Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Teacher Misconduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and former staff accuse Edmonds School District of hiding allegations of teacher misconduct, call for family notifications
Summary
Several speakers alleged that district leaders failed to notify parents about an elementary learning-support teacher accused of misconduct, named a state reporting statute, and described paid leave and resignation terms they say have cost the district roughly $470,000; they urged immediate notification and accountability.
Multiple public speakers at the Edmonds School District board meeting accused the district of failing to notify families after reports that a learning-support teacher allegedly engaged in misconduct with students.
Ginny Berry, who identified herself as a former intervention coordinator, said she sent board members an email asking when the district would inform parents “of the students who were harmed by the teacher at one of our elementary schools.” Berry cited a state statute by number (RCW28A32016O as read during testimony) that she said requires immediate notification after a report of alleged abuse or misconduct by a school employee. She asserted the district placed the teacher on paid administrative leave for approximately two years at a monthly pay figure she stated as $8,500, then negotiated a resignation package she said included six months’ salary and six months’ medical insurance; Berry said the payments to date total about $470,000 (as alleged).
Other commenters — including Buck Stewart and Wendy Masterson — described observed behavior they characterized as grooming and said multiple reports had been made to school administrators and local police. Elizabeth Steele urged the board to direct the superintendent to notify families who she said were victims and to provide support, saying “this is not about a Hail Mary post mortem effort to limit liability. This is about doing the right thing.”
Speakers also said they had contacted outside agencies and cited jurisdictional limits (one commenter said OSPI has no jurisdiction over a self-governed district). Board procedure during public comment limits immediate response; President Katum reminded speakers that the board is not obligated to reply during the comment period and that written comments are attached to the public record.
What the record shows: The allegations were made from the podium as public testimony; the board heard multiple accounts and requests for notification. No district official provided a detailed response on personnel actions or legal advice during the meeting. The board took no immediate public action on the allegations at this session beyond listening and recording comments.
Next steps requested by speakers included immediate family notification, clarity about statute compliance, and independent review or investigation where appropriate.
