A very good friend of mine spoke to Middletown School Superintendent Bill George yesterday and asked him if what he had heard from his daughter about the teacher and the student was true. He stated to George that he knew the name of both the teacher and student involved and wanted to know what actions were being taken by the school district to address the situation. He also wanted to know if this matter would be a topic of conversation later tonight at the Middletown Board of Education(BOE) workshop meeting.
While it was understood that Mr. George could not discuss specifics about what my friend may have heard from his daughter, he did confirm that two High School South teachers left the district last week, one due to job performance and the other through resignation.
When pressed further, Superintendent George stated that an investigation into an alleged incident commenced when an anonymous email was sent to South Principal Pat Rinella. Rinella then contacted and forwarded the email to George who then contacted the authorities. He said that he couldn't say anymore other than an investigation was ongoing.
George said that he would be addressing the BOE during the closed session of the workshop meeting in order to update board members on these cases and intended to meet Thursday night with members of Middletown High School South's PFA.
So the best bet for anyone wishing more information about what happened over at MHS South last week would be to attend the BOE workshop meeting tonight and ask about it directly or try and make tomorrow nights MHSS PFA meeting.
16 comments:
My best wishes to all involved, and especially to Dr. George, who is trying to rebuild the faith this town has in our school district. Not an easy task.
But I will say this - karma is a bitch. I find a little satisfaction in thinking that perhaps, this is some higher being's way of punishing those involved with the Dr. Shallop mess.
Karma you keep blaming karma. A POS is a POS, this bum is married with kids and he got involved with a underage student. I don't care what she is supposedly done SHE IS A STUDENT and he is a teacher end of story. As a father of two girls let me tell you he would pay dearly if this was my daughter and I don't mean money wise.
^The girl in question is 18. She is not underage, she is a full and legal adult.
Anon 9:24.
I am simply astounded that you take any level of satisfaction from this incredibly unfortunate situation.
Why don't you tell the anguished parents about your satisfaction?
You my friend are a very small person. God, I hope you don't vote.
You actually believe that this is some sort of divine intervention because a Principal was denied tenure, that is sick.
You have an excellent principal at South and it's time to move on.
7;11 p.m.
I don't care if she is 18,19 or 21 she is a student and he is her teacher what part of that don't you understand?
There is no equating what happened in this case and the principal's case. In this case, a young new teacher engaged in some type of inappropriate conduct (i.e. sexting or other contact) with a student. Whether the girl is of age or not, the teacher crossed the line and put his own interests in front of the student's interests.
In the principal's case, we had a teacher and administrator, always known to be of the highest character, who, in an effort to protect ALL the children at HS South, had a locker searched for alcohol. Had it been the locker of anyone other than a politically connected student, there would have been no action.
As we have seen in the Gabrielan matter, when our politicians and school board members seek to place their interests first, they can always find a pretext. There will always be an I not dotted or a T not crossed.
If there is a connection to this case, it is simply to illustrate that when we put the interests of the politically connected over and above common sense and the health and interests of all our students, we should not be surprised when our actions leave us with the lowest common denominator in our schools and in our governing body.
Administrators must have just cause to search a student and must have specific knowledge about that student to justify a search.
If an administrator searches someone without having specific reason to believe that individual has drugs or a gun or anything prohibited, that is called an illegal search.
kgtogro
That last comment speaks to the attitude of so many parents of kids who take drugs or drink alcohol.
Rather than be grateful that a serious problem is called to their attention when their child is found with a substance, they nitpick the rules and cry victim.
Given what we have seen in Middletown, including those kids who get behind the wheel and endanger the entire community, I'm glad to have had a principal that erred on the side of
caution.
I rather my child have her feelings hurt with a search, then bury her when she smashed her car into a tree.
No, that comment speaks to the law about illegal search and seizure.
It is okay to err on the side of caution. It is not okay for an administrator to act outside of the law, no matter what the motive.
A school official needs only "reasonable suspicion" not "probable cause". It is explained quite well here...
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/dec01/vol/num04/The-Right-to-Search-Students.aspx
Even the courts understand that there is a special burden on school administrators to keep students safe. Here in Middletown, that doesn't appear to be the case.
One can only hope that the debabacle with the principal does not have a chilling effect on our school administrators' ability to root out substance abuse in our schools. The school board certainly sent a clear message that our children's well being takes a back seat to political machinations.
Given recent history, a student having inappropriate contact with a teacher is the least of Middletown's problems.
I stand corrected, it is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
However, the administration must have reasonable suspicion about every specific person they search.
