Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Serious privacy concerns with the new Summit/Facebook platform, used in 100 schools across the nation



Our concerns about the open-ended data sharing of the Summit/Facebook software platform was featured on the front page of the Washington Post. This software is in 100 schools nationwide, about two thirds of them public schools. The list is here. Two of the schools are in NYC:  the Bronx Writing Academy in District 9; and J.H.S. 088 Peter Rouget in District 15 in Brooklyn.

Summit is sharing the student personal data with Facebook, Google, Clever and whomever else they please – through an open-ended consent form that they have demanded parents sign.  A copy of the consent form is here.   
I have never seen such a wholesale demand from any company for personal student data, and can imagine many ways it could be abused.  Among other things, Summit/Facebook claims they will have the right to use the personal data “to improve their products and services,” to “conduct surveys, studies” and “perform any other activities requested by the school. ”  

 Here is an excerpt:  

 Summit may collect information that you provide or your child provides directly to Summit, such as contact information, coursework, testing, and grades. Summit also may collect information automatically from browsers, computers, and devices (such as information from cookies and browser and device identifiers in order to remember your preferences)..... Summit may use your child’s information to conduct surveys and studies; develop new features, products, and services; and otherwise as requested by your school or consistent with your consent. ... Summit also may disclose information to third-party service providers and partners as directed or authorized by the school. For example, Summit uses Clever, Facebook, and Google to help develop and improve the personalized learning plan software or to provide related educational services on Summit’s behalf

They claim they won’t use the child's personal data for targeted ads (as would be banned anyway in the CA law called SOPIPA) but this is among the only restriction. They say they can sell the data "in connection with a corporate transaction, such as the sale of our Services, a merger, consolidation, asset sale." The one-sided Terms of Service is here; the Privacy Policy is here

The Summit platform has never been independently vetted for security protections – or shown to yield any educational benefits, and I believe is a very radical way to outsource instruction and student data to private companies. 

Other reasons that teachers as well as parents should be concerned:

The Terms of Service claims the right to use the intellectual property of teachers in these schools,
including course assignments, etc. and even student work without any recompense: “You Grant Us a non--‐exclusive, perpetual, transferable, sub--‐licensable, royalty--‐free, worldwide License to use content that you post on or in connection with the Services in any manner, media, form, and modes of uses, now known or later developed.”

--Though I’m not an attorney, the Terms of Service seems to explicitly and repeatedly waive any liability  that Summit or FB or any of its partners may have for protecting the data against breaches, complying with state or federal law,  or abiding by their own Terms of Service; 

-- As the Washington Post article points out, the TOS would force any school or party to the agreement (including teachers) to give up their right to sue in court if they believe their rights or the law has been violated, and limits the dispute to binding arbitration in San Mateo CA - in the midst of Silicon Valley, where Facebook and Google presumably call the shots.  This is the same sort of abuse of consumer rights that that banks and credit card companies have included in their TOS and that the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now trying to ban.

--The CEO of Summit charters, Diane Tavenner, is also the head of the board of the California Charter School Association, which has aggressively tried to get pro-privatization allies elected to California school boards and state office, and has lobbied against any real regulations or oversight to curb charter school abuses in that state.  

- -  Summit says they won't sign individual contracts with school districts or schools, for the    following ostensible reasons, and suggests a legal loophole for states and districts that require such contracts:

Summit Public Schools is unable to sign contracts, MOUs, or other legal documents from other districts, CMOs, or individual schools. Straying from our Summit Partnership contracts would add immeasurable risk to our organization as we are unable to acquire third party validation on different contracts in the way that we did for our own participation agreement. It would not be legally sound for us to enter into two legal contracts with two sets of potentially conflicting commitments for one program.

Some districts that have policies where all third party vendors need to sign one designated contract were able to bypass that requirement given the status of Summit Public Schools as an educational organization rather than a vendor and the nature of the partnership as a free exchange of ideas and services rather than a paid service relationship.

And then they add – presumably to assuage the fears of parents or school administrators:

In order to ensure that our legal agreement meets the high quality demanded by school organizations across the U.S., Summit Public Schools has gone the extra mile to work with one of the best legal teams in the country to draft this agreement. We worked with Jules Polonetsky - CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices - and his team to review our privacy policies and provide his 3rd party stamp of approval. Straying from the language in our participation agreement would add risk as we are unable to also acquire third party validation on different contracts.

