Discover more from The Journal 425
Teacher Ignored Multiple District Orders to Stop Contacting 15-year-old Student
J425 is first to confirm that an earlier LSSD probe already ruled on teacher’s actions with the 15-year-old-girls. He wasn't cleared. But he didn't listen.
A 2022 LSSD investigation found Hein in violation of a 15-year-old student’s boundaries. He was directed by his boss to stay away from her for a second time, but this time with a letter, which he saw as unfair. He certainly didn’t let that unfair letter or his boss dictate his actions.
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
LAKE STEVENS, WA: While parallel criminal and administrative investigations into Mark Hein’s alleged misconduct continue in silence, the J425 can exclusively report that on at least one occasion prior to the current investigations, Hein was investigated for the exact same misconduct current probes are considering… and Hein was found in violation of the district policy designed “to protect children from inappropriate conduct by adults”.
A 2022 school district investigation launched after a parent complaint determined that Mark Hein invaded student boundaries and violated district policy with regard to his behavior towards a 15-year-old female.
The accusations of misconduct were sustained which resulted in a Letter of Direction placed in Hein’s file, directing him for at least the second time to cease all contact with the student in question. None of that had any practical effect on Hein’s behavior.
Neither the aforementioned letter, the verbal direction of his bosses nor the express wishes of the 15-year-old student (whom he would not stop contacting) would alter the path of his actions.
So it’s an object lesson in bureaucratic half-stepping today in this J425 exclusive where we explain how — once again — warnings were not heeded, directions weren’t followed, and adults got out of the way and left a 15-year-old on her own, caught in the tractor beam of what the district euphemistically refers to as a “boundary invader”.
In other words, Hein was written up in February 2022 for the very same conduct that got him arrested 11 months later —the very same conduct that keeps him sidelined today.
The major difference? The district had no reason to expect LSPD Detective Kristin Parnell would come knocking. That was a surprise. And today, using Parnell’s own findings, we’ll take you back to 2021 and walk you through the ugly history.
So while everyone else is quiet, J425 is ready to share. We’ll show you the policy the district dinged him on in 2022 and the clever manner in which Parnell built her criminal investigation to also align to the same district policy.
And never forgetting that at its heart, this is the story of a 55-year-old man fighting to do what he wants with other people’s kids. We’ll walk you through the narrative timeline of events from the student point of view, starting on the first day of school, 2021 and pausing our reporting somewhere in the summer of 2022. It’ll take us long enough to get to that point. You’ll see.
Further, I’m going to take a brief moment to underline the seriousness, the solemnity and the importance of this matter. We’re talking about the well-being and future of this community’s kids. So today we’re gonna brief this thing. Get ready to read some footnotes. Today, we skip the conjecture and rely only on independently sourced material to bring you a little more clarity as, J425 takes you on a walk alongside 15-year-old girls, quietly looking for any sort of cover from the unwanted attention of a thrice married, twice divorced and once-temporarily-restrained1 55-year-old husband, father, servant of Christ, self-help author, math teacher and basketball coach.
Last month, a district statement followed shortly after the LSPD tweet announcing Mark Hein’s arrest and booking on six minor-involved sex crimes.
The district statement indicated that math teacher and former basketball coach Mark Hein was placed on leave while allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct were investigated by local law enforcement and (the) district.
The new information brought to light today is the unsaid fact that the district had previously investigated Hein prior to the appearance on the scene of the LSPD — finding him in violation of School District Policy #4900. The kicker? The district looked at Hein for the same subject matter he remains under investigation for today. Specifically: for breaching the boundaries required of a student/teacher relationship, or “boundary invasions” as the policy terms it.
Further, J425 can exclusively report that the district’s completed investigation of Hein related to his behaviors with the initial 15-year-old victim — henceforth referred to as JANE (see footnote)2 whose troubles with Hein were exhaustively detailed in Detective Kristin Parnell’s investigative report released 1/25/23.
