UGOTNERVE obtained the reprimand letters that Fred Morton and Andy Armstrong are referring to Henrico County Public School’s board as evidence that Ms. Lucas’ teaching contract should be nonrenewed. They are pretty pathetic and textbook retaliation!
The reasons that Armstrong cited in his February 22, 2008 letter addressed with the allegation that Ms. Lucas was:
1) Unable to manage the learning environment (maintains a safe and healthy learning environment, disciplines students according to school and school division policies and legal requirements, instills respect for school property and the property of others, addresses disruptions in a timely and effective manner.)
2) Judgement (Acts in the best interests of students, uses procedures which “common sense” dictates, avoids conduct or situations contrary to good professional practice)
3) Cooperation with Total Staff (works cooperatively with faculty, administrators, and supervisors to meet the needs fo the total program, is a team player)
4) Communication Skills (expresses self in a clear, concise and appropriate manner when speaking or writing. Maintains open communication with administrators, staff, parents, and students)
*We think that Mr. Armstrong meant to issue a reprimand to himself, Mr. Rokenbrod, Ms. Ellis, and Ms. Royal instead of Ms. Lucas.
In November 2007, he issued a reprimand to Ms. Lucas for refusing to permit three verbally and physically aggressive and disruptive students into her class room that Mr. Rokenbrod refused to discipline. These students continued to be disruptive to other classes with little or no consequence from either Armstrong or Rokenbrod. In fact, they both violated Henrico’s student code of conduct repeatedly when dealing with these and other students. So, why was Ms. Lucas reprimanded for doing right as she upheld the exact requirements of this responsibility? One of the students in question became verbally and physically assaulted another educator, all thanks to Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Rokenbrod.
In April 2007, Ms. Royal was visiting the building and demanded that Ms. Lucas permit a student that had stabbed several other students the previous day, into her classroom. Ms. Royal stated that she wanted the student out of the hall due to guests being in the building. Ms. Lucas refused to admit the student citing the stabbing incident that had taken place and that the student needed to be consequenced. Instead of Ms. Royal addressing the inappropriate behavior of the student, she isssued a reprimand to Ms. Lucas stating that she was “appalled” at the fact that Ms. Lucas would not allow the student to enter the class. We want to know why she, as the Director of Middle Schols, was not “appalled” enough to take actions to deal with this student in an effort to protect the other children and educators within the school. PA-THETIC PRIORITIES! The student in question moved from assaulting students to assaulting a teacher…all thanks to Ms. Royal’s lack of intervention.
In December 2007, Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Royal issued a reprimand demanding that Ms. Lucas no longer document safety issues via email during school hours. They also stated that they were placing a classroom coach in her room because she had been complaining too much about habitual offenders within the school. The goal was to shut her up, but it did not work. So much for following the “Professional Responsibilities for Licensed Professionals.” With this reprimand, Armstrong and Royal violated several areas of the code all so they could go on being incompetent and continue to ignore the horrific condition of the undisciplined students at Rolfe. THEY INSTRUCTED MS. LUCAS TO VIOLATE THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN THEIR REPRIMAND, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED TO THEM! This proves that ethical behavior is dead for some at Rolfe and Central Office:
In January 2008, Mr. Rokenbrod and Ms. Ellis issued a written reprimand to Ms. Lucas because she held two of her peers, Ms. Moore and Ms. Little accountable for violating school, state, and federal laws when dealing with students with special needs. Mr. Rokenbrod wrote in the reprimand that they were “displeased” with the fact that Ms. Lucas confronted them about violating the policies and procedures and that it was “unprofessional” for her to do so. So, what Rokenbrod is saying is that Ms. Lucas WOULD HAVE been professional if she had remained silent while her peers violated district, state, and federal laws????? When is ANYONE “pleased” with being told that they are wrong? If Ms. Ellis, Mr. Rokenbrod, Mr. Armstrong, or anyone else at central office had been doing their jobs, Ms. Lucas would not have been placed in the position to confront her peers for blatant violations of the law that could have cost everyone their licenses if it had not been corrected.
In January 2008, Ms. Royal issued a reprimand stating that Ms. Lucas had violated confidentiality by discussing the impact of making wrong choices with a student while at a birthday party. The student had been suspended. Ms. Lucas contacted the parent of the student, requesting a meeting with her and the student in order to discuss the matter. The parent then advised Ms. Lucas that she had requested a meeting but was advised by Mr. Armstrong that Ms. Lucas did not want to meet with the parent. Ms. Lucas advised the parent that Mr. Armstrong had never asked her to meet with the parent. She also shared that she volunteered to meet with the parent, but was denied that request by Ms. Royal and Mr. Armstrong. This shows that they will lie, steal, manipulate, cheat, and do whatever is necessary to frame Ms. Lucas in order to get rid of her, all because she expects them to follow the law.
Eventually, the meeting was held, it was determined that there was not a violation of confidenitality, just a caring adult encouraging a child that she saw in the community. Of course, Ms. Royal was furious over the fact that she could no longer pervert this incident for her purpose of using it to dismiss Ms. Lucas. She was so furious that she refused to issue a retraction to the originial reprimand even after the mother of the student issued an email stating that she had no problems with Ms. Lucas.
