LAUSD Principal Focuses On Real Miramonte Criminals: The Children

One of the many privileges of having kids in the Los Angeles Unified School District is the accelerated education they get in official corruption, the stupidity of grownups, union strong-arming and many other topics – any topics other than reading, writing and arithmetic, that is. 

The recent sex-abuse arrests of two teachers at Miramonte Elementary have become a feature of playground scuttlebutt and official conniptions. The school my children attend (separated from Miramonte by more than 15 miles, though both schools score in the “Least Effective” category in the L.A. Times’ value-added assessment) is no exception. 

Yesterday my daughters brought home copies of a flyer containing the principal’s thoughts on the scandal. I guess this page of skylarking was intended to reassure us or something. I wouldn’t take note of it at all except that one paragraph illustrates the pathology of public employees with stunning clarity: 

As I reflect on the disturbing occurrences at Miramonte, I am more confused over the fact that the children did not report. How is it that the children did not believe that what the teacher was doing to them was wrong? How could being blindfolded, placed in a closet, and having cockroaches placed on them not be wrong? I believe that the teachers involved in these heinous acts preyed on the most vulnerable of the children; children of poverty, children of abuse, children with uninvolved parents, and children of undocumented parents. 

The principal’s insistence on repeating lurid details from the newspapers is between her and her god. This person is a martinet with a habit of logorrhea that expresses itself in nightly robocalls and long assemblies during which parents are upbraided for such crimes as parking on the street while delivering and picking up students, cutting into the school’s funding by keeping kids home from classes, not contributing during fundraisers, and so on. 

But look again at that paragraph. There is no way around the logic: She is arguing that it was the kids’ fault for not reporting the incident. And since public school is a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims, the children are also described as victims who have suffered from the depredations of poverty and abuse, of “uninvolved” and undocumented parents. Her focus on the kids’ purported failure to speak up may be intended as an “if you see something say something” advisory, but the focus itself is what is revealing. The inadequacy of the students and their parents, not the negligence of the school or the district, is to blame. 

As it happens, my kids’ principal is wrong on the facts: Mark Berndt, the more prominent of the two accused teachers at Miramonte, was the subject of complaints on at least two occasions: in 1994 and 2008. Administrators at the school and the district failed to take action either time. 

Another thing that the principal fails to note: Berndt has been accused, not convicted. For criminal purposes he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and that would be true even if he were not represented by a public-sector union. The difference between a schoolteacher and, for example, an employee of Disneyland or Burger King, is that Berndt couldn’t be fired when the suspicions first came up. That’s not an idle comparison. Here’s what happened to a Burger King employee, his co-workers, and his manager, when he was caught doing something a lot less objectionable than what Berndt is accused of: 

I generally dislike this principal’s jawboning (and I’m particularly bothered that her campaign of petty discipline has coincided with a nose dive in the school’s Academic Performance Index score). But in this case I appreciate her candor. That both teachers and administrators view parents and students as the enemy is an open secret. But it’s rare that you see it expressed so baldly. 

L.A. teachers doing what comes naturally — telling lies: 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I generally dislike this principal’s jawboning ...

    I hear you brother! Me and the missus are thinking about having a kid. My wife said that I would have to be nice to teachers and principals and such. Unfortunately, there is a family history of not taking crap from school types, and I am pretty sure that the first parent-teacher conference will wind up with me in jail. At least my wife said she will pay the bail for these types of incidents.

    But seriously, how do you handle this Tim? I honestly could not shake hands, smile and make nice-nice with a teacher or principal.

  • The Question of Auban||

    If you have the ability and / or resources you may want to seriously consider home schooling - at least for the elementary and junior-high grades. You can avoid a lot of this crap - and give your kid a much better education as well!

  • ||

    Considering what is available on the internet, it really is only a matter of making the time. The teaching part is easy. Dealing with your children and having to force them to learn, not so easy.

  • ||

    Dealing with your children and having to force them to learn, not so easy.

    wtf?

  • ||

    You don't have to force your children to learn when you homeschool them. Children naturally love learning. It's only when you beat that love out of them that you ever end up having to "force them" to learn.
    Additionally, when you homeschool your children, you remove them from the forces that make them so unpleasant that it becomes "not so easy" to "deal with them."

  • ||

    "The teaching part is easy."

    That's true, and it's good to hear it being said.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Or private school, where teachers can and will be held accountable for any bullshit they might think of pulling.

