What's wrong with the District's narrative on NatureBridge?

Seattle Public Schools, and Board President Peaslee in particular, have been pushing a narrative about the November 2012 sexual assault that has been making a lot of people mad. Just in case you, or someone you know, has read the District's account and cannot see why people are angry about it, I will offer an explanation.

Here is the District's narrative.

Here's what's wrong with it:



In November 2012, a sexual incident occurred during a Garfield High School field trip. As a result of that incident:

"Incident"? Wow. Nice euphemism. It was a rape. It's okay. You can say that word. In fact, using any other word is not only evasive, it diminishes the event and consequences. The word you're looking for here is rape. And, yes, you can say that a rape occurred even if no one has been convicted of rape just as you can say a car was stolen even if no one has ever been convicted of stealing it.

• Two federal agencies investigated, and no charges have been filed. The District’s own investigation identified insufficient and conflicting information to make a determination whether an assault occurred.

Funny thing about these facts: they don't matter. First, only one federal agency investigated. The National Park Service didn't conduct an investigation, only the FBI. Second, the fact that charges weren't filed isn't relevant. Seriously, what difference does that make? The District's own investigation? In what way is the District qualified to conduct a rape investigation? Is that the District's core competency? And why would the District investigate a rape accusation? Look through the regulations. They don't call for the District to investigate to determine if a rape occurred. That's not the District's job. Third, if the District's investigation proved inconclusive, then why is the District acting like they concluded that no rape occurred? Seriously, why, if the investigation was inconclusive, are they acting like it concluded that the contact was consensual?

• The matter is ongoing with more appeals, investigations and legal actions pending.

Funny how, without actually saying it, this statement implies that the appeals, investigations, and legal actions pending are about whether a rape occurred or not. They aren't. The appeals, investigations, legal action are all around the failure of District officials to comply with the regulations and laws that dictate their response to a sexual harassment complaint. It is the District that is under investigation now, not the boy.

• The District continues to strengthen policies and practices in regard to field trips and Title IX, which includes sexual incidents such as this one.

"continues" implies that there was some activity going on before some moment and that more activity is going on currently. That's not the case. The District has not updated the sexual harassment policy and there was no effort underway to revise it in response to this incident. The sexual harassment policy was not included in the Board policy revision project. Here is the Board's Policy Review Calendar. You'll notice that Policy 3208 is not listed. As it happens, the OSPI, in their 2013-2014 Consolidated Program Review, named, as a required action, that the District update their sexual harassment policy and procedure. You'll have to scroll down to page 82 of this document to see this and all of the other related actions that the District was required to take. That is what has triggered this work. The District originally committed to updating the policy and procedure by July 1, 2014. They have obviously missed that deadline. Missing the deadline indicates a lack of urgency about this issue. The fact that two months after the deadline they still not have moved forward on this task indicates a sort of aggressive negligence. You should take a look at some of the other required actions for the District named in the Consolidated Program Review. It's not a pretty picture.

By the way, the Board knows about all of the various audit findings about failings around Title IX. The corrective actions report was reviewed at the quarterly meeting of the Audit Committee. They expressed no urgency or disappointment with staff over the missed deadlines. They just asked for new expected completion dates. Here are the minutes of their March 2014 meeting. You'll find nothing here that suggests an admonishment of the staff, an attempt to hold them accountable, or even an expression of impatience.

Anyway, the whole thing is beside the point. Even if the District changes their policies that won't change the fact that they didn't comply with the policies and procedures that were in place in November 2012. The field trip policies and procedures, the chaperone policies and procedures, and the sexual harassment policy and procedure were all completely ignored. If the District is revising them that's swell, but it won't change the fact that they don't follow them anyway. That does, however, bring us to the central question of this whole affair.

The central question in all of this was, is, and will be:

Were the District's actions in compliance with procedure, policy, regulation, and law?

The information below outlines some added detail on each of the above:

Incident Background

• November 2012:

The incident occurred on an overnight school field trip by Garfield students to Olympic National Park in November 2012.

