Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Celebrity Gossip, Part 2

What school district seems to have been dragging their feet on releasing a long-awaited investigation report on a personnel issue at an elementary school?  It has taken months for this thing (never a good signal) and it's still not out.   It was supposed to be released a couple of weeks ago, a week ago, a day ago.  What gives?

What's interesting is first the principal of the school takes a new job - in the middle of the year - in another district.  That new district then finds out about the pending investigation report and rescinds the job offer.  Principal goes back to old job and says he loves his school. 

And, the superintendent of the first district is all the while looking for a new job.  Just as she's about ready to sign-off on a new job, well, the report is due out.  But it gets delayed - day after day.

Makes you wonder.   Sometimes it seems like adults get more protection than students. 

31 comments:

mirmac1 said...

I wonder if any of this has to do with all the Board executive sessions to discuss "potential litigation" we've been having lately... Inquiring minds and all that.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mirmac1 said...

Anonymous, sign your post or it gets deleted...

Po3 said...

I agree with Anonymous. You can share using words like alleged. Media does it all the time. It does look like a well orchtrated release of infomation, most likely at this point related to the fact that it is open enrollment. Trying to keep the lid on things until after March 9.

reposter said...

reposted for Anonymous @10:11

Anonymous said...
Are you implying they are waiting to release the report until after the interim has officially signed with a new district?

Are you complicit if you also fail to release info (because you haven't kept mum that you know something, yet...) or would it be somehow libelous and wrong to post what is hearsay until the report is released?

The whole thing makes me wonder. When is it gossip and when do parents have a right to know what's going on with their school leadership?

2/29/12 10:11 AM

PS you can type any name you want into the name field to avoid anonymous posting it doesn't require an email or other sign in.

Anonymous said...

Is this about Lowell and the parent fugitive? Why is the discussion so cryptic on this blog?

Ann

Anonymous said...

OK, never mind, I read the story on one of the earlier threads...

(to Anonymous, the principal is being investigated for supposed abuse towards staff members, leading to a mass exodus of teachers)

Ann

Jan said...

Ann -- not an insider here, but my understanding is that it IS about Lowell, but not about the "parent fugitive." It has more to do with allegations of retaliatory behavior on the part of Lowell and possibly higher up SPS administrators.

If you want to search back through the blog posts, there are discussions of it from about a year ago. I don't know that anyone is trying to be cryptic -- but more that the allegations, if true, are serious; lots of people know "a little" but not enough to speak authoritatively, and folks who try to keep their posts above board are just trying NOT to get out in front of the "report" until they get a chance to read it.

But it sure is late in arriving. It seems to me that this thing is mostly a matter of interviewing the people who were involved, and reviewing the paper trail of what happened. We are not "reconciling" years of numbers, recreating data bases, etc. I cannot fathom why this is taking so long.

Annie said...

Does anyone know if the L@L principal is involved in anyway with the Lowell principal investigation?

Dorothy Neville said...

Annie, yes. Ms. G is very involved, perhaps even more than Mr K.

Look, the reason people aren't disclosing details is because the allegations are serious and include accusations of endangering children. It would be irresponsible to share details. The limited facts I have are troubling. I certainly should not share details but that aspect - how does the district protect children - is for me fundamental. It is very possibly the reason the district chose to hire outside investigator.

Horace Greeley said...

I don't buy it. It's apparently ok to allude to something "serious" and "troubling", name the administrators involved, and allow all sorts of nasty innuendos from all manner of unnamed anonymous commenters but the FACTS can't be given in order to protect-whom, exactly? Surely the innuendo and gossip has hurt these people being "protected" as much as any facts could!

REAL actual news outlets do it like this: "Mr. Smith is alleged to have done X on June 2 according to Mrs. Y involving her student John Doe. The investigation is set to determine if John Doe was in fact endangered and whether Mr. Smith followed District policy. Additional investigation involves Ms. Z at District HQ. Ms. Z is the senior official in charge of dealing with such issues."

