Feds direct Palo Alto school district to address violations

Office for Civil Rights outlines remedial actions as it concludes sexual-harassment investigation

In a much-anticipated conclusion to a federal investigation into how the Palo Alto school district has responded to cases of sexual harassment at its two high schools, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has submitted to the district a draft agreement that outlines specific steps the district will be obligated to take to address its failure to comply with federal law.

This story contains 1776 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


19 people like this
Posted by Marc Vincenti
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 14, 2016 at 8:06 pm

Marc Vincenti is a registered user.

Thanks to the Weekly for its stellar reporting. It was a hopeful sight, to see Todd Collins and Jennifer DiBrienza on the dais last night.

42 people like this
Posted by How Do You Like Your Crow Served?
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2016 at 8:34 pm

The chickens are finally home to roost.

PAUSD violated the rights of female students. It should have investigated a whole series of things but did not. Most shockingly of all, it failed to put into place grooming policies after Kevin Sharp was discovered to have groomed a student. Had Max McGee and District Compliance Officer Holly Wade acted properly in response to Kevin Sharp, Ronnie Farrell might not have done what he is alleged to have done to the young victim in that case. Had a grooming policy been in place and students been trained on how to recognize the signs, perhaps when Farrell sent a private facebook message to that young girl, she would have recognized the warning signs of grooming and known to report it rather than to go meet him.

That is what is known as an omitted precaution. It's also what is known as FUBAR.

We have failed in the most important job we have, which is to keep our children safe from sex predators in the schools. We had the chance to intervene and didn't. We should all be deeply ashamed. There is no way to ever make up to this student what was taken from her and her family. It is an outrage. It is shocking. And it is McGee's fault. The fact that he still has a job after he failed to deal properly with the aftermath of the Sharp case is repellent. [Portion removed.] You didn't want to admit that Paly made mistakes and needed improvement.

That of course is the same mistake made by Katherine "our staff is very sophisticated" Baker, who didn't think we needed training. Of course, history repeated there too with the recent Jordan case that was a total replay of the Terman case from 2011.

Now would be a good time to repeal the outrageous Resolution of the Palo Alto School Board condemning OCR, and also to apologize to the parent who was falsely accused of "document tampering." PAUSD was arrogant and it aligned itself with the hard right [portion removed] wing of the Republican Party in condemning the Obama administration's dedicated work on Civil Rights. Last night the Board passed a resolution that purported to support civil rights for all students, including girls, transgender and genderqueer students.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot embrace civil rights to make yourselves look good and condemn civil rights enforcement.

Like this comment
Posted by story behind the story
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 14, 2016 at 8:41 pm

Weekly reports that the district "violated anti-discrimination law Title IX."

Not even the OCR, or its parent the US Department of Education, believes that a school refusing to do what the OCR says it must do is against the law:

--- Assistant Secretary of the OCR Catherine Lhamon: OCR's guidance does not “carry the force of law.”
--- US Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary Amy McIntosh: "guidance that the Department issues does not have the force of law."
--- Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell: "our guidance does not hold the force of law and are recommendations and illustrations."
-from "Must vs. Should," Inside Higher Education, February 2016, Web Link

Same said Federal Judge O'Connor when a school recently took the OCR to court to fight instead of comply. Kent Talbert, former general counsel in the Education Department: Judge O'Connor says that "the [OCR']'s wrong."
-from "Federal Interpretation -- or Legislation?" Inside Higher Education August 2016 Web Link

The real story here? According to Alyssa Peterson of Know Your IX: these complaints are a powerful tool in the OCR and complainants' "media strategy" campaign.
-from "What the Future Holds for the Federal Crackdown on Campus Sexual Assault," Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2016

4 people like this
Posted by Caleb
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 9:26 am

1. I hope the decision about whether or not to sign this agreement takes place during an open session of the school board, where the pros and cons are publicly discussed. I don't trust the Weekly to give an honest report about both sides of this story, and I'd rather hear it for myself in an open session.

2. It would be in the best interest of the district to hold off on signing this agreement until the new administration is in place in Washington. [Portion removed.] It wouldn't surprise me if the people involved in this are replaced by the new education secretary.

16 people like this
Posted by The retaliation from Carrillo et al was worse
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2016 at 9:26 am

Actually, I'm quite alarmed for the families and others in the future who will be retaliated against by the district people who think their "embarrassment" is a punishable offense. The OCR really should make some provision for a monitor who will hear any and all complaints about retaliation so that they get nipped in the bud. Failing to do so is like telling stalking victims that stalking us a crime but they can only get police help after they are murdered.