  • Tonio||

    You don't shake their hands. You look at the outstretched hand, then look them straight in the eye and shake your head "no."

    Although this doesn't make friends, it does send a message and rattles them more than you'd think.

  • ||

    You know what rattles them even more? Shaking their hand politely and then being the tough parent. I remember my dad refusing to back up my school administration. They were shocked because he seemed so polite.

  • ||

    There is no way around the logic: She is arguing that it was the kids’ fault for not reporting the incident.

    There's a very easy way around that logic.

    She's expressing surprise at the situation, not assigning blame. The stuff about poor kids and immigrants is standard liberal boilerplate.

    While I'm surprised that black people vote Democrat over and over and over again when leftist policies are largely responsible for the disproportionate misery experienced by black folk, I don't *blame* them.

  • ryan||

    blame   

    verb (used with object)
    1. to hold responsible; find fault with; censure

    2. to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually followed by on.

    You don't blame them?

  • Black Kid||

    While I'm surprised that black people vote Democrat over and over and over again when leftist policies are largely responsible for the disproportionate misery experienced by black folk, I don't *blame* them.


    THAT'S RACIST!

  • BakedPenguin||

    How is it that the children did not believe that what the teacher was doing to them was wrong?

    Because they're little kids with little understanding of what behaviors are correct? Because they have no understanding of sexuality at all, let alone deviant behavior? And because none of the (listed) behaviors would have been painful - only confusing?

    Jesus, it's hard to believe this person works with children.

  • Sevo||

    "Because they're little kids with little understanding of what behaviors are correct? Because they have no understanding of sexuality at all, let alone deviant behavior? And because none of the (listed) behaviors would have been painful - only confusing?"

    Because they've been taught the teacher is to be *obeyed!*?

  • Tonio||

    Jesus, it's hard to believe this person works with children.

    Lucky enough not to have attended public schools, eh?

  • ||

    I agree with Tulpa. I don't read the offending paragraph as blaming children, but as a, poor, attempt at expressing sadness that the children didn't report it. The later sentence seems to indicate the Principal believes that "children of poverty, children of abuse, children with uninvolved parents, and children of undocumented parents" were specifically chosen because they are exactly the kind of children whose shattered lives would preclude them from reporting heinous crimes.

  • Maxxx||

    Bullshit.

    She was blaming the kids.
    Probably feeling sorry for herself and sympathizing with the douchebag principal that failed to do his job.

    And BTW parents complained alot about the perv teacher and were blown off by the principal.

  • ||

    I think there's plenty of room in her statement to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I think, on a full reading of the paragraph, that she's not blaming the kids. I don't really see her blaming kids, but enough people do that it's one possible interpretation. But not, I think, the only one.

  • Tonio||

    Even though she doesn't exactly blame them, her statement does come close to implying that they contributed to the situation by not reporting it. At best it's very, very ill-considered and inappropriate and deserving of a full apology and retraction. Remember that she had the option to have said nothing, which would have probably been better given her limitations in expression and judgement.

  • ||

    The way I read it is that the amazement is simply that: amazement. And the explanation for that amazement is the tragedy that children in specified vulnerable groups are so damaged that they think this behaviour is normal, not that they are, themselves, blameworthy. Society is, of course, supposed to be the ultimate boogeyman, I think.

  • ||

    The way I read it is that the amazement is simply that: amazement. And the explanation for that amazement is the tragedy that children in specified vulnerable groups are so damaged that they think this behaviour is normal, not that they are, themselves, blameworthy. Society is, of course, supposed to be the ultimate boogeyman, I think.

  • 4chan||

    From what I read, Miramonte had a new principal that just came in last year. Maybe she did know about the pedophiles, but she was fairly new.

  • ||

    Put me in the "She's blaming them" camp. Maybe not in o many words, parsed just so, but you don't write that paragraph unless you do blame the kids. If only enough of them had complained, we wouldn't be looking at abuse that went on year after year.

  • ||

    Isn't this the same as leftists seeing "whistle words" and "secret racist codes" whenever a conservative speaks?

  • ryan||

    It's the same in that it's a subjective interpretation, but that isn't relevant as to the quality of the interpretation. Some guesses are retarded, and some are right. This could be either, but it'd be silly to equate the two.

  • ||

    Sorry, a guess about the hidden motivations of someone whom you know nothing about beyond their occupation is pretty stupid.