Mother and Daughter Ask LSHS for Help
On February 1, 2022, JANE and her mother met with LSHS administrators including Principal Leslie Ivelia. And for the first time, the mother and daughter detailed months of alleged abuse the 15-year-old had suffered literally at Hein’s hands...abuse that continued through multiple firewalls that shouldve stopped it, before eventually leaving JANE nearly incapacitated and unable to attend a regular school schedule.3
First Day of School 2021
JANE met Hein at the beginning of the 2021 school year — she was enrolled in his LSHS math class.4
JANE’s semester with Hein began with the math teacher taking a direct interest in her, assigning the 15-year-old a seat in the front row, directly in front of him.
Viewed in the light of the district policy that Hein was obligated to follow, the list of documented boundary violations JANE was subjected to is quite long.
On the first day, Hein learned that JANE was part of an external dance team5 during class introductions and her involvement in this became one of his fixations.
- He’d repeatedly seek information about when and where these non-school dance events took place, and he pressed for details about the types of costumes she’d wear at these events.
These inquires made JANE uncomfortable and forced her to lie as opposed to revealing her off-campus location to Hein.
However, this was among the least intrusive of Hein’s reported behaviors towards JANE.
POLICY 4900 - MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL STAFF/STUDENT BOUNDARIES
A boundary invasion is an act or omission by a school employee that violates professional staff/student boundaries and has the potential to abuse the staff/student relationship.
An inappropriate boundary invasion means an act, omission, or pattern of such behavior by a school employee that does not have an educational purpose and results in abuse of the staff/student professional relationship.
Examples of inappropriate boundary invasions by staff members include but are not limited to the following:
- Any type of inappropriate physical contact with a student or any other conduct that might be considered harassment under the Board’s policy on Harassment and Sexual Harassment of Students;
- Singling out a particular student or students for personal attention and friendship beyond the professional staff-student relationship;
- Socializing where students are consuming alcohol, drugs, or tobacco;
- For non-guidance/counseling staff, encouraging students to confide their personal or family problems and/or relationships. If a student initiates such discussions, staff members are expected to refer the student to appropriate guidance/counseling staff. In either case, staff involvement should be limited to a direct connection to the student’s school performance;
- Hein passed JANE notes and demanded that she write back.
From the detective’s report:
“…Mark (Hein) would take out a piece of paper from his own notebook while he was teaching, write “chit chat,” or ask about boys… then, as he was walking around the classroom, discretely place the note on JANE ’s desk so no other students would notice. If JANE did not start writing a response on the note, Mark would point at it, indicating to her he wanted her to write something back to him. After JANE wrote a response, Mark would walk by her desk again and discretely pick up the note. This would continue for as long as Mark wanted to maintain the conversation.”
- Hein gave JANE special treatment and candy in front of the class and
- Hein changed her grades without regard to her earned marks, even over her stated objection. (It’s worth noting here and revisiting later that the unilateral changing of grades is one of the specific types of misconduct codified in the Washington Administrative Code cited as a fireable offense.) 6
- Hein spoke to her about her relations with boyfriends and even independently contacted her boyfriends to discus her relationship and physical conduct with them.
From the detective’s report:
“At the time JANE was in Mark’s class, she was dating a boy who tried out for the school basketball team. During tryouts Mark had approached the boy and asked, “How’s JANE as a girlfriend?”. The boy texted JANE that night telling her what happened7. The next day in class Mark told JANE he had talked to “your boyfriend.” Mark then asked JANE “What do you guys do together?”. JANE said, “Hang out.” Mark then asked, “What do you do when you’re alone?” JANE again told him they hang out and asked why it mattered. Mark said he was “just wondering,” then walked away.”
- Hein repeatedly invited 15-yeaer-old student JANE to attend overnight non-school excursions with him.