Oh well, sorry Royal, FOILED AGAIN! To make matters worse for Ms. Royal, during a recent school board meeting, a parent shared that Ms. Royal shared confidential attendance information with her regarding a student that she had no ties to. Isn’t that they kettle calling the pot black???!! We wonder if Ms. Royal was issued a written reprimand for that by the board? If not, Ms. Lucas has another discriminatory case against Henrico!
In February 2008, Mr. Armstrong issued a written reprimand to Ms. Lucas for guess what….you will not believe it…..TAKING PICTURES OF STUDENTS! We know…can we say “desperate”? He stated that he had received a statement from a parent that was upset that Ms. Lucas was taking pictures of her student. When Ms. Lucas asked to see the statement, he stated that he left it at home. What the devil?He stated that he would bring the statement to school the next day, but of course, never did. So much for that ”telling the truth” thing that Fred talks about. Ms. Lucas has taken pictures of students for the past year with no question. She is a sponsor for the Girl’s Step Team and took pictures of them. She was completing Valentine’s Day projects with her class and was taking pictures for this. In addition, she was “catching her student doing the right thing” and took pictures of this to email to parents. But Armstrong never asked to see any of the pictures because if he had, it would have dismissed the reprimand that his little hands were so hot to falsify. We will note that NO OTHER TEACHERS OR STUDENTS THAT TAKE PICTURES REGULARLY WERE EVER APPROACHED OR REPRIMANDED BY ARMSTRONG! But that’s not all!
Armstrong also issued a reprimand to Ms. Lucas for handing in “gang activity” photos that were printed out in the library “late”..whatever “late” means. He stated that Ms. Lucas did not had them into him quick enough, so she exercised poor judgement when she asked other teachers to identify the students so that she could forward the pictures with names to administration. Now, in December, he had just instructed Ms. Lucas NOT to deal with safety issues during school hours, but then he issues a reprimand stating that she should have. Armstrong keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper, all because he refuses to tell the truth and just do his job! Of course, even when he received the pictures of the students engaged in “gang-activity” within the school and having printed out the pictures on the school computer and printer, he did nothing. The students continue to walk the school halls even though they should have been referred for expulsion based on the student code of conduct, but had the nerve to issue a reprimand to Ms. Lucas.
We guess that it is easier for a weak leader to recommend a compliant teacher for expulsion than a violating student.
Upon hearing this, other teachers stated that they will NEVER share anything with Armstrong because he would rather blame the teacher than discipline the student.
In EVERY instance of a reprimand that Ms. Lucas received from Rolfe’s administration and central office, she was confronting others for NOT doing the right thing by following district, state, and federal guidelines. If she had just gone along with Morton, Armstrong, Jepson, Royal, Rokenbrod, Ellis, Moore, and Little as they broke the law repeatedly, then all would have been fine. But she did not. She took the “high road” for our children and her peers and has the war scars to prove it!

So, now it is up to the school board to send a message as to whether they will:
1) PUNISH those that support the laws of this district, state, and country for the protection of our children
or
2) SUPPORT those that support the laws of this district, state, and country for the protection of our children
As Ms. Lucas stated during the last school board meeting, if the board votes to nonrenew her contract, then they are sending a strong message to:
Our Educators: DO NOT TELL US WHEN ADMINISTRATORS ARE BREAKING THE LAWS THAT WE APPROVED! SHUT UP AND TAKE IT OR YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR JOB, WE DO NOT CARE IF CHILDREN ARE SUFFERING!
Our Parents: DO NOT TRUST US BECAUSE WE CANNOT BE OUR OWN “WATCHDOGS”. WE CANNOT HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE WITH INTEGRITY FOR THE WELFARE OF YOUR CHILDREN. WE WILL COVER-UP, KISS-UP, AND DO WHATEVER ELSE WE NEED TO DO TO PROTECT THOSE THAT DO NOT ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR CHILDREN AND WILL FIRE THOSE THAT DO.
Our Children: DO NOT EXPECT YOUR TEACHERS TO STAND UP OR PROTECT YOU FROM OTHER ADULTS THAT ARE HURTING YOU WHILE AT SCHOOL. WE, THE SCHOOL BOARD, HAVE SENT A MESSAGE THAT THEY MUST CHOOSE BETWEEN PROTECTING YOU OR KEEPING THEIR JOBS, AND WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THEM WILL CHOOSE TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. IT IS NOT RIGHT, IT IS NOT FAIR, BUT WE DO NOT CARE ENOUGH ABOUT YOU TO SUPPORT TEACHERS THAT ADVOCATE AND SPEAK OUT FOR YOU AGAINST ADMINISTRATORS AND CENTRAL OFFICE STAFF THAT DO NOT ACT IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS. YOUR TEACHER CAN NO LONGER LOOK OUT FOR YOU AND YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU SHOULD NOT FEEL SAFE WHILE IN SCHOOL.
“[To] do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time,
with the right motive, and in the right way,
that is not for every one nor is it easy;
wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.”
(Aristotle, Ethics II.9, p. 1958)
We will see what message the board sends…..
KEEP UP THE NERVE!