    In any case, it's certainly not as "logically inescapable" an inderpretation as Herr Cavanaugh claimed.

  • Joe M||

    Well, take into account that Tim actually does know the principal in question. It's not some random text he found; he has history and familiarity with the author of the note.

  • ||

    Sure, and his knowledge and personal dislike for the Principal almost certainly colours how he reads the text. It would for me.

    I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, I just don't think that the quoted paragraph is unambiguously placing blame on the kids. In my opinion it's, on the balance of probabilities, not blaming the kids.

  • Erik||

    And you'd be wrong. The question was "why did they not report?". That question on itself places the expectancy on kids that they should report, and inferring that it was wrong of them not to do so. Instead of wondering "how come there was noone there that they children felt they could report to?" Or "why was there no teacher there that noticed something wrong?"
    Which would place the focus on the school and other teachers.

  • ||

    I see the question as being a rhetorical device, meant to get the reader to wonder what could cause these poor kids to be so damaged that they would not report what was so obviously abuse. Yes, it sidesteps the other, important, questions you raise, but it doesn't necessarily blame the kids. Rather, it places the blame on some unknown "other", my opinion is the "other" known as "Society", and implies that "we need to do more" to help kids so that they won't be so damaged that they won't report abuse.

  • ||

    1000xYes

    This.

  • Ben W||

    Exactly right Tulpa.

    I'm a conservative who wishes this Cavanaugh character would go join the liberals if he has their habit of relying on "secret code" when he can't produce the goods.

  • ||

    "I don't read the offending paragraph as blaming children, but as a, poor, attempt at expressing sadness that the children didn't report it."

    The principal is attempting to deflect responsibility from her staff, her superiors and herself to others. The paragraph is a piece classic politically-correct misdirection and you fell for it.

    The responsibility for these heinous crimes lie predominately with the perpetrators; with contributory negligence (at best) by some of the school administrators and teachers.

    Period.

    Next, this principal will be blaming Bush and/or Palin...

  • SIV||

    And you voluntarily send your kids to this school?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    It used to be a good school. This principal's predecessor was an affable scatterbrain who ran a loosely disciplined but more or less seaworthy ship, with better test scores.

  • ||

    It used to be a good school

    When in 1950? I wondered the same question. Since it is no longer a good school, why do you send your children there?

  • ||

    Since it no longer is, why subject your kids to it?

  • Logic||

    I'll answer since Tim is ignoring you:

    It's a public school and he works for Reason. Kind of tells you he can't afford a private school especially after paying California taxes. And since it's a CA public school, you have no choice except perhaps home schooling. So maybe you should ask Mrs. Cavanaugh.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...both schools score in the “Least Effective” category in the L.A. Times’ value-added assessment...

    I wouldn’t take note of it at all...

    That's some crackerjack parenting.

  • ryan||

    Actually he said that he wouldn't take note of the flyer his kid's brought home... That's some crackerjack taking out of and manipulating context...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A note about child molestation sent home with the kids from school. That's the context, no? Anyway, I'm just giving Cavanaugh the business. I'm sure he's aces as far as old mans go.

  • Ted S.||

    I think giving Cavanaugh the business is a penalty.

  • ryan||

    Yes, that's the context, and yet you referenced ...both schools score in the “Least Effective” category in the L.A. Times’ value-added assessment... which was just his personal comment and not related to his statement I wouldn’t take note of it at all..., which was a direct reference to the flyer.

    Full context:
    I guess this page of skylarking was intended to reassure us or something. I wouldn’t take note of it at all except that one paragraph illustrates the pathology of public employees with stunning clarity:...

    K I'm done.

  • Jones comin down||

    For this post to be persuasive, you'll have to show the text of the whole flyer.

  • The Derider||

    There are hundreds of charter schools in Los Angeles. Why do you send your kids to one of the "least effective" schools in L.A.?

    School choice for thee -- I'm too lazy?

    Post the whole letter. The part you quoted does not say what you claim.

    And if a bad principal makes all public employees "pathological", what do Ron Paul's racist newsletters make all libertarians?

  • Sevo||

    "And if a bad principal makes all public employees "pathological", what do Ron Paul's racist newsletters make all libertarians?"

    We can always rely on you for industrial-strength stupid. If you didn't have false-equivalence, you wouldn't have any at all.

  • The Derider||

    Why is the equivalence false?

    We can always rely on you for industrial strength laziness.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|2.14.12 @ 9:40PM|#
    "Why is the equivalence false?"

