Letter To Roosevelt Community About Rape Incident
Roosevelt principal Brian Vance sent home a letter to parents about the rape at Roosevelt (it is also posted online).
I plan to write a detailed thread about this incident because it raise a lot of issues that all parents should understand about what can and can't happen in our schools. It may inspire us to tell our legislators to change notification laws.
But to address this letter, I have a continuing troubled feeling here. On the one hand, the district was very clear, in its statement to the press, that the school knew of this student but did not tell the district. (The law requires the Sheriff's office to notify the school, not the district. Dumb? Yes.) My first reaction, because I worked with Brian for two years when I was co-president of the RHS PTSA, is that there is no way Brian wouldn't have done due diligence on this work. He is a good principal, a decent man and a detail-oriented person. I find it very hard to believe he overlooked telling the district this. I told him such yesterday when I went to RHS.
What is odd in this letter is the wording here :
Seattle Public Schools complies with all laws and statutes that govern the enrollment of student offenders, including laws related to notification. In this case, we received a letter from the Sheriff's Department informing us of the presence of this student in our school. I informed our administrative team and select teachers.
State laws determine who should and can be notified when a student offender enrolls in a school. In general, notification is prohibited. The exception is that principals have discretion to inform certain staff within the school for safety purposes. The extent of the notification is established within the law. That means SPS employees are specifically prohibited by law from notifying other students, family or community members about the presence of a student offender in our schools.
So he doesn't say "When I was informed, I told the district." That doesn't mean he didn't but, for some reason, he didn't put it in the letter that he told the district. Red flag, so why not?
What is also troubling is that the suspect was on probation. So, in essence, the staff at RHS were almost de facto probation officers. Notifying them likely meant "keep your eyes and ears open" about this student. However, we don't know how many staff knew about this student but certainly not all. But if the Special Ed staff probably didn't know but if they had and saw this student interacting with one of their students, they probably would have immediately told someone. If all the staff had known, it would have been that many more eyes watching to make sure he stayed on the straight and narrow. (This is not putting a scarlet letter on this guy but it's a big school and I'll bet he flew under the radar.)
I know, it is not the job of staff or teachers to be probation officers. But when the law allows these students, who have committed crimes against children of a sexual nature, then you'd think you'd want that student watched over to protect other kids.
There is a lot wrong here and I'm still working on figuring it out.
I plan to write a detailed thread about this incident because it raise a lot of issues that all parents should understand about what can and can't happen in our schools. It may inspire us to tell our legislators to change notification laws.
But to address this letter, I have a continuing troubled feeling here. On the one hand, the district was very clear, in its statement to the press, that the school knew of this student but did not tell the district. (The law requires the Sheriff's office to notify the school, not the district. Dumb? Yes.) My first reaction, because I worked with Brian for two years when I was co-president of the RHS PTSA, is that there is no way Brian wouldn't have done due diligence on this work. He is a good principal, a decent man and a detail-oriented person. I find it very hard to believe he overlooked telling the district this. I told him such yesterday when I went to RHS.
What is odd in this letter is the wording here :
Seattle Public Schools complies with all laws and statutes that govern the enrollment of student offenders, including laws related to notification. In this case, we received a letter from the Sheriff's Department informing us of the presence of this student in our school. I informed our administrative team and select teachers.
State laws determine who should and can be notified when a student offender enrolls in a school. In general, notification is prohibited. The exception is that principals have discretion to inform certain staff within the school for safety purposes. The extent of the notification is established within the law. That means SPS employees are specifically prohibited by law from notifying other students, family or community members about the presence of a student offender in our schools.
So he doesn't say "When I was informed, I told the district." That doesn't mean he didn't but, for some reason, he didn't put it in the letter that he told the district. Red flag, so why not?
What is also troubling is that the suspect was on probation. So, in essence, the staff at RHS were almost de facto probation officers. Notifying them likely meant "keep your eyes and ears open" about this student. However, we don't know how many staff knew about this student but certainly not all. But if the Special Ed staff probably didn't know but if they had and saw this student interacting with one of their students, they probably would have immediately told someone. If all the staff had known, it would have been that many more eyes watching to make sure he stayed on the straight and narrow. (This is not putting a scarlet letter on this guy but it's a big school and I'll bet he flew under the radar.)
I know, it is not the job of staff or teachers to be probation officers. But when the law allows these students, who have committed crimes against children of a sexual nature, then you'd think you'd want that student watched over to protect other kids.
There is a lot wrong here and I'm still working on figuring it out.
Comments
(d) The sheriff shall notify the school's principal or institution's department of public safety and shall provide that department with the same information provided to a county sheriff under subsection (3) of this section.
(e)(i) A principal receiving notice under this subsection must disclose the information received from the sheriff under (b) of this subsection as follows:
(A) If the student who is required to register as a sex offender is classified as a risk level II or III, the principal shall provide the information received to every teacher of any student required to register under (a) of this subsection and to any other personnel who, in the judgment of the principal, supervises the student or for security purposes should be aware of the student's record;
(B) If the student who is required to register as a sex offender is classified as a risk level I, the principal shall provide the information received only to personnel who, in the judgment of the principal, for security purposes should be aware of the student's record.
(ii) Any information received by a principal or school personnel under this subsection is confidential and may not be further disseminated except as provided in RCW 28A.225.330, other statutes or case law, and the family and educational and privacy rights act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g et seq.
1) why then does the district know about some but not all sex offenders?
2) wow, that seems like a lot of responsibility for the principal to take on without the authority to involve his/her superiors.
Looking forward to what you have to say, Melissa.
As it is, by even talking with his victim, he was in violation of his parole.
Those questions need answering because every student in every school and their safety depend on it.
Level II: Principal can notify staff as deemed appropriate. Confidentially must be observed but all staff could be contacted if principal thought this appropriate.
Level III: Notification of the community is required. Pictures are posted.
The question now is given the laws and reality .... should level II offenders be offered a different type of program by the district?
Having a 10 year-old granddaughter definitely finds me looking for something different than business as usual for level II offenders.
========
Looks like a change in Legislation in Olympia may be needed during the next legislature.
If yes, obviously it could be abused by a helicopter parent, which is why I used a vulnerable student for an example. In my case, I would only go this route if I had some inking of inappropriate behavior, which of course would depend on my kid telling me. So I was back to "Inappropriate touching - tell an adult, please!"
But do parents of vulnerable students have some means of proactively protecting their kids?
The district, if they had a plan in place about what to do for this individual student suspect, could have directed the principal to make sure the Special Ed staff knew of this issue in his probation.
But what plan was in place? That's the question.
http://www.kirotv.com/download/2010/0602/23762773.pdf
Our district does not put the child first- not with placement- not with curriculum and not when they " mainstream" sex offenders in the classroom.
I hope these recent issues galvanize the community to keep pushing for change.
We can do it. Yes, we can.
;)
This is not an admin issue. It is the law and it SUCKS! I hope and pray I never help create a situation like the one at Roosevelt out of my own naivety.
And what, exactly, does "tracking" mean and what does it accomplish?
http://kuow.org/program.php?id=20468
And, currently an autism program was placed, of all places, in the building with what ever is left of the re-entry program at Wilson-Pacific. And that totally sucks. Why should autistic kids have to be placed with ex-criminals? Is that the "least restrictive environment"? Sounds like the worst jail of all.
What basis do you have for that statement? Do you know what programs are housed at Wilson-Pacific?
Lists a reentry program