        What they don't reveal is that the Future of Privacy Forum is largely funded by the technology industry and the Gates Foundation, and Polonetsky was a big supporter of inBloom.  (Nevertheless, the sample contract they apparently offered to Kentucky schools did not include the binding arbitration clause, though it limits Summit's liability to $10,000.) 

For these and other reasons, I think parents and students should be VERY concerned.  

In my view and that of many other parents, the explosion of ed tech and the outsourcing of student personal data to private corporations without restriction, like this current Summit/Facebook venture, is as risky for students and teachers as the privatization of public education through charter school expansion.  In this case, the risk is multiplied, since the data is going straight into the hands of a powerful charter school CEO - closely linked to Gates, Zuckerberg and Laurene Powell Jobs, among the three wealthiest plutocrats on the planet.   

Gates has praised Summit to the skies, has given the chain $11 million, and has made special efforts to get it ensconced in his state of Washington; Zuckerberg is obviously closely entrenched in this initiative, and Laurene Powell Jobs has just granted the chain $10 million to launch a new charter school in Oakland.  

I sent the following list of questions to Summit at info@summitbasecamp.org nine days ago, but have received no response.  Others -- especially parents at these schools and/or privacy advocates -- might like to send their own questions or resend mine as well.  And if you are a parent or a teacher at one of these schools, please contact me ASAP at leonie@classsizematters.org  Thanks! Leonie

Questions for Summit:
1.      1. What is Summit’s definition of “reasonable and comprehensive data protection and security protocols to protect student data”?  What does that specifically include in terms of encryption, independent audits, security training, etc?  And where is that in writing?
2.     2.   If my child’s data does breach, what rights would I have as a parent to secure damages?
3.     3.  Does Summit claim unlimited rights to share or utilize my child’s homework and intellectual property without notice or compensation that they are claiming with teacher work in the TOS?
4.      4. Can Summit specifically itemize the companies/organizations that they will share my child’s data with, aside from those mentioned below? 
5.      5.  Are each of these third parties barred from making further redisclosures of my child’s data?
6.      6.  Are each of these third parties, and any other organizations or companies or individuals they redisclose to, legally required to abide by the same restrictions as listed under your TOS and PP, including being prevented from using targeted or non-targeted advertising, and/or selling of data, and using the same security protections?
7.       7. Does Summit promise to inform parents over the course of the year all the additional third parties the company plans to disclose my child’s data to?
8.        8. What is the comprehensive list of personal data Summit is collecting and potentially sharing from my child?  You mention a limited list below, but does it also include my child’s homework, grades, test scores, economic status, disability, English proficiency status and/or race as well? 
9.      9.  The TOS mentions survey data.  Is there any personal data from my child that Summit promises NOT to collect via a survey or otherwise?  Will parents have the right to see these surveys before they are given and opt out of them, or does signing this consent form basically mean a parent is giving up all their rights under the PPRA?
      10.  Why can’t Summit simply give the software platform to schools to use if it is beneficial, along with links to instructional materials, rather than demand as “payment” in the form of all the student information as well?
1   11. Do you promise not to use the information gained to market products directly to students and/or their parents, and are all your partners and/or those they disclose the information to barred from doing so as well?
1   12. The PP says you will use my child’s personal data to develop new educational “products” – what does that mean?  Why can’t you use de-identified data for this purpose?
     13. It also says you will use this data to “communicate with students, parents, and other users.”  What does that mean? What kind of communications will you engage in with my child or with me?
     14. The PP states a parent can “review, correct or have deleted certain personal information”.  Which kind of personal information can I delete, how will I be able to do that and will that stop my child from using the platform?
1    15. The PP also says you will share the data with anyone “otherwise directed or authorized by the school.”  What does that mean? Does my signing a consent form mean that the school can authorize to share this information with ANYONE else, without specifying the sort of third party, for what reason, or without limitation, without informing me or asking for my further consent?
1   16. It says it will send notice of proposed changes to the PP ahead of time to the participating schools; why not parents if you have their contact info?  Shouldn’t they hear this directly from you and immediately if you are considering changes?
     17.  Does Summit consider this parent consent form to mean that parents are waiving the privacy rights of their children under all three federal student privacy laws, including FERPA, COPPA and PPRA?
1  18. The PP says that “FERPA permits schools to share students' information in certain circumstances, including where the school has gotten a parent's' consent or where the organization receiving the student data operates as a “school official.” Summit Public Schools operates as a “school official” consistent with the Department of Education's guidance under FERPA.”  If this is true, why does Summit need to ask for parental consent?  What additional rights does my consent afford Summit that you would not have without consent in terms of the collection, use and disclosure of a student’s personal information?
     19. Summit says that “Participating schools and individual teachers own, and are responsible for, student data provided through the Summit Personalized Learning Platform.” Why don’t students own their own data?
      20. This raises another related question: the Summit Privacy Policy and Terms of Service grants schools and teachers some rights (however limited.) What rights do parents and students have under these conditions?
      21. The TOS says that if schools believe Summit has violated its promises or complied with the law, instead of suing they must submit to binding arbitration in San Mateo CA and are barred from filing class action complaints.  This type of provision has been heavily criticized when banks and credit card companies have included in their consumer agreements, and the Consumer Financial Protection Board is considering restricting their use. Why is this clause any more acceptable in your TOS?
      22. What legal recourse do schools, teachers or parents have if Summit violates the law or its TOS, for example if Summit decides to sell or give away or carelessly store the data given that the TOS  says “UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, NEGLIGENCE, WILL SUMMIT, ITS AFFILIATES, OR ANY PARTY INVOLVED IN CREATING, PRODUCING, OR DELIVERING THE SERVICES BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES” in any case?
      23. In yet another clause of the TOS, Summit requires schools to “agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Summit, and its affiliates, licensors, and service providers, and each of their respective officers, directors, contractors, agents…etc.et. against any and all demands, claims, liabilities, judgements, fines, interest, penalties… etc. including attorneys’ fees etc.” Why the need for so many layers of self-protection and disclaimers of liability?
     24.  What rights does a parent have in general if Summit violates the TOS or the PP?  Are they bound to the binding arbitration clause in the TOS that the school must agree to?
     25.  In another FAQ here, Summit says that it will not sign contracts or written agreements with individual school districts, and if the state requires this under law, districts or schools should try to “bypass that requirement" by claiming that a) Summit is not subject to the law because it is not a “vendor” but an “educational organization” and b) that they should not have to sign a contract because of the “nature of the partnership as a free exchange of ideas and services rather than a paid service relationship.”  But if you are gaining potential economic and programmatic benefits from your access to student data, including using it to build new and better “products” as the TOS states, why isn’t this a commercial relationship bound by state law?  And if this relationship is truly a “partnership” with a free exchange of ideas, why is the TOS so one-sided and seems to protect Summit from any possible liability, and not the school?