From the detective’s report:
“On another occasion, Mark tried to convince JANE to go to an overnight camp for Young Life….Mark told her he was running the camp that year. JANE told him she was not a churchgoer, but Mark said, “It’s okay. I’ll keep you safe.” Mark repeatedly emphasized the fact that the camp was an overnight camp, but JANE refused to go.”
- Hein communicated with JANE over email and social media.
- Hein required JANE to meet him before school in order to pose for pictures with him.
- Hein stated that he could procure any boy on the basketball team for her, a statement that infers a level of control over the players he coached that is more pimp/prostitute than player/coach.
From the detective’s investigative report:
“Mark then told JANE she was “in luck” because he could “get her anyone (she) wants” from the boys’ basketball team. Then Mark pulled up the roster for the boys’ basketball team, which he coached, and told JANE to pick a boy, which she refused to do.”
- JANE felt that Hein manipulated her into situations when she was alone with him.
- Unwanted Touching
Most invasive of all, Hein subjected JANE to daily unwanted physical touching, during which Hein would run his hands over JANE’s thighs, under the teachers desk he required her to sit at with him.
According to Parnell’s report, Hein touched JANE’s thighs every day.
And worse yet, he ignored her direct order for him to stop unwanted touching.
From Parnell’s report:
“Each class, Mark would typically teach his lesson, then hand out worksheets for the students to work on for the remainder of the class period.
Once the worksheets were handed out, Mark made JANE move from her assigned seat so she and Mark were sitting side-by-side (facing the class). When JANE questioned Mark about having to move to (face the class), he told her, “In case you need help. I’ll always be right here.”
JANE provided the photographic evidence8 that shows the position next to Mark where she was forced to sit. The photos show their knees touching, and JANE stated that if she moved away from Mark, he’d just slide closer.
Detective Parnell’s report describing the strange seating arrangement and associated touching.
“While JANE was sitting at the desk (with Mark), Mark would regularly rub her thigh or her arm.
Mark started rubbing JANE ’s thigh about two weeks into the school year.
He touched her thigh at least one time each class.
JANE demonstrated how he rubbed her thigh by rubbing her own thigh:
She placed her open hand palm down on the top of upper thigh.
She rubbed her hand along her thigh until her fingertips reached her knee, then rubbed her hand back up her thigh to the approximate starting point.
Mark would also rub her arm in a similar manner.
JANE was wearing pants every time he rubbed her thigh, but several times she was wearing a pair of jeans that are ripped on the thigh.
When she wore those jeans, Mark would touch her bare skin when he rubbed her thigh.
When Mark touched JANE’s thigh, she would pull her leg away from him.
Immediately before he touched her thigh, Mark would look around the classroom at the students doing their classwork.
JANE believes he was checking to make sure he would not be seen touching JANE.”
- Detective Parnell’s report also details how JANE told Hein to stop only to be ignored:
“JANE only told him not to touch her one time.
When she did, Mark responded, “Why? I’m not doing anything wrong.”
She said his response made her feel like she was crazy, so she did not want to keep telling him not to touch her.”
Unsurprisingly, given the stage-like presentation of Mark and JANE’s seating position, directly facing a class of 20 or so students - there is evidence of students communicating with JANE about Mark’s behavior and registering their concern and disapproval.
Copies of noted electronic communications are included in the Detective’s report and serve to underline the public nature of the abuse JANE was subjected to and the very public and open manner in which Hein felt comfortable operating.
From the detective’s report:
‘More than one student in the class reached out to JANE regarding Mark’s interactions with her.
One told JANE it was “awkward to watch” and suggested she tell someone what was happening “because it’s not ok.”
Another student in the class, one whom JANE is not friends with and only knows casually from attending school together, sent her a text message via Snapchat one day while JANE was sitting behind Mark’s desk that said, “You look really uncomfortable. Are you ok?”’
The aforementioned events, occurring daily in front of an audience of 20 or so, began in September/October of 2021 and peaked in December.
JANE soldiered on throughout the remainder of the semester without lodging a complaint.