That's how you do it. If you have the actual facts. I think what we have here are several people who know SOME things, several other people who THINK they know some other things and several people who heard from a third party or parties what someone else again thought they knew or heard. Add in a few who have made it their personal mission to get rid of Mr. King and/or the co-principal and you have what on this blog passes for news.

Meanwhile it comes up every so often as the "reason" for any number of actions by any number of people in the district.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Horace, I hear what you are saying.

However, we said nothing for months. I only reported - in brief - once the Times did their story.

We try not to censor remarks. I've said before, that in my experience, if you have that many polar-opposite opinions on an administrator, something odd is happening. So I think whether this investigation comes up with anything, Principal King is a polarizing administrator.

I know nothing about any "fugitive parent."

truth will out said...

I was at Lowell CH last year. While I don't have the "inside" information, I did hear several stories, some first-hand and some second-hand. I don't know what's true and what isn't.

What I do know is that this blog isn't to blame. These rumors have been swirling for almost a year now with no information released from the district. The district should fulfill its promise of transparency and release the report already. That will immediately stop all of the "nasty innuendo."

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
truth will out said...

I think the "fugitive parent" Ann was talking about above is the fugitive parent who was allowed to chaperone on a field trip earlier this year.

Ann - no. This has nothing to do with that.

Annie said...

So with what you know about Ms. G would you send your child to L@L?

truth will out said...

My child is at L@L. All I know is the stories what I have heard. I, too, would like to know more.

I have had no issues with Ms G personally. I really like the changes she is implementing and find her to be responsive.

Anonymous said...

Horace said:
"That's how you do it. If you have the actual facts. I think what we have here are several people who know SOME things, several other people who THINK they know some other things and several people who heard from a third party or parties what someone else again thought they knew or heard. Add in a few who have made it their personal mission to get rid of Mr. King and/or the co-principal and you have what on this blog passes for news."

Horace -- I agree -- to a point, and then disagree (I think, if I understood your point correctly) after that.

In my opinion, the only people who "know" stuff are those who actually saw (or didn't see) things, who were at meetings, who left the school (or stayed) as a result of things, etc. For the most part -- they aren't talking on blogs (if they are culpable, that would make sense; if they are "victims" (assuming there are any), it is either because they are professionals and aren't talking because it would be a breach of their professionalism, or because they have been told that this is being handled by the investigation -- or whatever and they are/were hoping that this protocol would deal with their concerns. Some of us have talked to one or more of these folks (who have been circumspect -- because they really DON'T talk about student issues, or personnel issues, in detail -- but needed a (true) explantion for things like why they suddenly don't work for the Lowell School anymore, etc.

We have been told that an outside investigator is reviewing things (which was a good thing to hear) and that a report would be forthcoming (also a positive). We are concerned about the length of time. None of that seems amiss. Certainly the posters -- and most of the commenters -- don't want to jump to conclusions without all the information that we assume an investigation will pull together and analyze. But we are puzzled by what seems to us to be the inexplicable delay. (I have my own theories as to what the cause of the delay might be -- but haven't, and won't share them -- as it is just more conjecture).

The District could, if it wanted, clear up much of this. They could provide the statement of facts you allude to, they could share the definitive timing of the report. They have chosen not to. Perhaps, when the report comes out, we will understand why. A few commenters (but not many) have suggested a causal connection -- as opposed to a mere temporal correlation -- between (a) the absence of the report and the District's silence (so far)and (b) other stuff (non- ordinary stuff -- like principals leaving midyear -- and then (oops!) coming back). Most other readers recognize this stuff for what it is -- pure conjecture by people totally shut out of the investigative process, but many of whom have a legitimate interest in the report (because they have kids at Lowell or L@L, or because they know people who were directly impacted, or because they are District watchers with a strong interest in good governance.

The District should put a stop to all this by finishing up the process, releasing the report, and taking whatever actions, if any, they think are appropriate in light of it. If the report is a week or two away, but has been delayed because the investigator is having root canal surgery, or whatever, they could say that too. It might not satisfy those few who suspect bad motives behind the delay, but it would go a long way towards filling in the blanks for those who are merely . .