    Thank you for proving my point.
    You, bozo, made the claim, now show how Ron Paul's newsletters make "all libertarians" anything at all. I'll be waiting...

  • The Derider||

    You are a moron. YOU claimed I made a false equivalence between the principal and Ron Paul. You offer no reason why.

    I don't think Ron Paul's newsletters make all Libertarians racist. I don't think Tim's shitty principal makes all public employees "pathological". But if he's willing to use shitty reasoning to make a political point, why shouldn't I? That's the point, moron.

  • The Derprider||

    Using an example of something to describe a larger phenomenon is for morons.

  • The Derider||

    Either Tim's a moron for doing it in his article, or I'm not a moron for using the example of Ron Paul's racist newsletters to describe the larger phenomenon of racist libertarians.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider|2.14.12 @ 9:51PM|#
    "You are a moron. YOU claimed I made a false equivalence between the principal and Ron Paul. You offer no reason why."

    From the article:
    "The difference between a schoolteacher and, for example, an employee of Disneyland or Burger King, is that Berndt couldn’t be fired when the suspicions first came up. That’s not an idle comparison."
    Yep, libertarians and public union employees; they're just like each other.
    Bozo.

  • ryan||

    Post the whole letter. The part you quoted does not say what you claim.

    Sigh... His claim is regarding the implications of the letter, not the text. The rest of his claims are based upon personal experience. Is this difficult to comprehend?

  • The Derider||

    "But look again at that paragraph. There is no way around the logic: She is arguing that it was the kids’ fault for not reporting the incident. "

    You are wrong.

  • ryan||

    Am I? Do you think Tim is unable to read, or do you think he was referencing implications of rather than the actual text? I wonder which it is. If he was referencing the actual text, then you are right. But you don't know that. So you don't know that I'm wrong. So you're wrong.

  • ryan||

    To clarify, "But look again at that paragraph. There is no way around the logic: She is arguing that it was the kids’ fault for not reporting the incident. " does not in any way prove that he was referencing the text as opposed to implications thereof. In fact, "one paragraph illustrates the pathology of public employees with stunning clarity" substantiates my claim that he is referencing implications. Good luck.

  • The Derider||

    "Look again at THAT paragraph"

    How can we look at any paragraphs other than the one he transcribed?

  • ryan||

    How can you not understand the meaning of "implications"?

  • ryan||

    im·ply 
    1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated.

    Now are you going to continue arguing that his claim wasn't explicitly stated? I can always copy/paste dictionary entries until you get it.

  • The Derider||

    His piece obviously makes more than one claim. This claim: "one paragraph illustrates the pathology of public employees with stunning clarity" is not supported by the paragraph that is quoted IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT. Get it?

  • ryan||

    Derider, whether or not his claim is supported isn't the point. My point is that he's basing it off of his inferrence from the text. Whether or not the claim is supported is totally unrelated to what I've been saying.

  • ||

    I actually agree (somewhat) with Derider. She's not blaming the kids. It's obvious the she is arguing it's the fault of SOCIAL ILLS and PARENTS for not raising children who would report such behavior. She says they are are "rendered vulnerable" by "poverty, ...abuse, ...uninvolved parents, and ...undocumented parents."

  • The Derider||

    FYI: I, like 95% of the people here, am male.

  • ryan||

    darius, I never said she's blaming the kids. I was just trying to explain why Tim was saying that, i.e. he was basing it off of his inferrences from her letter.

  • ||

    I was only replying to one of Drider's posts where he disagrees with the article's interpretation. It wasn't aimed at a specific person. That's really the only thing I was paying attention to, my comment (absent the mention of Drider) could really go anywhere in the comments. Sorry if it seemed otherwise. Certainly, the "actually" in there makes it seem like I thought you were disagreeing.

  • ryan||

    Yeah. Anyway... Depending upon one's knowledge base, biases, etc. there's a wide range of inferrences one may make based upon seemingly unrelated or insignificant objects. They can be surprisingly accurate but due to their nature, generally difficult to prove. I believe this is one of those cases. Tim's perspective is pretty obvious to me, but that doesn't mean he's right or wrong is left pretty much up to the reader's interpretation. It's not the best way to prove a point, but whatever. This is HnR.

  • ryan||

    +that

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    children with uninvolved parents

    Sorry Charlie,

    If you haven't taught your children, by the time they are school-aged, that no-one should touch them on the places that are covered by their underwear, then you are, by definition, an "uninvolved parent". All the White-Knighting in the world isn't going to change that fact, Mr. Cavanaugh.

