A 27-year-old paraeducator in Walla Walla Public Schools recently resigned in the wake of a series of incidents that led officials to investigate his behavior with an elementary school student.

The incidents were the subject of two investigations — one by the school district and the other by the Walla Walla Police Department.

The case sparked public outcry on social media outlets and at a recent school board meeting from parents worried that the district was not doing enough to protect students from potential acts of grooming.

School district and police records made available to the Union-Bulletin show the investigations led to a stalking protection order issued against the paraeducator, who then resigned from the district.

The investigations, however, have not led to criminal charges. As a result, the Union-Bulletin is not identifying the paraeducator, the student or the student’s mother.

The incidents began during the 2020-21 school year when the paraeducator started teaching karate to a student at Berney Elementary School. The student’s mother works at the school.

The documents show communication between the paraeducator and the child grew inappropriate over the course of the next two years, leading the mother to contact police earlier this year and file a restraining order.

The restraining order came after communication between the paraeducator and the student continued and after the school district had multiple conversations with the paraeducator and reassigned him to a different school.

Officials at WWPS confirmed the district did not contact police, stating the paraeducator’s conduct did not reach the threshold to contact law enforcement.

“District policy and state law require notification to (Child Protection Services) or police when there is an allegation of child abuse,” WWPS Assistant Superintendent Chris Gardea said. “There was no such allegation or suspicion of child abuse in this matter.”

Improper communication

While none of the communication between the paraeducator and the child is said to be of a sexual nature, it does show what officials consider an inappropriate relationship between the two.

According to WWPS’s investigation timeline, the mother reported in January 2022 that she overheard the paraeducator use profanity to her daughter.

According to the WWPD report, he also said things such as, “You are the reason for me to live,” and “Without these (karate) classes, I have no purpose.”

The police report states the mother reported that the paraeducator would get upset if the girl missed a class or had any conflicts that caused her to be absent.

When the mother decided to discontinue the lessons and reduce her daughter’s contact with the paraeducator, he became agitated, according to the police report.

And at some point, the paraeducator gave the child a gift — a light that would read disappearing ink. He also passed a note to her written with disappearing ink.

The note raised concerns from the mother and the school district.

The note read, “I am sorry my mistakes have hurt you. If you can forgive me, I promise you a place in my Dojo for life. Nothing you do will ever change how I care for you. All I want is for you to live a life you can be proud of. Forever, your Sensei.”

He also signed his name on the note.

School district investigation

In response to a public records request, the school district provided the U-B with a detailed timeline of its investigation.

The report states that karate lessons for children of staff members occurred on school property — in addition to the families’ homes — and began during the 2020-21 school year.

What is a paraeducator?

Paraeducators are not teachers and are considered classified staff, whereas teachers are considered certified staff. Paraeducators provide assistance to teachers and students in several ways.

They might help manage a classroom, help students with tutoring or provide any other kind of support a teacher or student might need. Paraeducators also provide instructional support for special education students and those who may need help with behavior and social skills.

While paraeducators are not required to have a teaching license, they are required to have a high school diploma or General Educational Development certificate.

They also must have obtained an associate degree, completed at least 72 college-level credits or received a qualifying score on the Education Testing Service, or ETS, paraeducator assessment.

Only one of these three qualifications must be met in addition to having a high school diploma or GED certificate.

The ETS ParaPro test is a competency exam taken by every applicant. It tests applicants on reading, writing, math and assisting classroom instruction.

Walla Walla Public Schools Assistant Superintendent Chris Gardea said paraeducators also go through a background check like all other district employees.

“We do the WATCH background check for the successful candidate, then we have a sexual misconduct form that is filled out and they are fingerprinted,” Gardea said. “Fingerprints are run through Washington state and the FBI, and then they conduct training.”

As of the 2022-2023 school year, Washington state requires that districts provide four days (28 hours) of training on the Fundamental Course of Study or two days (14 hours) of training on the general paraeducator certificate.

The WATCH background check, or the Washington Access to Criminal History, is conducted through Washington State Patrol. According to their website, the database shows conviction information, arrests less than one year old with disposition pending and information about sex and kidnap offenders.

— Loryn Kykendall / Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

When staff members reported that the paraeducator was taking the lessons too seriously, a decision was made not to have the karate lessons at the school anymore.

The mother brought concerns to the district after the incident involving profanity in 2022.

Berney Elementary School Principal Michelle Carpenter interviewed the paraeducator, who admitted to using profanity, according to the WWPS report.

He was given a verbal warning.

Before the 2022-23 school year, the mother asked the district to reassign the paraeducator out of her daughter’s grade, and they did.

Carpenter emailed the paraeducator, “As discussed last year: stick to your schedule and do not go into (the mother’s) room unless you have a work-related task. I would suggest no interaction with (the daughter) outside of her room unless it is work-related.”

