Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Once upon a time, there was a little girl who was very smart and very good at sports and just all around very good.  When she grew up, she decided to be a teacher, even though she could have done something else that would have earned her a lot more money.  Teaching children was her calling, and she followed that call.

The young teacher quickly became a superstar and sought out increased responsibility and showed skills in management and administration.  She married another gifted educator and the two of them chose to work in the town where she grew up even though they could have made more money elsewhere: community and family were very important to the teacher and her husband.

The teacher and her husband worked hard.  She worked so hard that she was given an opportunity to be the principal at a school.  And she went to the school and continued to work really hard and the teachers at the school and the students loved her.  The parents of the students were so pleased that their students had a principal who was so committed and who was so very perfect for the job.

At first, the teacher, who was now a principal, and her husband didn't live in the town where they taught and where she had grown up.  Eventually, they found a home in the town and moved there with their two wonderful children, a little girl and a little boy.  The principal's parents still lived in the town and so did one of her three sisters.

Everything was good.

Sadly, the principal needed to work with an Evil Superintendent.  The Evil Superintendent didn't live in the town or anywhere near the town where the school was located.  She never attended any community events.  And she didn't like the principal.  The principal knew this and did her best knowing it.

At the principal's school, there was a bad teacher.  The teacher was very, very bad and the badness was documented.  The principal had to fire the bad teacher and the bad teacher did not take it well.  In fact, the bad teacher said that she had been assaulted by a student and that the principal had done nothing to protect her.  So, the lawyers came, and a sum of money was given to the bad teacher to make her go away.  And the Evil Superintendent smiled because now she had a way to get rid of the principal whom she did not like.

Why didn't the Superintendent like the principal?  Maybe she felt threatened.  Maybe she doesn't like nice people who work hard.  Maybe she resents people who are happy.  Who knows?

Finally, it came to pass that the Evil Superintendent was to resign from her position.  And all believed that she would go quietly into the hereafter.  But that was not to be.  First, she decided to implement redistricting.  And then she decided to get rid of the Principal.  Because she could.

Is this vindictiveness something that she learned on the trip to China that the good people of the town paid for her to have?

Who could come to the aid of the Principal?  Was there a Prince?

Remember: the Principal is happily married.

If there is to be a hero in this story, it could be the School Committee.  The School Committee can give a vote of "no confidence" in the Evil Superintendent and give her an extra two months off before her retirement in July.  This would show bravery and resolve and would prevent the ES from any additional parting shots that she may want to lob at the good townspeople.

We, the townspeople, are counting on the School Committee to offer a no-confidence vote at the School Committee meeting on 6 May 2015.

Please, members of the School Committee, help us achieve a happy ending.


  1. Was there a teacher assaulted at McDevitt

  2. Alleged and then never spoken of again. Never any charges.

  3. Alleged? That sounds like you don't believe it. I just asked my former McDevitt student and he said there was a teacher that was hit last year her last name begins with an "A". The boys first name begins with a "V". He was expelled to Kennedy last year and returned to McDevitt this year. Is this the story you are referring to? Because it appears to be more than "alleged".

  4. @wvet No, 'alleged' means that no criminal charges were filed and that no one was ever convicted of a criminal charge. Like the Marathon Bombing: Tsarnaev was 'alleged' until he was found guilty; or Aaron Hernandez was 'alleged' until he was also found guilty. If the situation was resolved without criminal charges, any wrongdoing is 'alleged.'

  5. Liz, you are mixing up the event with the perpetrator. The definition of alleged is "without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality". The bombing is not alleged because it factually happened. Tsarnaev is the alleged perpetrator because the trial hasn't concluded and he may not have been the person who committed the crime. The State of MA is trying to prove it. Even if he is found innocent the bombing still occurred. There is no question to the proof. RE: McDevitt teacher -- are you saying the assault on the teacher is alleged (i.e. there is no proof) or that the student accused of it is alleged? Because I have spoken to couple more students and this seems to be common knowledge.

  6. @wvet I am not an attorney and I don't want to play one here. If I walk down the street and you slug me over the head with a book bag, there's no question that I've been assaulted. From a criminal standpoint, though, you are an alleged assailant. If your lawyer then offers me a $10 Starbucks card if I get over it and I accept, then we settled the case and there has never been any investigation to find out if the alleged crime was committed. So, in this case, the student is an alleged assailant: never charged with a crime.
    It's also beside the point: this incident was handled. Whether it was handled to everyone's liking is also beside the point. Gavin needs to have done something that is outlined in her contract as an offense that leads to non-renewal of her contract. And that hasn't been shown to be the case.
    Finally, and selfishly, I've got a kid going to the McDevitt next year. I'd much rather have a seasoned principal in place than have to deal with yet another year of a first-year principal with yet another first-year superintendent. The timing here is crucial and seems vindictive.

  7. "has never been any investigation to find out if the alleged crime was committed" and "no question that I've been assaulted" -- these are mutually exclusive statements. An assault is a crime, PERIOD. Just because someone takes a monetary settlement and/or someone wasn't convicted of the crime, that doesn't change the fact that you incurred a head injury. The basis of your blog is that this event never occurred and you are FACTUALLY wrong. I am not discuss whether this is grounds for removal or whether Gavin should or should not be principal. I am discussing that a teacher was assaulted. And that is a FACT.

    I find the fact that a teacher was assaulted very disturbing.

  8. @ Liz Humphreys McCarthy is there was a law suit and if it did got to court or was settled wouldn't there be a gag order in effect on a said settlement? My question to you is then how did you find out?

    1. @fedup: not a lawsuit. A settlement. The WPS budget is an open document because, as homeowners, we pay for the budget. It's a matter of record. Gag orders? Um, no.

    2. How much information does SC/WPS budget disclose about the settlement?

    3. Were the names of the incident made public?

    4. If a settlement was given wouldn't there need to be facts that were verified that an incident had taken place? Or does the city just give money away without an investigation? Also, please point out in the budget where does it say settlement against McDevitt Middle School Principal. How do you know in fact that this line item does pertain to said settlement? Do you have personal inside knowledge because it sounds like you do so please share.

  9. The line item must say McDevitt Principal vs Bad Teacher....