  • ||

    Good, involved parents also generally tell their kids to mind their teachers.

  • komenator||

    Adam Carolla rants on Cali's new beach rules

  • *||

    No one in California calls it "Cali"!

    In a Morbo "Windmills do not work that way!" voice

  • Parents Television Council||

    "How could being blindfolded, placed in a closet, and having cockroaches placed on them not be wrong?"

    Fear Factor warped their minds.
    We told you so.

  • Abdul||

    Sorry tim, I'm with the principal on this one, somewhat.

    The elementary school I graduated from had a similar problem. A beloved band teacher--who taught me baritone horn--blindfolded a few chosen pupils to see if they could tell the difference between certain horns, reeds, and his dick.

    One of the kids told her 'rents, who told the DA, who eventually sent the teacher to his earthly reward in Graterford prison.

    I was too ugly to get picked on, and maybe too stupid to tell my folks if I had been sexier, assuming they'd listen. However, I'd like to think that I'd have told someone, and they'd have done something. MAybe I'm being generous, but I think your principal is expressing the same basic thoughts.

  • ||

    They are legitimate thoughts for a quiet, private and reflective discussion. Posting them on a paper for kids to bring home from school darkens the color of things a great deal.

    She clearly seized upon an excuse to try and shift the focus of the conversation elsewhere than where it belongs.

    Dirty, shameful and perverse.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Why would anyone with half a brain have kids in this country?

  • ryan||

    Just curious; in which country do you think it's better to have kids?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I didn't mean to imply that other places might be preferable. I just can't speak to the child-rearing conditions in other countries as I have never left the US.

    If you like, you can remove the last three words from my question without really affecting its essence.

  • komenator||

    Isn't New Zealand relatively decent?

  • Double D||

    No. No it is not.

  • ||

    It is really a no-win scenario. Even if you're be-monocled enough to send your kid to private school, you're still the chump paying for shit public schools through your property taxes. The only factor that might tip the scales is to counteract all the morons breeding with some not-retarded and, I am sure, staggeringly good-looking libertarian genes.

  • ryan||

    I have no intention to send my kids, when I have them, to public school. If I can't avoid that situation I probably won't have them. But I want them too much to think that anything's going to stop me from becoming prepared.

    BTW, the primary qualities a country would need regarding ideal kid-making potential would, I believe, be the ease of access/egress and the shittiness of the gov't. If I were to say the quality of the populace mattered too, I'd probably never have kids.

  • ryan||

    sorry, lack of shittiness*

  • I.E.||

    Genuine Somalia.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That's the tragedy at the heart of it all. Even if I could knock up enough hot chicks to outbreed the statist drones (and the laws of spacetime are really all that prevents me), the fact that most of them will be educated by public school union leeches, bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars by higher ed. flimflammers, commodified by the job market, and either taxed to death or assassinated (or both) by the government is enough to overpower even my mighty virility.

    IOW, this world isn't good enough for my seed, Dags.

  • ryan||

    I thought it's interesting how the protagonists of Rand's novels never had kids.

  • ryan||

    or brushed their teeth

  • ||

    Also Hugh, does Monsieur Typical Libertarian have any pithy words of wisdom on the to-procreate-or-not-to-procreate question? (Excellent site, by the way.)

  • Hugh Akston||

    You'd have to ask him. You can tell I'm not the typical libertarian because I wear glasses and he doesn't.

  • ||

    I asked.

    You probably don't even have a twirlable mustache, you fraud.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Sure I do. It's in my pants.

  • ||

    Well, "it's in my pants" is just a good response to anything. And, yay, my question got posted! That Typical Libertarian is a remarkably efficient chap. Does he enjoy eliminating jobs for underprivileged bloggers? It's like he's the ATM of the internet.

  • Hugh Akston||

    From what I understand, efficiency is a secondary concern at best. The first question ttl asks of any technology is "how will this eliminate jobs?"

  • Jack the Reaper||

    That's where I keep my monocle.

  • Christina||

    I decided to have kids because I always wanted my own spawn to propagandize, and train up the libertarian way. I decided to stop waiting for the "right time" when I saw Idiocracy,

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I've been waiting 10 years to use the Venus Flytrap explanation of the atom and finally got to use it yesterday. It was epic.