OCR should make the retaliation monitoring broad enough to take in allcomplaints and evidence of existing and past retaliation that was never dealt with because if a lack of any kind of protection (and the certainty if more retaliation from complaints). After all that these families have gone through, they think their nightmare is over but if experience serves, they habe no idea what is about to hit them. OCR needs to wake up to that, after all that they have seen in PAUSD.

23 people like this
Posted by Retaliation from Carrillo et al was worse
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2016 at 9:38 am

Sigh. OCR is not an enforcement agency. They are there to help districts follow the law, and to protect students when districts don't. All the district is doing by fighting OCR is neglecting its own mission and opportunity to improve.

If the new administration takes away what limited help OCR is now, I hope the City will make good on its promises and draft a charter amendment creating an ombudsperson position with the City, someone directly answerable to the City and parents and independent from the district administration, who can and has the power to solve problems from outside the echo chamber. The parents are paying bigtime for too many overpaid bureaucrats who don't answer for their incompetence. We can take responsibility for ensuring there are checks and balances, by implementing a better structure for it.

9 people like this
Posted by Ron
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 10:01 am


Do you Mean that since the new administration is ok with Sexual misconduct against Women, that this will just go away?

18 people like this
Posted by jh
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 11:34 am

jh is a registered user.

Down the years there have been a succession of parents who have started legal actions against the school district. Which the district has then settled out of court with the usual non-disclosure clauses. Each parent believes they are on their own and have no idea that other parents have or have had the same problems. Which is, of course, the way the school district wants it. Parents settle because doing so not only protects their child's privacy and any possible retaliation, but also because few parents have the resources or energy for a protracted fight with the school district. So parents settle court of court and sign the non-disclosure agreement. It takes a brave parent who is willing to go public and expose the school district. How many of these suits have been filed over the years, and how many millions of dollars has the district quietly paid out? No way to know. If these cases were without merit why would the district settle out of court with non-disclosure agreements?

5 people like this
Posted by Stew Pid
a resident of Community Center
on Dec 15, 2016 at 12:20 pm

Most of these horrible events were brought to us under the august leadership of Kevin Skelly.

3 people like this
Posted by jh
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 1:00 pm

jh is a registered user.

Way predate Kevin Skelly.

11 people like this
Posted by caleb
a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 4:12 pm

@Retaliation, OCR is very much an enforcement agency, and it constantly requires school districts and colleges to enter into consent decrees. Albeit civil not criminal. OCR is being sued for exceeding its statutory authority. Web Link

A little history -- OCR began in the Carter administration but was very small, just a handful of people. Obama greatly expanded it in 2009 to about 500 employees. The initial focus under Obama was to protect gay students from harassment. But in 2010, OCR's mission was broadened to enforcement of Title XI and disability rights. Palo Alto became a focal point for OCR. At one point we had more OCR cases pending than any school district in the country. One reason is that we had an activist in town who held a meeting to teach parents how to file OCR cases. And this activist appears to have worked very closely with the Weekly to stir the pot.

I have a feeling that a Republican administration will scale back OCR under the idea that communities should have control over their schools, not Washington. Not that sexual assault is acceptable (as one person said on this thread) but that Washington's solutions are often a bad fit and sometimes outside the law (as the case cited above alleges).

McGee would be wise to wait and not sign anything with OCR until the new education secretary cleans house. It's very possible that the new OCR crew won't even bother pursuing these cases.

10 people like this
Posted by Nameless teacher
a resident of Terman Middle School
on Dec 15, 2016 at 10:40 pm

These issues are so lamentable. They harm good teachers everywhere. My heart goes out to the family. My gear is of retaliation.

Like this comment
Posted by Nameless teacher
a resident of Terman Middle School
on Dec 15, 2016 at 10:41 pm

*fear (autocorrect)

8 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 15, 2016 at 11:17 pm

@caleb, good point, why would McGee want to agree to follow the law if he didn't have to? OCR resolutions don't have fine or penalties - they just make districts do what they should be doing anyway.

3 people like this
Posted by Devil in the details
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 16, 2016 at 7:47 am

The remedial actions suggested by the OCR are well-intentioned, but administratively onerous. The District needs to take action, but, unless the OCR is going to fund an administrative block and tackle team, how will the District implement this list successfully?

I suggest the District determine what meaningful steps to solve the problem it can successfully implement and take them, but wait out the OCR, which, under the new administration, is likely to lose funding and staff.

If you disagree, I suggest you re-read the list of remedial actions and start considering the work force it will take for each one and the impact each will have. You will see they are not of equal import and that effort and benefit are not aligned.