A female student told two other students she had been assaulted the previous night. The second student told to their teacher, and two teachers went to the female student, talked to her and immediately took action. The female student was taken to the hospital and law enforcement authorities (the FBI and the National Parks Service Ranger) were contacted, as well as her parents. The principal took steps to identify the male student involved, and emergency excluded him from school.

Excluded from this narrative was the absence of any effective chaperoning on the field trip. Funny how they left that out, isn't it? There were three named chaperones on the trip - all women. Two of them left the students and slept with their families in cabins hundreds of feet away from the students' cabins. The remaining woman chaperone and an unlisted, unscreened young man who was also there as a chaperone were completely incapable of managing the students on the first night. Students were out of the cabins at night in violation of the guest agreement with NatureBridge, in violation of the field trip rules, and putting the District in violation of the agreement with NatureBridge. Despite the chaos of the first night, no action was taken to bolster the chaperoning on the second night, the night of the rape. The young man serving as the chaperone in the boys cabin went to sleep early with earplugs. Funny how none of these facts made it into the District's narrative.

Oh, when the principal "emergency excluded" the student from the school he failed to inform the victim or her family of this fact. She stayed away from the school to avoid him, not knowing that he wasn't there. And what was the basis for the emergency exclusion? The District's narrative neglects to mention. So does the principal.

Here's the central question, and one which  the District's narrative doesn't address: were these actions in compliance with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law?

• January 2013:
Immediately after the accident the District offered to meet with the parents to identify supports for their daughter. Various supports were requested. The District provided individualized instruction and other accommodations, and arranged for a transfer to another high school, as requested. The female student was scheduled to begin classes at the new school for the second semester in January 2013, but never attended.

The 504 accommodations and supports were arranged, but then they were revoked. Does that still count as having provided them? The District says that they "provided individualized instruction", but it's not like they offered it. The victim's family learned of the option from other sources, not from the District, and, in the end, the District didn't actually provide it. The District is correct in saying that the student did not attend her transfer school. Funny that they don't say why she didn't. Aren't they interested? Also, why does the victim have to transfer instead of the alleged attacker? Why does the victim have to have her education disrupted in this way? Shouldn't the transfer have been for him instead of her? Take a moment and ponder that.

Here's the central question, and one which  the District's narrative doesn't address: were these actions in compliance with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law?

• Winter 2013:

The U.S. Park Service and FBI investigated the incident. During fact gathering for a law enforcement investigation, any District investigations are deferred. The FBI turned over their information to the U.S. Attorney's office. After review, the U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute and no charges have been filed against the male student.

It is incorrect for the District to defer their investigation during law enforcement investigations. Follow the link from the District's new Title IX web page to the Dear Colleague letter and you'll see this clearly stated. This is, right here, an open admission by the District that they did something wrong, but they don't seem to recognize it. The reason that the District should not defer their investigation is because they are investigating something different than law enforcement. The District isn't supposed to be investigating whether or not a crime occurred. The District has no expertise in that, it is being handled by the experts, and the District has no duty to conduct such an investigation. The fact that the federal prosecutor chose not to bring charges is simply irrelevant.

Here's the central question, and one which  the District's narrative doesn't address: were these actions in compliance with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law?

• March 2013:

After the US Attorney declined to prosecute, the parents filed a written complaint in March 2013. The District immediately started a review of the facts and provided reports to the parents. The parents requested an independent investigation, and the District had one conducted by an attorney familiar with sexual assault complaints. The investigator asked to interview the female student and to receive copies of the documents from the federal investigation. The parents denied these requests. The preliminary results of the SPS investigation were provided to the parents in June 2013.