    My kids have never set foot in a public school and only went to private school until I had enough money put away to homeschool them.

  • ||

    Why would anyone with half a brain have kids in this country?

    This is basically what I asked my wife when we got married. Her response was "if only the stupid have children we will be really fucked."

  • BoscoH||

    Wow Tim. You're kids are totally fucked now. That is, unless you're using a pen name or game them someone else's last name. Good luck, sir!

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Hey, nobody can prove I'm not this guy or this guy or even this guy.

  • komenator||

    Iran regime vs Santorum. Which one opposes birth control?

  • komenator||

    Lin > Tebow

  • ||

    “We don’t need a better class of prisons. We need a better class of prisoners.” —Lester Maddox

  • komenator||

    what again was wrong with Jon Huntsman?
    he had hot daughters.

  • Apatheist||

    ಠ_ರೃ

    Just wanted to test Look of Disapproval (yes there is a monocle one).

  • ಠ_ರೃ||

    Tempting

  • Bingo||

    I approve of this.

    And this.

  • ||

    *Look down*

    *click*

    *Look further down*

    *click*

    Then he bursts out laughing

  • Bingo||

    Just wait for the gif to load you impatient twat. I'm trying to decide whether the venomous glance from the whale in the red or the grin from the cutie next to her is funnier.

  • komenator||

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    ah you SFd the link, "komenator" (great name, btw).

  • komenator||

  • ||

    I was describing the dude's reaction.

  • rather||

    Is the fast-food an analogy for the lack of quality in public education? If so, why do you use public school; isn't their alternatives?

    I wouldn't eat in a that style of restaurant, or attend a public school but I wouldn't put myself in a position of having no choice either.

    Unlike health care, education is a choice that is controllable, and the parent's sole responsibility

  • ||

    There is no way around the logic: She is arguing that it was the kids’ fault for not reporting the incident.

    Well it obviously couldn't have been the principal's fault.

    ...or the school district's. Since, you know. They just wouldn't have done something like that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Is it possible that some kids reported the offense while others didn't because they didn't think they'd be believed?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    At least we've seen the end of sex scandals in the public schools. Nope, won't be hearing about that sort of thing again.

  • ||

    Take a chill pill Timmeh

  • rather||

    The criticism of the principal didn't address what led her to believe that the children should have known; only the reasons she believes they did not.

    Did the school have any abuse prevention programs?

    My impression was that it was discussed in al schools along with sexuality

    California, unlike more restrictive states such as Texas, allows individuals to sue school districts, points out Pace Law School professor Emily Gold Waldman, who is chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Education Law.

    For the suits to go forward, “they must have some sort of theory such as negligence,” she says, but there is nothing preventing the plaintiffs from attempting to assign liability to anyone such as a principal or anyone else in a supervisory position. She notes that California law has stated that school districts must “take reasonable steps to protect its students.”

    How is it possible that they do not address the issue beforehand?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "California...allows individuals to sue school districts"

    But at least there aren't that many lawyers in California, right?

    There won't be an outburst of public-school sex scandals, there won't be any lawyers interested in digging up cases. And the media is simply bored with sex scandals.

  • Bingo||

    Please don't respond to rather.

  • komenator||

    I heard she didn't win at the westminster dog show

  • Bingo||

    You know who else didn't win at the dog show?

  • komenator||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    rather may be a tad incoherent at times, but this time she referenced a point which seems to be very relevant - that an expert claims it's easier to sue school districts in California.

    Is there some other crime of rather's which I need to be aware of?

  • komenator||

    blogwhore

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Nothing wrong with pimpin' my blog.

    Are you a school employee involved in a misunderstanding with the authorities? Will your dating pool soon be restricted to incarcerated felons? Then go to lovbehindbarz doT COm and find your perfect match. Do you prefer carjackers, heroin dealers, or plain old rapists? Well, chances are you'll end up with a rapist, but why not check out the other options in case you're considering a prison transfer?

  • Bingo||

    Pretty sure you mis-clicked this reply.

  • rather||

    female

  • rather||

    The only thing that makes me wonder is why no one asks the obvious question...men are the last to know; aren't they?

    Back to Chapter 19; sorry boys, I'm writing tonight

  • The Obvious Question||

    How much do you charge for a golden helmet?

  • Bingo||

    female as a pejorative? Wow, you totally don't have issues.

  • Anon||

    Glad I am fortunate enough to be able to exercise school choice for my kids. Otherwise I might have to move to the burbs.

