As the story at Lowell comes out, there are definitely some lessons learned and some people who come out looking good, bad, and mixed.
Here's the central absurdity: two employees were investigated for failure to report inappropriate behavior and the only evidence against them was their report of the inappropriate behavior - the one that satisfied their requirement to report. The people who accused them were the people to whom they made the report - a report that those folks dismissed out of hand. It makes my head hurt to think about it.
Mr. King. Mr. King comes out looking very bad for a number of reasons, all of them weasel-related. First, if we are to believe him, he dismissed a complaint as being racially motivated without knowing any details about it. If we're not to believe him, then he dismissed it as being racially motivated despite knowing the details. Either way, he failed in his duty to follow up on the complaint. Second, he threw his co-principal under the bus when he denied that Ms Geoghagan told him of complaints (the ones he dismissed as racially motivated). This creates the third strike against him, since denying having heard of the complaints was clearly a lie. He collects a fourth strike for throwing C1 and C2 under the bus at the April 6 meeting when he encouraged an investigation of them for failure to report - despite having received a report. Strike five for failing to respond to the results of the February investigations by E3 - he didn't even bother to read the report. Strike six for not knowing the reporting rules. Strike seven for wanting to conduct the investigation. Strike eight for whining and changing his story and making less and less credible statements as time passes, and strike nine for general dickishness. That's three outs, change sides! I'm not even going to mention how he delayed the reporting or tried to jump ship, or his self-absorbed resignation letter. I don't know how he can continue with Seattle Public Schools.
Ms Geoghagan. She mostly appears out of her depth, more weak than evil. She didn't know how to respond to the complaint when she got it. She went to Mr. King with it and he dismissed it. Her own "investigation" was so pointless and worthless that it doesn't deserve to called an investigation at all. She appeared out of her depth at the April 6 meeting when the District decided to investigate C1 and C2 for failure to report - despite the fact that she had received C2's report. She couldn't stand up for that truth? She remained silent as Mr. King denied knowledge of the reports despite the fact that she had told him about them - she couldn't stand up for that truth either. She also appears out of her depth when she says that she would never report behavior she had not personally witnessed, when she revealed that she didn't know the reporting rules, and when she initially was going to conduct the investigation into C1 and C2's failure to report despite the fact that C2 had reported to her. I don't know how she can continue with Lowell, but may be able to find another job within the District.
I1/E5. This is the Human Resource manager who had the April 6 meeting with Mr. King and Ms Geoghagan. I1 read some, but not all, of the February report from E3 and therefore did not read the part about how the behavior was reported to Ms Geoghagan. That was a half-assed job. This person didn't question Mr. King or Ms Geoghagan's failure to read the February report, let alone follow up on it. Come on, really? How do you hear from Mr. King that he knows that there were other reports of inappropriate behavior, but he hadn't bothered to read them? Did E5 really think that E3 wouldn't make a report to Mr. King of the findings of the February investigation? Also, this person didn't question the clearly contradictory elements of Mr. King's story - he knew of an investigation but not of any reports and he had reports but dismissed them without hearing the details. Not bright.
CA1. This person had a small role, but made the most of every opportunity to behave badly. First by telling C2 that she could rescind her resignation and then denying C2 the opportunity to rescind it. CA1 was a party to the decision to not allow C2 to take back her resignation, in fact CA1 made that call. CA1 then claimed it was "district policy". Really? Where is this policy? Why doesn't it apply to Mr. King? CA1 also mentioned the ethics complaint by C1 to C2. This was bad because it made the ethics complaint a factor in the decision about the resignation and because it breached (further) the confidentiality of the complaint.
E1. I think it goes without saying that the instructional aide needs to implement some boundaries. I hope he has done so by now. Has anyone spoken to him about this yet? I don't see any record that anyone has.
E2. I don't think that E2, the classroom teacher, comes out of this looking very good. Not really, really bad, but certainly not good.
The District's General Counsel office for releasing the details of an ethics complaint made to the ethics hotline. You guys suck. That's Noel Treat and Ron English. Way to inject doubt and politics into the whole effort.
E3. This is the person from the District's Safety and Security Department who took reports from C1 and C2 about the questionable behavior. This person apparently made a real investigation and a complete report. E3 gave an oral report to Mr. King saying he should follow up. Mr. King took no action in response. E3 told C1 and C2 that they had met the reporting requirements. Good job, E3.
The nurse. The nurse took action by reporting the behavior to the District's Safety and Security Department. The nurse didn't go to Mr. King or Ms Geoghagan, but given the history I can see why not.
E4. This is the person who witnessed disturbing behavior and made a written report to Ms Geoghagan the next day. Crushed it. Seriously, E4 FTW. Here's our important lesson for today boys and girls: document.
C2. No one looks better than C2. This person made a prompt and appropriate report to Ms Geoghagan and, again in February, made another report to E3. The idea that, after this, Ms Geoghagan would investigate C2 for failure to report is purely Kafka-esque. It must also have been weird to be told by CA1 that your resignation could be rescinded on one day and that it could not be rescinded on another day. The ethics complaint is absolutely called for and appropriate.
C1. I hate to say this, but C1 didn't make the required report to Mr. King or Ms Geoghagan. The report to E3, however, balances that. E3 told C1 that C1 had fulfilled the reporting requirement, so the news of an investigation into C1's failure to report must have been disorienting. I will also give C1 a lot of credit for making the ethics complaint. So C1 comes out looking mostly good, but not perfect.
E6. Did clear C1 and C2 of any wrongdoing, but also had no problem with what E1 was doing. Also took a long, long time to clear C1 and C2 and did it by conducting an investigation instead of doing it by determining that none was necessary. E6 comes out looking mostly bad, but not entirely.