11 comments:

Micaela Allen said...

Did you ever get a response from Summit? Have you dont a follow up article to this regarding other concerns with the platform such as it not benefiting students? Parent's not getting communication on a regular basis from teachers and/or concerns about content?

Leonie Haimson said...

I've heard many anecdotal reports of frustration with the platform from parents & teachers; no response from Summit to our questions.

Jack Covey said...

Whenever I hear the name “Summit Charter Schools”, I’m instantly reminded of a rancid situation that recently took place at their San Jose, California franchise

Let’s just say that it involved a different kind of … uhhh … “personalized learning” that one of their teachers, Zachary Drew, engaged in for several months with a female student, and which the Summit Tahoma Charter School’s principal-equivalent (executive director) Nicholas Kim, upon learning of this, engaged in a massive cover-up, the blame of which Kim now pins, in turn, on his higher-ups at the national Summit office, and their legal team who advised him to bury this incident, and not report it to authorities, as is his legal duty as a mandatory reporter.

I’m sure that if Chan or Zuckerberg might be singing a different tune if they had a teenage daughter who was, over the course of several months, statutorially and repeatedly raped by a Summit teacher — as this girl was, since all concerned, including Kim and everyone at Summit now admittedly and freely concede this to be the case.

The fact that Kim and rapist Drew were friends in their late 20’s, and Kim had not been certified or received any degree in administration — the absence of such training playing a role in his bone-head move not to report Drew’s on-going rape of one of Summit’s students.

It’s quite a yarn.

https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/no-rules-charter-schools-summit-public-charter-school-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-having-sex-with-a-student/

(NOTE: In what follows BELOW, I’m supplementing the above article with details I picked up at the July 2016 NEA-RA teacher convention in Washington, D.C., while talking to delegates from northern California.)