Concerned and Wondering

TraceyS said...

At this point, I am becoming as concerned about the delay as I am about the story behind it. I am also starting to wonder along with Po3 if the delay is due to open enrollment, which would seriously piss me off if we were applying to an affected school.

Process matters. Trust matters. I want to have faith that my children's physical well-being will not take second seat to some adult's career due to fear of retaliation, or to the all-encompassing altar of capacity management. (disclaimer: I know nothing about the allegations, only that it is quite serious and an investigation has been going on for a long time).

It is time (past time actually) to get that report out, SPS.

TraceyS said...

ok, Concerned and Wondering had a far more measured and elegant response that I completely concur with.

Dorothy Neville said...

Yes, if L@L were appropriate then I would send my typically developing son. I would also volunteer in building a lot and speak up, repeatedly if needed if I saw troubling behavior, teach my son to protect himself. All of which I would have done anyway, but would take it up a notch.

Anonymous said...

This discussion aptly demonstrates the leadership vacuum at SPS. WSDWG

Anonymous said...

Maybe the investigation isn't complete. What about that possibility?

--enough already

tj said...

get ready.......it's coming

onthefly said...

Enfield is out the door so why should she care if the report is issued or if there is justice at Lowell?

The report will find an astonishing lack of oversight over errant principals. Now that she's taking the next stage out of Dodge she don't need that drama.

The district is back to being rudderless until they hire another supe. Special Ed. remains rudderless after the search committee found all the candidates unacceptable. Now we're back to the drawing board for that.

What Special Ed. director would take a job when they don't know who their boss will be?

onthefly said...

As I write this it just makes me madder and sadder.

Enfield is leaving because she doesn't like Betty Patu or other elected board members telling her what to do?

That's their job! Enfield works for them!

I don't understand this rending of garments over her leaving. She came in without much experience and is leaving without much experience. She didn't institute any great programs or policies... she just followed what GoLoJo did.

Now you have districts fighting for someone who's made it clear they don't like accountability to elected officials? Or is it just that they want someone who has proven they will be a lackey for the Gates/business community/TFA overlords?

dan dempsey said...

onthefly,

We operate in a k-12 system that has no actual plan to improve academic performance ... just hoping is good enough. School Boards are looking for someone with a Vision NOT someone that has produced results that can actually be verified. Anecdotes trump facts in this game.

Enfield's selection of McKinney at Boren says it all. Previous math results under her leadership were not even considered and they were abysmal, but she has a PhD with a thesis on school leadership.

As for the Highline School Board ... perhaps they believed the Head Hunters vetted candidates for past performance.

What has been proven is that an Ed PhD and some experience is all that is required ... actual positive performance as demonstrated with a record of student achievement is NOT required. VAM is for teachers not for decision makers.

You are likely correct..... Being a lackey for the Gates/business community/TFA overlords is apparently a satisfactory substitute for performance.

After all for MGJ ... the Broad connection was there and evidence of improving student performance was NOT ... unless of course you count "doctored" high stakes testing in Charleston.

Anonymous said...

Enough already -- true enough. Maybe it just isn't ready -- but again -- this is not the reconciling of years of accounts, or reconstructing tons of lost data. It can't even be blamed on overworked district employees -- because it is being done by an independent investigator (at least that is what I have thought was the case) -- although that DOES open the possibility that maybe it is on the DESK of some overburdened District employee(s). But if that is the case, they could just say -- this won't be make public until Noel Treat (or whomever) has a chance to review it, and his workload is such that the District doesn't anticipate getting it out until [fill in date]. In any case, if it is not out yet because it is not DONE yet -- that still leaves me . . .

Concerned and wondering

Anonymous said...

If the district's PR staff is sophisticated, they'll issue the Lowell report late Friday afternoon, to minimize press coverage.

-- Ebenezer

One Nation Under a Nacho said...

Celebrity Gossip, Part 2 More like the Fox News

mirmac1 said...

It is my guess that all those recent executive sessions to discuss "performance of a public employee/potential litigation", are to work out some kind of MGJ "arrangement" but without all the $$$.