For instance, if administrators receive a tip that someone in the school has drugs on them, they may search that individual. They may not search every student in the school. They may only search the students that they have reasonable suspicion to believe have the drugs on them.
Actually if you read the case law and the article referenced above, it is clear that even the courts cannot precisely delineate what constitutes”reasonable suspicion” The article states:
The Court has even noted that:
“articulating precisely what reasonable suspicion means . . . is not possible. Reasonable suspicion is a commonsense, nontechnical conception that deals with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 695)”
and....
“School administrators face severe threats to school safety and are simultaneously held increasingly accountable to the public and policymakers to keep students safe. To keep schools safe, most administrators err on the side of searching rather than not searching. Administrators' judgments are protected by governmental immunity as long as the search is not knowingly or willfully illegal. In fact, an administrator will not incur civil liability unless his or her conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1982). Immunity is not dependent on whether the actual search violated the law but rather on the objective reasonableness of the search. Immunity protects administrators acting in good faith in a gray area of the law.”
In other words, the law gives school administrators very great leeway in searching students and the administration needs only to be acting in good faith in this “gray area of the law”.
Therefore, it is even more puzzling that our local Middletown school board members chose NOT to afford this leeway to one of their own administrators. This never made any sense to most observers and raises many red flags. If there was an error in following some administrative procedure, it certainly would not have risen to the level of requesting the principal’s resignation. That is something reserved for truly serious matters as we have seen in the teacher having inappropriate contact with a student.
I agree with everything that you posted about the law. However, none of it changes the fact that an administrator must have a specific reason to search each and every person they search. They can't search someone because they are a member of a group and they suspect an individual in that group. A group could be a club, a team or a class, people on a bus, etc.
Secondly, he was not asked to resign, he was reassigned and denied tenure as a principal. He found employment elsewhere rather than return to his $80,000+ a year teaching job, good for him.
"If there was an error in following some administrative procedure, it certainly would not have risen to the level of requesting the principal’s resignation."
Well, we don't know that, do we?
I maintain that if the administrators and the BOE had not acted appropriately he would have been on that Facebook page that was started to save his job and told everyone about the great injustice perpetrated on him in detail.
But he didn't do that, he just let the rumors fly and that is why we are still talking about it.
Anon 7:38 PM states..
"I maintain that if the administrators and the BOE had not acted appropriately he would have been on that Facebook page that was started to save his job and told everyone about the great injustice perpetrated on him in detail."
If I can borrow a phrase from you..
Well, we don't know that, do we?
Only the dumbest of teachers would be posting those type of details on Facebook. The facebook page you refer to was set up by his wife to advise the public what was happening. As I'm sure you know, the "reassignment" came in the middle of summer when the board thought they would receive the least publicity and public scrutiny.
Personally, if I had any doubts about what the entire matter was all about, those doubts were removed when I saw the choice for our "unelected" school board member.
But I digress. I believe this discussion arose from comments about an inappropriate teacher/student relationship and
the caliber of people we will attract to government and schools if we continue to tolerate "business as usual" in our township.
All of you should grow up. I drink and smoke and I'm a great student. The teacher was wrong for his relationship, and if a kid got searched illegally, shit happens. If this is such a big deal, have your kid switch schools or move to another district. And if you can't afford it, shut the hell up. I live in an Abbott district and I go to school with kids that conceal weapons. You want something to worry about? Try sending your kid to a school with real problems first.
"As I'm sure you know, the "reassignment" came in the middle of summer when the board thought they would receive the least publicity and public scrutiny."
I think assigning motives to the board by suggesting that they timed this to avoid public scrutiny is pure speculation on your part and not supported by the facts.
First of all, I don't know how you avoid public scrutiny at a public meeting. Secondly, they opted to hold the BOE meeting at the North auditorium instead of the north library (where it was normally held) to accommodate more of the public.
Secondly, I think that the timing had more to do with Dr. Shallop receiving tenure as a principal rather than the board trying to slip one by the public. Which I believe he would have obtained had they not acted him when they did.
Moving or removing a principal always results in a lot of complaints from parents, at any time of the year. It is to be expected. And since this was one of the largest schools in the district it is reasonable to expect the largest amount of complaints.
"Personally, if I had any doubts about what the entire matter was all about, those doubts were removed when I saw the choice for our "unelected" school board member."
I don't know about that. But I do wonder why our BOE couldn't choose a replacement for a member who left other than someone who was rejected by the voters twice.
Post a Comment