Summit Tahoma’s charter’s principal and the teacher-pervert were both friends in their mid-to-late-20’s, so when the principal found out about his friend boinking a student — including the name of the victim — the principal allegedly covered it up, telling both the victim and the pervert to just clam up forever, and it will all go away.

Kim defended himself later by claiming that he’d conducted his own investigation and concluded his friend was innocent, and claimed his higher-ups at Summit as well as their legal team instructed him to do so..

Uh huh.

There’s just one problem with that. He totally violated California’s laws on mandatory reporting. Any school employee, once he has been made aware of evidence, has no such discretion to investigate on his own, and then keep mum about it. Imprisonment and hefty fines awaits violators.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST:

Jack Covey said...

ONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART TWO: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

The story gets wilder. Rumors found their way to parents, who then demanded the police get involved, which they did.

When the principal was out of the building, another administrator allowed the police to interview the victim in an office. The principal returned to find that the interview was underway. He then barged into the room and demanded that the police stop the interview and leave.

The police ordered him to leave the room.

The principal then called the national office of Summit Charter Schools, who told him what to do. The principal, Nicholas Kim, barged in again, and said that a lawyer at the national charter office just told him that he had the legal right to throw the police out of the school, so scram!

In an angry tone Kim then allegedly ordered the victim, “Don’t say another word.”

The police said that if Kim did not leave the room immediately, they would cuff him and arrest him for interfering with an investigation.

The victim then clammed up, and said nothing more.

Whew! That was a close one.

Ehh .. not so fast.

The police later re-interviewed the victim at her home, and — with her parents encouragement and with no Summit administrator attempting to intimidate her into silence — the victim then blabbed the whole story, whereupon all hell broke loose in the community over the whole debacle, in particular, the principal’s covering up pedophilia at the behest of his national charter school office.

In case you’re interested, here’s the mugshot of that loser, child molesting teacher Zachary Drew:

http://www.sjpd.org/iNews/viewPressRelease.asp?ID=2273

Jack Covey said...

PART THREE: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE"

got a little more to say on this Summit Charter School Rape-gate.

I spoke with an attorney friend about this, and he shared his opinions and speculations.

The story broke in the news in February 2016, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed until November 2016.

Therefore, it’s almost certain that the victim’s family and Summit Charter Schools, Inc. both lawyered up and attempted a settlement of some kind during that time period of February-thru-November 2016.

Indeed, it’s in Summit’s interest to put this baby to bed and settle this, to avoid any further publicity, and prevent more public details of this whole thing from leaking out in lawsuit filings, depositions, and trial testimony, which in California would be videotaped and available to the media and to the public (a la the Vergara hearings.), and posted on the internet.

Furthermore, anything which that numbskull Principal (Executive Director) Nicholas Kim said under oath could open him up to criminal charges in the molestation case, and to perjury charges, should he perjure himself. The same goes for any and all of the Summit officials who told Kim to cover the whole thing up.

Well, apparently, the two parties could not arrive at a mutually agreeable dollar amount to effect such a settlement, so Summit is preparing to go for a full-on scorched earth strategy, and engage in a no-holds-barred legal battle against the victim and her family.

Perhaps Summit’s final offer may have been … say … $100,000, but the victim’s parents wanted a minimum of … say … $1,000,000 and neither side would budge.

By the way, this is all guess work. Summit may have offered $ 00.00, and the victim’s parents may have asked for $10 million. Who knows? What we DO know is that both sides could not reach a settlement, and are now prepared to take this all the way to trial, as they are both well on the way to do so.

Since they haven’t settled by now, my lawyer friend insists, this could get particularly ugly. As this link BELOW shows, the two sides are already duking it out over procedural matters:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_State_Santa_Clara_County_Superior_Court/16CV302178/N.V._vs_Summit_Public_Schools_et_al/

For example, Summit’s legal team could claim the underaged victim was some kind of deliberately seductive Lolita, a brazen nymphette who mesmerized and hypnotized the teacher into participating in the affair. They could dig up other students to testify to her sexual history in a sort of “She was already a slut, anyway, so she didn’t suffer THAT much” strategy to get a jury to not find anyone at Summit liable, or if they did find Summit liable, lessen the dollar amount of the award. This is a common and despicable strategy that school districts engage in.