The District acknowledges that the victim's family filed a written complaint. Funny that they don't say what the family complained of. The family was complaining that the District staff utterly failed to follow the procedure, policy, regulation, and law. What does the District think they complained about? The District started a review of the facts. Did they? What facts did they review? Did they review the facts through the lens of compliance? The victim's family did request an independent investigation, but not about whether a rape occurred. The investigation was supposed to be about whether the District staff complied with proper procedure. They also wanted a Title IX investigation, not a criminal investigation. That Title IX investigation was supposed to be completed within 30 days of the incident, but it wasn't even started until five months later and wasn't a Title IX investigation. The District investigated the wrong thing again. That's because the District is desperate to look everywhere but at their own compliance.

Here's the central question, and one which  the District's narrative doesn't address: were these actions in compliance with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law?

• January 2014:

Superintendent Jose Banda issued a decision under School Policy 3208SP concluding there was insufficient and conflicting information about whether the female student had more likely than not been the victim of nonconsensual sexual contact. The parents appealed that decision to the School Board.

There are three really interesting things about this statement. First, I don't think that Mr. Banda really understands consent. The misunderstanding of consent is one of the big reasons that district attorneys and federal prosecutors don't bring rape cases. Juries are full of people, like Mr. Banda, who don't understand consent so convictions are difficult to obtain. Second, although Mr. Banda determined that he could not conclude one way or the other, the outcome of his decision was identical to a determination that the contact was consensual and so was essentially that conclusion. The third item of interest here is actually the most important: no one was asking him to determine whether the contact was consensual or not. That wasn't the complaint. The complaint was about how the district staff utterly failed to comply with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law. He didn't even address the central question of the complaint. Instead, he chose to focus on an area in which he has no expertise.

• February 2014:

The School Board held a hearing in February 2014. The Board conducted a hearing and considered roughly 200 pages of materials provided by the parents and the District’s investigative report. The School Board upheld the decision of the Superintendent.

Again, the School Board addressed themselves to the wrong question. Again, the outcome of the inconclusive determination is identical to the outcome of a conclusion that the contact was consensual, so it was, in essence, a determination that the contact was consensual. Again, the District, when asked to examine itself and its compliance simply refused to do so.

• August 2014:

The parents have appealed the School Board’s decision to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. A hearing is scheduled on that appeal for November 2014. On August 25, 2014 the parents submitted a formal claim to the District, seeking financial damages. This is the first step toward litigation.

Have you noticed how the District's narrative keeps talking about "the parents"? Have you noticed how their narrative makes "the parents" the prime actors? Kinda makes it seem like "the parents" are a couple of malcontent agitators, doesn't it? And now we learn that they are aiming for a big legal settlement - you know, like the one the district had to pay out for an earlier sexual assault on a student. The District's narrative doesn't talk much about the student. It really pulls the attention off her and puts it on her parents. The female student is referenced six times in this narrative. Three of them occur in the first section. Only once is she referenced as the actor in the sentence - when she tells about being raped. After that she only appears as the object of an action, The student's parents are referenced twelve times, eight times as the actor in the sentence. They are made to appear much more active, but not in a very flattering way.

Goal

The District continues to learn from this incident and take steps to make our schools safer for students.

What a funny thing for them to write. There is nothing in this narrative that speaks to making schools safer for students. Not one word. From this narrative it's clear that the District's goal is to evade liability and litigation.  The best way to do that, of course, would be to comply with the rules.

Changes to District procedures

Changes to District procedures on field trips, critical incident response and Title IX complaints can be found here.

Go read them. The efforts are both feeble and misguided. There are no published district procedures for field trips. I can't find them. The Critical Incident Response is a PR plan. The District hasn't changed anything about their procedures regarding Title IX complaints other than the officials who are supposed to get them. They had to do that because the previous Title IX officer retired. They have done nothing. Certainly nothing substantive.

The central question remains: Was the District's response to a sexual harassment complaint compliant with the procedure, policy, regulation, and law? Will their future response be compliant?

So long as Board President Peaslee, or Dr. Nyland, or Ron English, or anyone else from the District address themselves to any question other than this central question, they aren't getting it.