Instead, she focused on a path out of the class, working with counselors to obtain a transfer to a different math teacher, assuming that geography would fix the issues she faced with Hein.
JANE even informed HEIN of her impending transfer and was met with a passive-aggressive display in which HEIN, a 55-year-old married father, attempted to solicit sympathy from his 15-year-old-student, before inquiring whether JANE’s mom was mad at him. He wouldn’t ask JANE if she was mad at him for a few weeks still. But when he did, after the calendar flipped to 2022, he finally broke whatever dam was stopping JANE from filing a complaint.
Campus Protests Against Sexual Abuse Explode Parallel to JANEs Struggles
It’s worth noting, given the public nature of Hein’s ongoing invasion of JANE’s boundaries, the dates of a series of anti sexual abuse and grooming protests that swept through the student body at LSHS at the close of 2021.
What began as online and social media protests grew into a full-blown walk out on December 12, with students vocally and directly calling out admisntrators for allowing adult males to take advantage of female students.
The protest also directly cited the serial predator and former teacher Chris Mattingly, and the environment in which he was allowed to operate and conduct at least seven illicit relationships during his controversial time at LSHS. It’s worth noting that Mattingly and Hein were hired as Girls and Boys Varsity Basketball Coaches on the same day in 2003, and that the two were college buddies who even played college basketball together at PLU.
Despite the very public ongoing abuse of a sexual nature occuring in Hein’s class, school-level administrators largely dismissed student complaints, according to this Valhalla story, which quotes LSHS Principal and Vice Principal; and a letter to students sent out after the protest reviewed by the J425.
The protests were documented in the Everett Herald, which termed the walk out a protest against “rape culture” sparked by “recent and passed incidents” at Lake Stevens, among other places.
Students at Lake Stevens High School held a walkout calling for school and district administrators to address allegations of sexual misconduct. It was ignited by a report that a staff member allegedly walked into the girls’ restroom unannounced, said Lake Stevens senior Blue Evans. Superintendent Ken Collins told The Herald it was a false allegation, and the result of one student’s report. Evans said the superintendent claimed he cannot do anything about things “that simply aren’t true.” Collins said the investigation lasted a couple days, and “video evidence outside the restroom … just showed incontrovertibly that didn’t happen.” He continued: “I think that all kind of has died down now,” he said of students’ reaction. “Hopefully, it has, and hopefully, this article will not reignite that. We dealt with it professionally and appropriately. And I think we’re good now.”
Student organizers said the protest was about more than one instance though, with 2022 graduate Blue Evans alluding to Mattingly’s history at Lake Stevens.
“When you get under the surface on this stuff … there’s been issues at this high school for a really long time. I had a mother contact me that had gone to Lake Stevens High School and said that this stuff happened when she was there too,” Evans said.
In Retrospect, We Know Abuse Was Occuring
In retrospect, we know that an LSPD Detective later found probable cause that a 55-year-old male staff member was committing six minor-involved sex crimes targeting a 15-year-old LSHS student in the days leading up to the walk out.
We also know that the probable cause report includes a somewhat difficult to describe —yet extremely disturbing — bathroom related-episode occurring just before the walkout.
Detective Parnell found this bathroom-related episode of student-teacher misconduct important enough to give a full page to in a probable cause report relating to sexual crimes perpetrated against an LSHS student occurring in the days leading up to the walkout.
