so what your saying is that the law is not an acceptable excuse???.....huh.....so the administators should break the law??.....your kidding, right??

That would be "you're" and not "your". Both times.

Seriously? They won't answer questions about anything. I'm fairly sure there is no law "protecting" them from ever having to answer questions from parents. They even admitted at the one school committee meeting that they do answer questions at School Committee meetings....just not now.

I am also very confused by this. And can't they just say so if this is the case? Was there a 51A then? Did this incident happen, there was a 51A but it's not related to the firing?

Can you reference the law(s) and or statutes? There are so many, please let me know what law(s) and/or statutes they are bound by. I absolutely want people to follow the law. Since everyone is referencing "following the law", I would like to know which
Thanks

To Noyes Parent & Anyone else w/same issue: I don't think anyone is saying to ignore the law. Until the last meeting when the petition was announced and the info on the filing of & then dismissal of the questionnable 51A, the main issue w/the parents at Noyes was that of policies & procedures around the handling of the questionning of 6/7 year olds and the entire communication chain to the parents of room 15. The superintendent and school committee continue to lump these issues in as a "personnel issue" thereby not having to address them. That has been the main frustration w/the administration. NOW, however, the unwaivering support of the school committee in the face of some very damaging info is the source of concern. Understandable that AT the meeting, they said nothing & lent their support given they weren't prepared. But turning what appears to be a blind eye to the requests by the tax payers to look into this situation, and just giving us all the cold shoulder while continuing to say that everything is misleading isn't constructive for our school system.

Andy G - thinking of Doyle and your earlier comment re: a potential looming teacher's strike, are the principals etc. also included in contract negotiations or just teachers? Anyone know how that works? Overall, I really think what happened with Mrs. J and the bizarre united front of the SPC and Wilson in the face of a mountain of evidence of their mismanagement - suggests they were gearing up for a far uglier fight (teacher contracts)? But I am just reading between the lines and looking desperately for some of this nonsense to make some logical sense. . . .

UserName-Tough to get into the heads of the intellectually challenged (I would have an easier time navigating inside the head of one my boys). Nonetheless, I have no idea what they could possibly be thinking. As far as the principal goes, I am pretty sure they are not part of the union. They, like the superintendent have contracts that fall outside union negotiations/contract and therefore, unlike teachers they have less job security...though I guess we should ask Janice Donahue how that went for her.

As one who has known Janice Donahue since teaching with her in the late 1960's, and who has followed her admirable career and personal accomplishments for over 40 years, I can only say that this whole situation is an unbelievable travesty of justice regarding an outstanding professional educator.
It is truly a black mark on the town of Sudbury in toto - due to the egregious actions and attitudes of Supt. Wilson and Ms. Doyle - as well as arguably incompetent representation by counsel from the MA Teachers Association.
It is all quite beyond disgraceful, actually - and astounding that a simple issue was so utterly mishandled.
I would issue a word of caution to any educators now teaching, or thinking of any future teaching, in Sudbury to become fully acquainted with what really occurred in this ugly situation; the handwriting is clear.

The "just cause" clause seems to be in Chapter 71, section 42:

"A teacher with professional teacher status, pursuant to section forty-one, shall not be dismissed except for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, insubordination or failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards developed pursuant to section thirty-eight of this chapter or other just cause."

We can assume from all of the glowing statements by parents that Mrs. Donahue wasn't dismissed for inefficiency, incompetency, incapacity, or failure to satisfy standards. So was it "conduct unbecoming", insubordination, or some other "just cause"?

Incidentally, I looked through the other sections in Chapter 71 and saw nothing that looked like "no school official shall speak publicly about personnel matters". That doesn't mean it isn't in there; it could be in some section I didn't read deeply enough. But until someone can quote chapter and section, we should continue to demand an answer to this very basic question: what really happened?

Sorry for the typing error. It should say say Section 42.

noyes parent - please don't forget that for many of us, the Mrs. J dismissal is only a small part of the issue. The other weaknesses of the leadership were the emotional & educational neglect of the children left behind in the class, not telling the parents that their children's teacher was gone, not notifying parents that school officials were interviewing said children to build their case, the lies told to parents and taxpayers about how well Wilson was managing the situation, the disrepectful way parents and taxpayers were treated as SPSC meetings. This has been all very carefully documented at one SPSC meeting after another.

I know it would feel better to act like a few people are making a mountain out of mole hill, but the truth is we have some real problems that need to be looked at. Things can be improved, perhaps with some different people steering the ship - - but there's plenty of hope. But please be careful not dismiss the other angles & the pain of the parents &kids who were hurt by the way this was all handled. They deserved an apology at the very, very least. It's quite an insult to act like the only issue & victim here is Mrs. J. There are 20 plus parents of traumatized first graders who would be happy to help you understand otherwise. My guess is that you don't mean to come across as unkind and narrow-thinking as you are . . .While you are busy defending the actions against Mrs. J - would you also shrug off the stress and pain caused to those families?

