Two Big SPS Stories

Update:

I knew a new Legal counsel was coming. It appears it is Anita Khandelwal. She got her law degree from Yale. She is a former public defender (I'm impressed) and also worked as the director at King County Public Defense. She joined Pacifica Law Group (a very high-powered local law office) in Jan 2025. Interestingly she became partner there in one year. She has not updated her Linked In page for this move to SPS. 

A highly experienced lawyer for SPS is great news. 

Eric Guerci is also leaving but he was some kind of family hire. A position was created for him (which was not needed). Maybe Shuldiner noticed that Guerci was not useful and so streamlined Communications. 

End of update

There are two big stories locally.

One is this discussion on Reddit:

The superintendent is certainly shaking things up. 

I just received word that Dr. Sarah Pritchett, the superintendent of human resources, has been placed on administrative leave. She was escorted out of the district office by security on Thursday.
I'm uncertain as to why, but with her history of malfeasance, it is not surprising. In fact, the only thing that's surprising is that it's taken so long for this course of action. She has made injudicious decisions over her career and is clearly unfit and unqualified to serve in the role. Pritchett only moved into an HR position after being implemented (sic)in the James Johnson incident where he assaulted a student and she turned a blind eye due to their friendship. 

Administrative leave placement does not mean termination, but it's an important step in the process of full removal. 

I'm interested to know the details as to why this move was (finally) made.

(I believe the writer above meant "implicated" in that sentence, not implemented.)


And I agree with this first comment:

Reminder: we are discussing an individual here, While there are strong opinions that can and should be expressed, I think it can be done while remembering there is a human at the other end who cannot respond to an internet pile one (earned or not). So far stuff is fine-enough but just wanted a preemptive note. 

This is especially true as thus far there is no official word on veracity.

It is not that SPS doesn't need HR but they need an HR professional in HR. (Yes, I know that principal training does include some HR but I don't think that is enough.)

I will strive to find out what happened but if true, it is a big start to Superintendent Shuldiner's promised moves to streamline the district.

Just heard from a trusted source that Pritchett IS on leave pending an investigation.



The second big story is in this morning's Seattle Times:

New details emerge in Rainier Beach student’s shooting death 

It's a devastating story.

Tra’veiah Houfmuse, who was a senior at Rainier Beach at the time of his death, had a safety plan in place with the school that was not followed, according to a legal filing sent to Seattle Public Schools in May. 

The district is being sued by his grandmother and father who say his death is "the result of the district's negligence."

So here's the backstory:

In Houfmuse's sophomore year, he was given - bye SPS - a "safety plan that prohibited him from leaving campus."

During his junior year, he skipped out one day and went joyriding with friends and was in a terrible accident after the driver hit a tree. He missed a month of school. 

When he went back, school officials reportedly put in place a renewed safety plan with similar requirements." 

However, he again left campus at the beginning of 2025 and was arrested at a restaurant after other students thought he had a gun. No weapon was found (I assume by SPD). 

He got yet another safety plan that included checking his backpack every day with a "verbal transportation" plan that would hopefully get him home safely.

Here's where it gets murky. That transportation plan was shaky. Sometimes his uncle could come but not other times. RBHS staff tried to get a community group, Community Passageways, to give him a ride as they had a "safe passages" part to their work. 

But that group said nothing had been formally done with them.

“We were never part of a strategy, a plan (to take Houfmuse home),” Davis said. He did acknowledge that a Community Passageways team member may have given Houfmuse a ride home a couple of times through the Safe Passages program, but said that Houfmuse had been removed from Community Passageways’ caseload at least eight months before the fatal shooting.

To the present day:

The filing claims that on the morning Houfmuse was killed, his grandmother, Benita Morris, called the executive director and co-founder of Urban Family, Paul Patu, to tell him Houfmuse needed a ride home. Patu, who is the brother of Rainier Beach Principal Annie Patu, assured Morris, “I got you. I got you covered,” according to the filing.

Patu declined to comment on the specifics of Houfmuse’s case, citing potential litigation. He did note that student safety plans typically involve several community groups working together, and added that while they aim to reduce risk, these plans cannot guarantee total safety.

Apparently, the family expected RBHS to notify them if Houfmuse didn't have a ride.

“As a result, Tra’veiah was allowed to leave campus in violation of his safety plan without his agreed-upon transportation,” wrote Hruska in the filing. “Shortly after, he was shot and killed at the bus stop while waiting to board the public bus to go home. Principal Annie Patu called Ms. Morris after the shooting and said, ‘Ms. Benita, he wasn’t supposed to be there. He wasn’t supposed to be there.’”

Reached by phone on Friday, Annie Patu said she did not have that conversation with Morris, and deferred all other questions to the district’s communication team. 

 

So many questions:

1) What did each safety plan actually say and why was it needed for him?
2) Is this a typical thing for schools to be doing especially for older students who can access public transportation?
3) Why did he need protection?

4) What was his behavior at school like? 


The biggest question for me is two-fold:

 - Where does responsibility for a student's safety begin and end for SPS? 

I note this at the end of the story:

“This is just a tragic breakdown in systems …” Hruska told The Seattle Times. “The grandmother trusted the school and the district’s community partners to keep him safe and they failed.”

When a student is engaging in troubling behavior out of school, where is the responsibility for a student's safety SPS' versus his family's? He clearly was not sticking with any safety plan. 

How can SPS almost literally babysit one student the entire school day until he/she/they get home?

It appears this is an unfolding story.