From the detective’s report
“…Students’ bathroom privileges had been taken away at school due to a TikTok trend, so the school was only allowing students to use one bathroom on campus. During class, JANE had asked if she had time to go to the bathroom and return to class to get her things before class ended. The bell rang while JANE was in the bathroom and she immediately thought Mark had misled her about how much time she had because Mark’s 6th period was a “planning period,” meaning he did not have students and she and Mark would be alone in the classroom when JANE returned. When JANE returned to the classroom, she saw someone else had packed her belongings back into her backpack. Mark told her he had done it to “Make it easier for [her].” JANE attempted to leave for next class, which was PE, but Mark told her to stay, offering to write her a note to get out of PE. JANE told Mark she wanted to go to her next class, but he continued telling her to stay with him. During that interaction, a teacher (friendly with Mark) entered Mark’s room and, hearing Mark and JANE ’s conversation, said, “Yeah, why don’t you stay?” Mark then said, “Yeah, just stay. Like I said.” JANE finally left and went to PE. When she later looked inside her backpack, she noticed it contained Whoppers, KitKats, and lollipops. Those candies were not in JANE ’s backpack when she left to use the bathroom, but she knew Mark kept that same kind of candy in his desk.”
Whether this is the bathroom incident the students meant to reference is beside the point. The Valhalla and the Herald quote students at that time speaking of a culture of male to female sex abuse and culture.
And while the administration dismissed the student complaints of systemic sex abuse culture at the time of the December walkout — it would not be long before school administrators would find themselves directly interceding in events that became the basis for multiple sex abuse charges - as the dam began to break and the wreckage of Hein’s first semester grooming and touching activities began to flow through into the daylight.
Specifically, on February 1, 2022, a parent/student meeting revealed to school leadership the three month grooming/touching/sex-and-power-abuse disaster that was Hein’s daily mistreatment of JANE in the form of an official complaint. That same day, Hein was officially directed not to contact JANE and one other student.
And yet the very next day, Hein flaunted this direction overtly, stormed into JANE’s new math class, touching her and haranguing her for transferring…all in front of a class full of students, in clear violation of direct instruction he’d just received hours before.
From Zero to Misconduct Reeeallll Quick
With no practical or physical barriers in the way, Hein continued to help himself to contact with the now declining 15-year-old, who'd soon be transferring for the third time in hopes for an escape from Hein. To reiterate, a district investigation sustained allegations of misconduct against Hein and on February 15 he was directed for the second time — this time in writing — to leave JANE alone. And yet he spoke to her on February 16, 17 and 18. And then again on February 21, 22, 23. He continued to bother her every day until she transferred again.
By February 15, the District officially acknowledged misconduct arising from JANE’s Feb 1 complaints about Hein. In other words just 65 days after the student walkout protesting a culture of sex abuse, a district investigation had already resulted in a sustained allegation finding that Hein invaded student boundaries in violation of Policy 4900, a policy built to protect students from the improper conduct of adults.
As a result, the district once again directed the 55-year-old Hein not to contact 15-year-old JANE in any manner, this time accompanying the verbal order with an official Letter of Direction placed in Hein’s file.
Per the detective’s report:
“According to statements made by Lake Stevens School Administration employees and the date on the “Letter of Direction” of direction given to Mark in response to the school’s investigation of JANEs complaints, Mark was formally notified, in writing, on 02/15/22 that he was “directed to have no contact with (victims) as both have stated they feel uncomfortable around [him].”
Hein later grouses about it to the detective in his criminal interview, calling it unfair. To him.
Detective Parnell writes: “Mark told me he knew the school had investigated JANE ’s complaint against him, which resulted in a Letter of Direction being issued to him due to “boundary-type invasions” that were uncovered by the school’s investigation. He said the letter directed him to “not engage” with JANE at all and he described the situation as “really unfair toward [himself].”
However unfair Hein felt the investigation had been to him, he sure didn’t let its result stop him.
Hein didn't heed the investigative finding, or the supervisory instruction, or the Letter of Direction in his file.
Hein certainly did not heed the wishes of the increasingly shell-shocked 15-year-old girl, supposedly protected by Hein's now-sustained "boundary invasions".
Nope, in a surprise to absolutely no one with an IQ that tops room temp, the teacher on a sustained misconduct streak paid no mind to the district and its demonstrably ineffective, glacially-slow, bureaucratic wrist-slapping process that, judging by 30 years of local history (here, read this), has little to no chance of ever favoring a child over the predatory behavior of people like this thrice-married, twice-divorced, once- legally-restrained9, near-retirement age teacher and basketball coach...who admittedly struggles not to let fantasies about his students "fester"10, not even when the student is as "quite striking"11 as the 15-year-old he'd continued to harass.