  • ||

    This is an outstanding blog post, and it is provocative for the right reasons. Please know not all teacher's are liars. And few administrators are teachers, the ones who were seem less inclined to lie but the really have no choice in that rat factory. Nevertheless neither group is really living up to the ESLRS standards of ethics and conduct that one can be brutally mobbed for trying to uphold.as a rubber room detainee, I know too well. I see that the malice, criminal indifference and obsessive grooming are the qualities one must possess to move ahead. There is also arrogance and stupidity needed to commit walk chalk crime , which your principal's letter home epitomizes. The racism and bias are striking. Particularly in light of how Lausd polices language. But make no mistake the war is against Hispanics, AA, et , and the teachers committed to them, and my guess is Marimonte teachers tried to tell but were told to piss off. A whistle blower or even a potential whistle blower are hauled in to rubber rooms much more Visciously than alleged pedophiles, abusers and the teachers that are unfit despots. .
    Zero tolerance policy on integrity. Latinos have finally heard our cry and came out in force yesterday to protest cuts to arts, adult schools and the obvious danger their children are in. I cannot abide my colleagues failure to come forward, though I know at MES Some did. Like me they know why pushing the issue is Ill-advised. If only we all had each other's back. If only greater good was our priority. Mark Berndt coukd never lurk in our schools. Staff and students would not be @Belmont HS inhaling deadly gasses on a costly toxic school site. Parents would have been more welcome in the schools. Exploiting students instead of teaching them is so economically rewarding , entrenched corruption is built on compomises which make us complicit with what I do not hesitate to call evil. I met staff relations people today each wearing outfits worth more than my car. The woman wearing $3000+ boots lied to me and tried to intimidate me. She pretty much tried to commit fraud. I had a colleague with me because the union is in bed with the district-- he was furious at these antics. We all need to be. Please join us at www.perdaily.com.

  • ||

    Sending your kid to a pubic screwel is de facto child abuse.

  • ||

    I'd like to see the whole letter too, but even the part Tim excerpted reveals the principal to be astoundingly thick and a buck-passing weasel to boot.

    California public officials love to pat themselves on the back for every last b-b-b-b-b-But It's For The Children measure, regardless of whether or not the measures are actually helpful.

    It's the school employees who are the mandated reporters here, so the question is not why didn't the kids speak up - they did. The question is why didn't a generation's worth of school officials do their jobs under the law?

  • RoboCain||

    Why won't someone think of the cockroaches?!?!

  • Pip||

    Hey Cavanaugh, you can't come up with private school tuition? You can't homeschool? What kind of libertarian sends their kids to a shitty public school?

    I am not making a joke here.

  • Leon the Killer||

    The Kochsters do not pay well....

  • Logic||

    Says the free-riding user.

  • Tonio||

    Obviously not a True Libertarian(tm) by your standards. Duly noted, Pip, duly noted.

    But the article isn't about you, or your feelings about Cavanaugh's libertarian purity or parenting skills.

    He's reporting something that he had access to only because he was a parent of students at that school, the background is a necessary part of the reportage.

  • ||

    Tim, how can a person of your views send your kids to a slave school? Keeping them home and not teaching them a thing (formally) or stashing them in the office if both parents work or farming them out to relatives during the day would be better. Obviously home schooling is a possibility.

    I know your problems because I live in NY and there's a shortage of the sort of affordable private schools one gets in lower cost (and more conservative) parts of the country.

    And even if one has all the money in the world, most private schools are no better than state schools.

    Libertarians have a particular problem because of our atheist orientation. The few good schools in the country are religious (see par exemple the Association of Classical and Christian Schools).

    No matter how hard it is, you've got to do something. Move. Start a school, homeschool.

    Hillsdale, Michigan (and Hillsdale Academy attached to the College) is lovely this time of year...

  • Tonio||

    Oh, dude, you went there. My (anecdotal) experience is that for every atheist libertarian, there's a fundagelical libertarian. Sure, atheism is far more common in libertarian circles than in the population as a whole, but still.

    And the very best private schools in the country are either secular or only nominally religious (ie, country club episcopalians).

  • ||

    This is how Obama got elected.

    Vote VOUCHERS!!

  • Tonio||

    Seems there are a lot of newbies posting on this thread. Public education is not generally well thought of by the regulars here, understandably, of course.