During the school year, the mother told the paraeducator that he did not have to end all communication with her daughter. According to the district, she gave the paraeducator permission to give her daughter a birthday gift. The birthday gift was the light that read disappearing ink.

The mother also told the paraeducator in September 2022 that he could always say “hi” to her daughter and that he did not have to ignore her.

This is also supported in text messages that were part of the police report.

In October 2022, Carpenter observed that the girl had joined a “lunch bunch” group hosted by the paraeducator. She was concerned and contacted the mother, who told Carpenter that it was OK for her daughter to join the paraeducator’s lunch bunch.

That same day, however, is when another staff member witnessed the paraeducator passing the girl the note in disappearing ink.

Carpenter interviewed the paraeducator, who admitted to giving the girl the light and notepad as a birthday gift.

Carpenter instructed him to have no further contact with the girl.

According to the WWPS investigation, in December 2022, inappropriate communication was witnessed by another staff member who reported that the paraeducator told the girl that she had lied to him.

Again, Carpenter interviewed the paraeducator, who admitted to that exchange with the girl. He was issued a written warning. Carpenter also informed human resources at this point.

The mother told the district’s human resources office on the same day that she was concerned the paraeducator was still talking to her daughter.

According to the WWPS investigation, the paraeducator denied initiating the contact, and video evidence confirmed his claim.

Mindy Meyer, the district’s director of human resources, met with the mother about the situation in December 2022. According to the report, “The mother stated a few times that she did not want anything bad to happen to (the paraeducator), but that she wanted him to quit interacting with her daughter.”

Meyer reported the situation to Gardea, the district’s assistant superintendent.

According to the report, Gardea and Meyer “concluded that there had been a personal relationship between (the paraeducator) and the family that had deteriorated and (the paraeducator) was struggling to understand what had happened. Based on these findings HR determined to reassign (the paraeducator) to another building.”

Still, additional contact occurred after the paraeducator was reassigned.

In March 2023, the mother saw the paraeducator at Berney Elementary School. The WWPS report states he was there to meet with another student after being asked to show up by an intervention specialist.

While he was there, the girl saw him and said hello. The paraeducator did not acknowledge the girl, according to the report.

Gardea and Meyer determined the paraeducator did not violate his standing order not to make contact with the girl and informed the mother.

This is when the mother said she was considering getting a restraining order.

In April 2023, Carpenter witnessed the paraeducator at a carnival at Berney, despite the fact he had been moved to another school.

The mother reported that the paraeducator did make brief contact with her daughter at the carnival.

District leadership placed the paraeducator on leave May 25, 2023.

He resigned June 9, 2023.

Police report and protection order

While messages show the mother was OK with the paraeducator having some contact with her daughter as recently as October 2022, this appears to have changed after the incident involving the disappearing ink.

After the incident at the carnival, the mother contacted the Walla Walla Police Department.

The police report details many of the above incidents and includes the officer writing that he believes he had probable cause that the paraeducator committed stalking.

While charges were not filed, the mother filed for a stalking protection order in May 2023 in Walla Walla County Superior Court. The court issued a temporary order until a hearing was conducted in June.

At the hearing, Walla Walla County Superior Court Commissioner Patricia Fulton granted a one-year stalking protection order against the paraeducator.

According to court documents, the paraeducator appeared at the hearing, and did not object to the order.

In the application for the restraining order, the mother listed the paraeducator showing up at Berney after being moved to a different school as a reason for requesting the order.

After the initial WWPD report, a detective conducted a follow-up, and interviewed the daughter. The detective also interviewed the mother, the paraeducator and Meyer.

In the summary of her report, the detective wrote, “The elements for stalking or another crime don’t appear to have been met. However, there are concerns about (the paraeducator’s) fixation with (the girl) … Based on my training and experience, I am concerned that the behaviors (the paraeducator) demonstrated are indicative of grooming.”

School board meeting

The incident was shared with the Walla Walla School Board during the public comment session of its Aug. 15 meeting.

Two local residents obtained the police report and asked at the meeting why it took the district so long to react to the situation. 

This sparked concern across local Facebook groups and other social media outlets. 

WWPS released a statement Aug. 24 on Facebook addressing the situation.

“The district’s primary concern is the safety of the children within our care,” the statement read. “That concern extends to the elementary student and family involved here, who did not ask to be dragged into the public sphere.”

The district said the people who made the issue public at the meeting did so without a request from the mother.

“For these reasons, the district will not share more information about the situation, even though that information provides added context and facts that address the timeline of events and actions taken by school administration and human resources staff, consistent with adopted policies and procedures,” according to the district’s Facebook statement.