Summit also has the Santa Clara County D.A. on their side, who incredibly declined to prosecute Principal Nicholas Kim for not following his mandatory reporting legal requirements. I’m still gobsmacked by that one.

It’s quite possible that prosecutors the state level could still over-rule the Santa Clara County D.A.’s decision not to criminally prosecute Kim and Summit, and take over the case, then put all the evidence in front of a grand jury to see if they could get indictments against Kim and Summit.

If enough public pressure is brought to bear, this very well may happen.

Summit likely has already spend a mid-six-figure amount so far in legal fees. Should this go all the way to trial, Summit’s lawyers will rack up a good $1-2 million in bill-able hours … at least. They obviously think — or their money-motivated lawyers are influencing them to think — that they can win at trial, or that going to trial will be the least expensive course of action.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST:

Jack Covey said...

ONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART FOUR: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE"

Furthermore, their insurance carrier could be pushing them to take this course of action, to minimize the dollar amount the insurance company pays out. (which they may believe would be for far more than the $1-2 million in legal costs to fight it out in civil court.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(That’s if the Summit Charter Schools organizations actually HAS an insurance carrier. If not, they could really be in financial jeopardy… and explain their go-for-broke strategy of not settling, and putting this in front of a jury.

… but hey, maybe Chan and Zuckerberg could pony up the cash for any future civil settlement and Summit’s legal fees. Those two idiots are used to wasting insane amounts of money on corporate ed reform folly.

Witness their $100 million hare-brained attempt to (COUGH! COUGH!) reform the schools of Newark, New Jersey. Mr. and Mrs. Z, blew all that money, and none of it got to the classroom. None of it was spend on … say … class size reduction, school psychologists, arts programs, music programs, college counselors.

Naah, most of it was vacuumed up by huckster “educational consultants” who didn’t contribute a damn thing to the students of Newark, New Jersey. Those two ass-clown educational amateurs make mega-ditz corporate puppet Cami Anderson look brilliant by comparison.

A good book was written about this by someone who was an embedded observer of the whole reform-Newark fiasco. Its name escapes me at the moment.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Jack Covey said...

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART FIVE: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

I spoke with an attorney friend about this, and he shared his opinions and speculations.

The story broke in the news in February 2016, but the lawsuit wasn’t filed until November 2016.

Therefore, it’s almost certain that the victim’s family and Summit Charter Schools, Inc. both lawyered up and attempted a settlement of some kind during that time period of February-thru-November 2016.

Indeed, it’s in Summit’s interest to put this baby to bed and settle this, to avoid any further publicity, and prevent more public details of this whole thing from leaking out in lawsuit filings, depositions, and trial testimony, which in California would be videotaped and available to the media and to the public (a la the Vergara hearings.), and posted on the internet.

Furthermore, anything which that numbskull Principal (Executive Director) Nicholas Kim said under oath could open him up to criminal charges in the molestation case, and to perjury charges, should he perjure himself. The same goes for any and all of the Summit officials who told Kim to cover the whole thing up.

Well, apparently, the two parties could not arrive at a mutually agreeable dollar amount to effect such a settlement, so Summit is preparing to go for a full-on scorched earth strategy, and engage in a no-holds-barred legal battle against the victim and her family.

Perhaps Summit’s final offer may have been … say … $100,000, but the victim’s parents wanted a minimum of … say … $1,000,000 and neither side would budge.

By the way, this is all guess work. Summit may have offered $ 00.00, and the victim’s parents may have asked for $10 million. Who knows? What we DO know is that both sides could not reach a settlement, and are now prepared to take this all the way to trial, as they are both well on the way to do so.

Since they haven’t settled by now, my lawyer friend insists, this could get particularly ugly. As this link BELOW shows, the two sides are already duking it out over procedural matters:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_State_Santa_Clara_County_Superior_Court/16CV302178/N.V._vs_Summit_Public_Schools_et_al/

For example, Summit’s legal team could claim the underaged victim was some kind of deliberately seductive Lolita, a brazen nymphette who mesmerized and hypnotized the teacher into participating in the affair. They could dig up other students to testify to her sexual history in a sort of “She was already a slut, anyway, so she didn’t suffer THAT much” strategy to get a jury to not find anyone at Summit liable, or if they did find Summit liable, lessen the dollar amount of the award. This is a common and despicable strategy that school districts engage in.

Summit also has the Santa Clara County D.A. on their side, who incredibly declined to prosecute Principal Nicholas Kim for not following his mandatory reporting legal requirements. I’m still gobsmacked by that one.

It’s quite possible that prosecutors the state level could still over-rule the Santa Clara County D.A.’s decision not to criminally prosecute Kim and Summit, and take over the case, then put all the evidence in front of a grand jury to see if they could get indictments against Kim and Summit.

If enough public pressure is brought to bear, this very well may happen.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST:

Jack Covey said...

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART SIX: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

Summit likely has already spend a mid-six-figure amount so far in legal fees. Should this go all the way to trial, Summit’s lawyers will rack up a good $1-2 million in bill-able hours … at least. They obviously think — or their money-motivated lawyers are influencing them to think — that they can win at trial, or that going to trial will be the least expensive course of action.

Furthermore, their insurance carrier could be pushing them to take this course of action, to minimize the dollar amount the insurance company pays out. (which they may believe would be for far more than the $1-2 million in legal costs to fight it out in civil court.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
(That’s if the Summit Charter Schools organizations actually HAS an insurance carrier. If not, they could really be in financial jeopardy… and explain their go-for-broke strategy of not settling, and putting this in front of a jury.

… but hey, maybe Chan and Zuckerberg could pony up the cash for any future civil settlement and Summit’s legal fees. Those two idiots are used to wasting insane amounts of money on corporate ed reform folly.

Witness their $100 million hare-brained attempt to (COUGH! COUGH!) reform the schools of Newark, New Jersey. Mr. and Mrs. Z, blew all that money, and none of it got to the classroom. None of it was spend on … say … class size reduction, school psychologists, arts programs, music programs, college counselors.

Naah, most of it was vacuumed up by huckster “educational consultants” who didn’t contribute a damn thing to the students of Newark, New Jersey. Those two ass-clown educational amateurs make mega-ditz corporate puppet Cami Anderson look brilliant by comparison.

A good book was written about this by someone who was an embedded observer of the whole reform-Newark fiasco. Its name escapes me at the moment.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Enough digression.

Back to the Summit debacle.

On the other hand, the victim’s lawyer, B. Robert Allan, got $2.75 million for his client for a case involving mere “fondling”. (SEE POST ABOVE FOR DETAILS)

Therefore, what do you think that Allan can get — or that he and the Summit victim’s parents think THEY can get — for full-on sexual intercourse/rape and oral sex the victim suffered over a period of several months at the hands of a Summit teacher — the latter period of victimization possibly enabled by Summit administration?

One more thing: where the-hell is media in all this? When this broke, the story was huge — in newspapers, TV, the internet — and suddenly … NOTHING … like the turning off of a blowtorch. If this case involved a teacher perpetrator and administrators covering up things AT A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, I’m guessing we’d know by now the disposition of Zachary Drew’s criminal case.

(Did Drew cop a plea? If so, what crime did he plead guilty to, and what was his sentence?)

Had this happened at a traditional public school, there would also be coverage of the upcoming civil trial, while there’s none in the case when a charter school is involved. This absence of coverage in the media emboldens Summit not to settle, as they’ve got nothing to lose in terms of bad publicity.

Why HAS the media stopped covering this? Who is making that call?

Where the hell is Campbell Brown, that self-appointed protector and avenger of children abused at the hands of teachers? Nowhere, of course, as she must not speak ill of anyone involved in the charter school industry — ideology trumps concern for abused children.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST:

Jack Covey said...

ONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART SEVEN: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

Furthermore, when the Summit honchos found out about this, they knew that, once the police and prosecutors got involved, this could end up costing them mega-millions, so they went for broke and engaged in a Catholic Church, Penn-State-with-Jerry-Sandusky cover-up… crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.

Also, the charter chain’s reputation would also be at stake, so they attempted to bury the raping — in vain, it turns out, as this post makes painfully clear.

The problem with this strategy is that, once uncovered, it could mean criminal prosecutions, not just for the teacher-rapist, but also for the administrators who covered it up.

Furthermore, it’s very possible that Kim’s and Summit’s premeditated cover-up may have led to the victim being further raped in the interim between Kim’s discovery of the raping, and before the victim finally, and at long last, blabbed the story to the police — again, a revelation that occured no thanks to the intimidation on Kim and Summit’s parts directed towards the victim to clam up.

In short, Summit Charter Schools higher-ups and on-site administrator Nicholas Kim did what the Catholic Church and Penn State did — they put the reputation of Summit Charter Schools, its financial well-being (avoiding millions in a civil judgment) and the well-being of the teacher-rapist-friend-of-the-principal Zachary Drew AHEAD OF THE WELL-BEING OF THE UNDERAGE VICTIM, AND ANY OTHER POTENTIAL VICTIMS THAT TEACHER-RAPIST ZACHARY DREW MIGHT ALSO HAVE PREYED UPON.

Stay tuned for more on this.

Jack Covey said...

PART EIGHT: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

*** LATEST UPDATE *** : on the Summit Tahoma molestation and cover-up story

Apparently, the victim and her parents are currently suing Summit Tahoma Principal (Executive Director) Nicholas Kim and the Summit Charter Schools national organization for covering up teacher Zachary Drew’s molestation of a victim with the initials “N.V.”

I just found this:

(I presume that “N..V.”( are the initials of Drew’s victims in the case titled

“N.V. vs. Summit Public Schools et al”)

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_State_Santa_Clara_County_Superior_Court/16CV302178/N.V._vs_Summit_Public_Schools_et_al/

Summit hired lawyer high-powered Huntington Beach lawyer Gregory Wille to defend the Summit organization:

http://www.dbtlaw.com/About/Gregory-A-Wille.shtml

Meanwhile, the parents of victim with the initials “N.V” has hired high-powered San Jose personal injury lawyer B. Robert Allard to sue Summit

http://www.cmalaw.net/attorneys/b-robert-allard

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST:

Jack Covey said...

CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:

PART NINE: SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOLS' "RAPE-GATE":

Allard, the attorney for the Summit Charter student/rape victim, is no slouch in winning in court and getting large settlements in such cases, as the following story indicates. Allard won a $2.75 settlement against a different school for different incident of teacher molestation Is this what awaits Summit? The case (BELOW) has the same exact elements as the Summit case, including school administrators failing to report, and covering up the incident, and thus allowing the molestation to continue.

http://www.cmalaw.net/san-jose-personal-injury-attorneys/allard-settlement-school-molestation-case

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
“Attorney B. Robert Allard Finalizes Settlement in School Molestation Case

Posted on April 03, 2017

“When you send your child to school every day, you do so with the expectation that your child’s school, teachers, and administration will do everything possible to keep him or her safe. Accidents, however, do happen, and your child may come home with a bruise or a scraped knee.

“But what if your child came to you and said that he or she was being sexually abused by a teacher? Assuming the allegations are proven to be true, could the school bear any responsibility for allowing such abuse to occur? A tragic case from the San Jose region recently posed that exact question.

“Patterns of Sexual Abuse

“In the fall of 2015, a Bay Area teacher was sentenced to 40 years in prison after pleading no contest to charges that he molested four fifth-grade girls, including three at Paradise Valley Elementary School in Morgan Hill between 2012 and 2014. The fourth victim was a student at a school where the teacher worked in 2005. According to reports, the teacher isolated his victims, locking them inside a classroom with paper-covered windows during recess and lunch periods.

“Potential School Liability

“While the teacher must now face the criminal consequences of his actions, the case raised critical concerns about the policies and behavior of school administrators. Attorney B. Robert Allard, a partner at Corsiglia McMahon & Allard, L.L.P. and lead counsel for the victims and their families, said that parents repeatedly reported the teacher’s behavior to three different principals in the Morgan Hill Unified School District between 2009 and 2013, but the complaints never went any further. Allard indicated that the police were not notified and no records of the reports were forwarded to the school district.

“Multi-million Dollar Settlement

“As a result of the failures by the school and the district, Allard helped the families file a lawsuit against the district for failing to protect the children under its care.

“Last month, the two sides reached a settlement agreement in the district will pay each of the three victims $2.75 million. The fourth victim could not seek civil damages due to the California statute of limitations. In addition, the school district will be required to implement staff training to identify sexual predators and a sexual abuse prevention program for students.

“Reading Between the Lines

“The settlement agreement contains the expected provision stating that the payments are not a formal admission of any liability. According to Allard, however, the amount of the payments makes a strong statement nonetheless. He said the sums to be paid would not have been on the table unless the district knew that evidence would show a clear failure to protect the young victims.

“ ‘The money speaks for itself in that regard,’ Allard said.

“A Better Road Ahead