  • Leon the Killer||

    Not a fucking word from the principal about the other actually culpable party, the Teachers Union, which, in collusion with the District, protects teachers from any kind of discipline regardless of offense......

  • Tonio||

    Well, not in the part Cavanaugh quoted, but the whole article is about the outrageousness of the paragraph he quoted.

  • ||

    "This person is a martinet with a habit of logorrhea that expresses itself in nightly robocalls and long assemblies during which parents are upbraided for such crimes as parking on the street while delivering and picking up students, cutting into the school’s funding by keeping kids home from classes, not contributing during fundraisers, and so on."

    Fire her. Parents can't fire a principal? Fix that. And then fire her.

  • X||

    Burn the unions to ground. Fire every member. Salt the earth where they stood. Cancel their pensions. If it saves one child from being abused, it's worth it.

  • X||

    Require every union member to annually complete 480 hours of continuing education on sexual abuse awareness at their own expense as a licensing condition. If it saves one child from being abused, it's worth it.

  • Ben||

    Adults have a tendency to not believe kids when they say stuff, especially big stuff, about other adults. This principal is a fool.

    How about this, why did the principal not notice one of their teachers was a complete psycho? Isn't that part of the principal's job? Instead she's trying to make the buck stop at freaking elementary kids. She sounds like someone who doesn't really want to be involved with education. I'm surprised she still has her job.

  • ||

    I generally do not comment on another parent's child raising, but you seem to feel your children are in a bad school with a bad principle. You say that the principle of your children's schools holds both her students and their parents (her CUSTOMERS) in contempt.

    Why do not you remove your children from this school immediately and use your bully pulpit at Reason to say, loudly and clearly, why you are doing so?

    Aren't you afraid your children may face retaliation from this martinet?

    Your a person of means and education, you DON'T have to take treatment like this and I hope you are not subjecting your children to it out of some mis-guided politics.

    Sorry for butting it but to me K-12 is the most important part of a person's education as nothing further can be learned without a good foundation at the elementary level.

  • Tonio||

    [Cavanaugh is] a person of means and education

    Do you know his actual financial circumstances?

    Also, for K-6 course material it's easy for even marginally educated parents to fill in the gaps.

  • ||

    Sorry for all those spelling errors in my prior post, at work and rushing through things.

    I did get a good elementary education (at Catholic and Public Schools), but I still can't spell!

  • ||

    "Also, for K-6 course material it's easy for even marginally educated parents to fill in the gaps."

    Filling in the gaps is good. Also, doing what my grandfather did (and what I did too) which is pounding on the table and telling your child in no uncertain terms why what Sister or Teacher taught all day is WRONG is good too.

    But Mr. Cavanaugh is saying these people are BAD, that they are craven and corrupt.

    Those are not the kind of people to have watch over one's children.

    Even if they are smart, even if they are good at their jobs.

  • ||

    This is ridiculous! You may not like Mrs. Crowder personally, but this is a witch hunt that needs to be stopped. That letter was harmless and its being turned into a huge scandal to fulfill a personal agenda. This is hugely irresponsible of Mr. Cavanaugh. Shame on him.

  • ||

    I agree! This letter is a non-issue and it's being blown out of proportion. As a parent at the school, I'm dumbfounded how parents can get so up in arms about this letter yet so little support the fundraising efforts at the school.

  • ||

    Tim, I just posted this on the Huffington Post site:
    At least, to my knowledge, Miramonte never left a disabled child, dependent on a wheelchair/walker, to perish on the 2nd floor while all of the other students were led to safety during an earthquake drill. YES, that happened at Rosewood. That child was my son. Principal Crowder's response was that the policy was, and I quote, "that the other students will always be led out first, then we will go back for your son." My son in alive, well and thankfully, now at a school that keeps him safe. But beyond that, the entire staff is dedicated to making sure that he and his classmates can access their education in every way possible. Thank you, Tim, for exposing yet another deplorable example of this woman's character.

  • ||

    These people were at the forefront of demonizing the catholic Church for pedophile priests. Now the shoe is on the other foot we really see who they are.

  • ||

    I am not saying what the church did was right, I am just pointing out the double standard. I believe that all people who do these things to children should be dealt with with to the fullest extent of the law.

  • Anonymous||

    I find it amusing that she questions why the students never told the teacher, when in fact it's been clearly documented that students had complained. This is a principal who told an employee they should be flattered when approached by another individual who "probably liked them and wanted to give them a hug."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement