

Testify to what? The rules of evidence do not allow teachers to waltz into court and testify about their suspicions or what they have overheard. If a teacher has witnessed an illegal act the states attorney would make sure that the teacher was in court that day.