Thanks, Mike. I found this: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf, which lists the clauses your cited as one of the exceptions to full availability of public records. As you noted, it says that the definition of the exemption has been interpreted to varying degrees, often situationally. Termination information is generally considered an exception (i.e. not available).

However, it goes on to say this:

"It is necessary to perform a two-step analysis: first, determine whether the information constitutes an “intimate detail of a highly personal nature”; and second, determine whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest associated with disclosure of the highly personal information."

So you're right, there's food for thought here. It does explain why in other cases the school officials have been able to give details - they judged that the public interest outweighed the privacy interest in their cases.

Personally, I believe that is true in this case as well. I wish we could at least get the teacher's opinion on whether she'd like the information made public, but the gag order prevents even that.

Mike,
Have you, or anyone that you know of, filed a request for public information? I believe the Secty of State's office would opine on what should be released. I might be wrong but that was my understanding.

I was wondering the same--could we get anything by requesting information. There must be info on the 51A (ironically if she were really a threat to the children I'm assuming they would have disclosed more?) but now they're saying that's not relevant? Part of the problem here is that there are too many battles being fought at the same time: The firing of Mrs. J., the lack of communication and apparent mishandling of this at Noyes, the implications of this event to all SPS teachers, the way Dr. Wilson has handled this and possibly the School Committee. That's just my list! Makes my head spin. I saw the school bus go by yesterday afternoon and thought "at least first grade is over for Room 15 and they get a fresh start in the fall."

One more thing - you sound like you have a personal agenda against this teacher and you are 100% entitled to that. But just please be mindful that this is far more complicated and bigger than just that one action or person.

Mrs. J is reluctant to speak publically because the attorney for the superintendent (or school committe, or town, whoever she works for) has made it very clear that things like that will not help her in her negotiations with them. The administration is holding her reputation, her job, her pension, and her benefits over her head. At 68 years old, would you throw all that out to the discretion of public whim?

You have an excellent point, and one that is at the crux of this matter. We don't know what the truth is. All we know is what we can learn from what has been stated or reported publicly and what we can observe from people's behavior.

The public reports lead one to believe that a beloved, respected teacher was fired after breaking up a fight.

Observation leads one to believe that the school committee and Dr. Wilson are blind to public interest and the impact of their decisions.

Perhaps neither of these two conclusions is the truth. If so, when there are public statements and reports that indicate so, and when there are behaviors to observe that indicate so, I will happily be the first one to say "hey, I was wrong. Now that I have more information, I know I was wrong." I expect that many many other people will follow suit - people are as upset, if not more, about the HANDLING of the teacher's firing as about the firing itself.

Bottom line: if the truth is not the same as the perceived truth, the responsibility lies with the school committee and Dr. Wilson, and it is in their interest and the public interest for them to bring perception and reality together.

@noyes parent- If you have been through many of these situations then you should certainly understand how difficult it is for an individual with limited means to fight back against a town or corporation that can and will spend $50,000 without batting an eye to protect itself. Mrs. Donahue is no doubt being threatened with dire consequences by the attorney retained by the administration and is left to fight with a union appointed lawyer (during union contract negotiations) or to hire her own counsel at great personal expense. It tends to make one reticent when benefits that you have earned with decades of service are being threatened and you know that you do not have the resources to contest.

Andy, nice but you left out Lincoln-Sudbury RHS. K12 solves this obvious inequity.
Their teachers are grossly overpaid leaving few crumbs for SPS teachers to fight over.

Yes, SPS likes to overpay Administrators.

Andy,
Glad to see someone has done their homework regarding teacher's salaries in Sudbury. Too many people look at the LS teacher's contract and think the SPS teachers have the same salaries and benefits. While LS teachers are among the highest compensated in the state, the reverse is true of the SPS teachers. For several years, I also thought the same, until someone took the time to explain the difference to me. I have been following this thread and it's nice to see you support your position with actual data, not just hearsay. Our K-8 teachers continually work with our kids who produce in the top 10 test scores out of 350 districts, yet they continue to be paid the worst in Metro West. And on top of this, I hear their new insurance package is also the worst. I wish other people took the time to understand how much their children are benefiting from the SPS system. We all move here for the schools and the teachers are a big reason for our children's success. Let's keep supporting our kids and pay the teachers what they deserve.

Actually it has happened. Lincoln is holding or has held a special Town Meeting to fund the shortfall at LS caused by their failure to comply with the Special Act of 1993 (Ed Reform).

The problem now is that they will only pay their fair share moving forward. No indication that they intend to pay for the previous 19 years where they underfunded their share at the regional high school.

This is the main reason why O'Brien didn't want to let Haarde act represent BOS at the regional high school.