8 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 16, 2016 at 10:53 am

@Devil, which did you find especially onerous? The only ones that I take issue with are reinvestigating, using an outside investigator, incidents that are several years old. That seems likely to be costly and of limited benefit. But the policy changes, training, monitoring, and reporting all seem to be what we should be doing anyway.

11 people like this
Posted by The retaliation from Carrillo et al was worse
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2016 at 9:39 am

Reinvestigating is actually a good idea. Until there is something that could forces upper management to take stock of the practices that have been happening over and over, things will not get better, because the employees most at the root of problems will continue to put their CYA over improving the culture. Plus, the older cases deserve to have the help for their kids, too. They are usually the most injured and least able to seek help. They may be old as far as the district is concerned burpt I assure you, for many, the damage continue and some truth and reconciliation will be helpful for them and for the system.

13 people like this
Posted by Fairmeadow mom
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Dec 18, 2016 at 11:59 am

Obviously the cases should be investigated. How else can the district know what changes need to be made? In addition to the fact that the district violated the law in not doing them when they were required to.

5 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 18, 2016 at 12:04 pm

@Retaliation - help me understand. In my understanding, in most of the older cases, the staff directly involved have almost entirely moved on - the entire admin staff at Gunn has turned over, Winston is long gone, and the current principal at Paly was the person saying Sharp should be removed. So it seems to me that we'd find out what we already know - that Bowers is ineffective in this role and that Wade, to the extent involved, little better. By definition, most or all of the kids involved in the older Paly and Gunn cases have graduated, so it's of no help to them. I would draw the line at cases, say, less than two years old, and focus on that. The cost/benefit just isn't there otherwise. Do you think otherwise?

11 people like this
Posted by The retaliation was worse
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2016 at 9:51 am

No, I don't agree that the persons most responsible for the untrustworthy culture at the district office have moved on. Read my online name. Some truth and reconciliation is probably the only way to establish patterns when there are employees who are so politically adept with their own colleagues. Who did the current superintendent ask, in the district office, to approve the current legal team? We turned over legal, but the CYA crowd made sure to approve the new team. We will never get out from under this, even with turnover at the school sites, if new employees are subject to the same culture and expectations, and the key employees responsible are not held to account.

What happened at Jordan in this latest bullying case could have been expected, if the cases where things most went wrong (but people just left the district or gave up) had been examined impartially and learned from. The retaliations haven't been looked at at all. They are not old to people who are living them with the district still protecting the employees who retaliated in the district office and put their own behinds above fixing our system for the kids. The culture in the district office and thus among employees has NOT been fixed.

The fact that our new superintendent is still so caught up in flaunting records laws and transparency comes back to the same people, who are still with us. And truth and reconciliation matter to those who have been harmed, illegally, unprofessionally, and unethically, by those who are still with us. Until more investigation is done by a truly impartial source, none of us can fairly judge. Think about it. If your child faced serious problems and your family faced retaliation and you were made to feel powerless against the district, how would you feel if someone finally was going to investigate but the district and the core employees responsible got to nix it, saying two years had passed and it was old news? It isn't old news for those who were damaged, especially the children whose relationship and trust in such an important institution has been destroyed. Even if certain employees have moved on, the fact is, the district has never gotten the benefit of learning from its mistakes or making things right so they don't happen again. And, frankly, they still continue to employ key people in the district office whose tenure coincided with our district's special ed and student services' most problematic practices.

8 people like this
Posted by The retaliation from et al was worse
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2016 at 10:06 am

Sometimes you can read your own writing to get the answer to your question. You say the staff at Gunn has almost entirely moved on. Jacoubowsky moved to Jordan, where he was principle during the latest serious lapse. I don't even blame him, I blame the people from the district office (who haven't turned over) who established the culture and expectations followed at the school site, It doesn't matter whether school employees are old or new, when they seemed to have been implementing practices from the district office to avoid even noticing things going wrong (the staff telling the parents the principal was too busy, even as the principal was at the district office discussing the problem without ever telling the parent, and very likely because of putting CYA ahead of doing the right thing). No, we absolutely must learn from rather than sweep recent past problems that were never dealt with properly under the rug. (To a hurt student, what you call "old" isn't old. Imagine telling a molested child that to justify changing statutes of limitations on molestation. 'Well, the state moved you away from your relative two years ago anyway, so why should we investigate this old claim that you were molested? Your stepmother has a new husband now anyway.')

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Top 6 Issues Affecting Seniors to keep an eye on as Donald Trump takes over
By Max Greenberg | 6 comments | 4,447 views

By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,620 views

Packing for the Women's March
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 850 views