Maryland should be proactive and deeply investigate MCPS. Governor Hogan wanted funding for an investigator to look into complaints and issues so they can be fixed and the responsible employees fired and if necessary, criminally prosecuted. I would hope he will ask again in January. Vote for candidates in November that vocally support the Governor on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:Yes but I would prefer if some of the existing MCPS staff who enabled these offenders would lose their jobs or go to jail. Wasn't it as Newport Mills where the principal sent a girl reporting being sexually assaulted back into the classroom of her attacker? The principal was never fired!! How about any central office that were involved in the database during Starr's time that kept track of complaints/offenders but didn't call the police or do anything about them? If any of these people are around they need to go. Its not too late.

While I agree that Smith has been better than Starr in trying not hide offenders when they are caught by police or hope no one notices, Smith has not taken charge to clean house .He needs to institute a zero tolerance policy not allow MCPS employees to write and hide behind a code of conduct policy that enables offenders and puts kids at harm. MCPS staff think of themselves first and children last this needs to stop but as long as they get away with it nothing will change.

Take it from personal experience, Dr. Smith is no better than his predecessors on this issue. As convictions are made for the arrests made during Dr. Smith's tenure, reporters should dig into employee background and ask "How many prior complaints about this employee was made and what did Central Office do? Who in Central Office knew?" Then the path up the MCPS food chain all the way to Dr. Smith will be discovered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know yet. The ruling was reported on September 28, 2018.

MCPS should take it seriously as a warning of what can come from inaction.

So, Chicago made changes. Then the federal government withheld $4 million, which will harm three elementary schools that serve low-income and minority students. And you think that's a good thing?

The Federal government thought Chicago could do better than it was. Changes doesn't mean that Chicago Public Schools were fully compliant to the law.

Yes. I think withholding the funding sends a message to Chicago and similar school systems to do better.

But the goal isn't sending a message, is it? The goal is fixing the problems.

Reread the US Constitution. Public education is govern by states, not the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has laws regarding public education. The consequences to the states and public school systems for violating these laws is the withholding of Federal funds. In my civics class, it was called the Power of the Purse. If the states want the Federal funds, then they follow the Federal laws.

Ultimately, it is Maryland's problem to fix which Maryland delegates to the individual counties - Montgomery County being one.

Yes but I would prefer if some of the existing MCPS staff who enabled these offenders would lose their jobs or go to jail. Wasn't it as Newport Mills where the principal sent a girl reporting being sexually assaulted back into the classroom of her attacker? The principal was never fired!! How about any central office that were involved in the database during Starr's time that kept track of complaints/offenders but didn't call the police or do anything about them? If any of these people are around they need to go. Its not too late.

While I agree that Smith has been better than Starr in trying not hide offenders when they are caught by police or hope no one notices, Smith has not taken charge to clean house .He needs to institute a zero tolerance policy not allow MCPS employees to write and hide behind a code of conduct policy that enables offenders and puts kids at harm. MCPS staff think of themselves first and children last this needs to stop but as long as they get away with it nothing will change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know yet. The ruling was reported on September 28, 2018.

MCPS should take it seriously as a warning of what can come from inaction.

So, Chicago made changes. Then the federal government withheld $4 million, which will harm three elementary schools that serve low-income and minority students. And you think that's a good thing?

The Federal government thought Chicago could do better than it was. Changes doesn't mean that Chicago Public Schools were fully compliant to the law.

Yes. I think withholding the funding sends a message to Chicago and similar school systems to do better.

But the goal isn't sending a message, is it? The goal is fixing the problems.

Anonymous wrote:

MCPS is doing a great job of being more transparent about these abuses in recent years and I am grateful for that. I would rather hear the bad news and be vigilant than hide my head in the sand and pretend that everything is fine like it happened in the past.

Nothing could be further from the truth. They fooled you. Score another one for the Board of Education's PR campaign.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know yet. The ruling was reported on September 28, 2018.

MCPS should take it seriously as a warning of what can come from inaction.

So, Chicago made changes. Then the federal government withheld $4 million, which will harm three elementary schools that serve low-income and minority students. And you think that's a good thing?

The Federal government thought Chicago could do better than it was. Changes doesn't mean that Chicago Public Schools were fully compliant to the law.

Yes. I think withholding the funding sends a message to Chicago and similar school systems to do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/754034.page

My first thoughts, too.

NP

I don’t understand the relevance. Can you explain?

OP makes some valid points. MCPS has a horrendous track record of keeping schools safe from sexual predators. Is that true or not? What does OP’s writing ability have to do with that?

The relevance is summarized here: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-loosing-and-losing Be sure to look at the referenced thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Don't know yet. The ruling was reported on September 28, 2018.

MCPS should take it seriously as a warning of what can come from inaction.

So, Chicago made changes. Then the federal government withheld $4 million, which will harm three elementary schools that serve low-income and minority students. And you think that's a good thing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Again, funding is the only power of enforcement the Federal Government has.

As far as firings - many heads in Central Office would roll on that one.

So you want the federal government to cut, even though it won't solve the problems, because it can? That doesn't make sense.

I want MCPS to fix what it knows is broken. The Chicago example is how the US Department can intervene.

Did it work in Chicago?

Don't know yet. The ruling was reported on September 28, 2018.

MCPS should take it seriously as a warning of what can come from inaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Again, funding is the only power of enforcement the Federal Government has.

As far as firings - many heads in Central Office would roll on that one.

So you want the federal government to cut, even though it won't solve the problems, because it can? That doesn't make sense.

I want MCPS to fix what it knows is broken. The Chicago example is how the US Department can intervene.

Did it work in Chicago?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Again, funding is the only power of enforcement the Federal Government has.

As far as firings - many heads in Central Office would roll on that one.

So you want the federal government to cut, even though it won't solve the problems, because it can? That doesn't make sense.

I want MCPS to fix what it knows is broken. The Chicago example is how the US Department can intervene.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Again, funding is the only power of enforcement the Federal Government has.

As far as firings - many heads in Central Office would roll on that one.

So you want the federal government to cut, even though it won't solve the problems, because it can? That doesn't make sense.

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Again, funding is the only power of enforcement the Federal Government has.

As far as firings - many heads in Central Office would roll on that one.

Anonymous wrote:Cutting funding would be demented. Have an investigation, if reports of abuse or background checks/other warning signs were ignored, make sure people are fired. Then replace them with people who can do the job. Simple.

Cutting funding is not any kind of solution and would only hurt our children.

Um, yeah - that isn't working. I think that is the OP's point