Thursday, July 09, 2015

Thought We Were All Done with Beacon Hill Cheating Scandal? Nope

As you may recall, the District had started a six-month investigation of test-tampering at Beacon Hill International School and the investigator could not discern who did it. OSPI had found mass eraser marks in a large number of test booklets.   (The District says this can't happen in the future because testing will all be on computer.)

The District did put Principal Po Tang and a teacher, Judy Eng, on leave because the District believed they were part of those who did break the testing rules.  (The associate principal, Michele Nishioka, left the District.)

However, it has come to my attention - via public disclosure documents - that the District didn't conduct one investigation.  Here's what Barbara Nahouraii, Senior Human Resources Analyst, said yesterday (bold mine):

The District is conducting the Beacon Hill investigation in stages. 
For Phase I, Ms. Sebree issued three different versions of her report on three different dates.   
Because the second phase of the investigation (Phase II) (related to who erased answers in the test booklets) is still ongoing, we did not want to release these three reports until one particular witness was interviewed again.  That witness was interviewed today by a new investigator; thus these reports can be provided to you at this time.
 We are currently redacting student names from the documents. We will give you the documents by no later than Monday, July 13, 2015.

When the second phase of the investigation is complete, the investigative report related to that phase of the investigative will be produced if requested.   The second part of the investigation is not being conducted by Ms. Sebree.   
Ms. Sebree is Curman Sebree, the investigator that the District hired.   

What can I possibly add except wait, what?  Staged investigations and three different versions of a report on three dates.  Well, what could be the problem there?  

I'll let you know when I get my copies.

7 comments:

Lynn said...

Hmmm. Do the public disclosure laws allow this?

we did not want to release these three reports until one particular witness was interviewed again.

I don't think they do. What does the public records officer think?

Anonymous said...

I have personal experience with Sebree changing her reports after they were submitted to the district.It seems that she doesn't get it right the first time or the second and perhaps the third. I encourage you to research her.

Salander

Ed said...

Paid (with our taxes) functionaries like Sebree commonly produce multiple versions of reports like these. Then the client can pick which one they think they can sell.

She should be seperated from district employ and a writer of non-fiction used instead.

Lawless culture rides again.

Eric B said...

Three revisions of a report issued in the space of a month wouldn't especially concern me--they may have a preliminary, a 90%, and a final, with changes due to new information, etc. Three versions in a week is a different story. Not knowing how far apart they are in time makes it hard to say what's going on.

mirmac1 said...

The request was not via public disclosure, it was under RCW 41.56 Public Employee Collective Bargaining. I don't know or use that RCW.

On a side note I see that Ms Nahourii remains at SPS as an HR Senior Analyst. I suspect this is due in some part to Brent Jones recognizing a quality public servant (his other actions notwithstanding).

Given my interactions with Barbara, I'd like to think she does not succumb to the toxic culture. Hey, if her treatment under English led to his removal than we can all hope.

mirmac1 said...

Curman Sebree is the "independent" investigator who asks leading questions, cherry-picks responses, writes garbage reports (serious, they are an embarrassment) and rewrites them to say whatever HR wants them to say. Period.

Elsa said...

Spot on mirmac1!

As usual.