With no practical or physical barriers in the way, Hein continued to help himself to contact with the now declining 15-year-old, who'd soon be transferring for the third time in hopes for an escape from Hein.
To reiterate, a district investigation sustained allegations of misconduct against Hein and on February 15 he was directed for the second time — this time in writing — to leave JANE alone. And yet he spoke to her on February 16, 17 and 18. And then again on February 21, 22, 23. He continued to bother her every day until she transferred again. And then he showed up outside her third math class of the semester.
From Detective Parnell’s report:
“JANE was forced to walk past Mark’s classroom each day on her way to her new math class. Mark was always standing outside his classroom “fist bumping” students, which is something the school encourages teachers to do. Each day when JANE walked past him, he would speak to her, asking her if she was mad at him if no one else was within earshot. If there were other people around, he would call JANE over to him, tell her to stand there for a moment, then would ask if she was mad at him once everyone was gone from the area.”
Read that paragraph again. Starting the day after the investigation dings him and he’s warned again. He orders her. To stand in place in the hallway. Consider that scene. And what it implies given everything leading up to it.
From the detectives report:
“Due to the fact that Mark continued to ignore direct orders not to contact JANE, JANE had to switch classes again, mid semester. JANE told the school administrators that Mark was still having contact with her. JANE had her schedule changed, moving to a third math teacher on 03/10/22. His room was also located on the opposite side of the building from Mark’s room, so JANE no longer had to walk past Mark’s room on her way to class. She didn’t see Mark for two weeks, and then left on Spring Break. When JANE returned to school on Monday 04/11/22, she saw Mark in the hallway outside her math classroom filling his water bottle. The two made eye contact, then JANE entered her math classroom. JANE saw Mark in the same place, at the same time each subsequent day that week. Each time he would stare at her as she walked into her math classroom and each day after seeing him, JANE called her mom crying because she was so upset that Mark was not following the direction of school administrators. On the Thursday after spring break, 04/14/22, JANE went to her math classroom after school to retake a test. On her way to his classroom, she physically bumped into Mark after turning the corner to the hallway his classroom was located in. Mark said, “Hey” to JANE before she ran for her math classroom to get away. After she completed her test, she went to her boyfriend’s baseball game, which was being played at Lake Stevens High School. While sitting in the stands with her friends, she noticed Mark walking nearby (approximately 20 to 30 yards away from her). After talking briefly with two unknown adults, Mark looked at JANE and waved before continuing to a nearby parking lot.”
From the detectives report:
(Based on the amount of people in the bleachers that would have been visible to Mark at the time), he could not have been waving to anyone other than her.
“Each of the incidents that occurred after Spring Break were reported to Lake Stevens High School Principle Leslie Ivelia, who spoke to Mark and, according to her own statements during her interview, made it very clear he was to stay away from JANE per the previously mentioned Letter of Direction.
JANE’s seizures began a short time after seeing Mark at the baseball game and were so frequent she was unable to attend school or participate in any extracurricular activities as she required the constant supervision of her parents. She has not seen or heard from Mark since.” - end this portion of the report.
So that’s where we leave off this portion of the Mark Hein files. The girl was harried into seizures… by a 55-year-old who paid less than zero attention to the bureaucratic wrist slaps given to him by leaders who may care enough to document a boundary invasion… but verifiably did not care enough to put any portion of themselves (or someone they designate) between the insubordinate staff member and the student they’d promised to protect from him.
A 15-year-old girl… touched — make that rubbed — by her teacher — without permission every day she was in his class - an entire semester.
She said no. He said yes. She transferred. He followed, he entered, he made a scene. She reported it. He ignored orders. The school investigated. He ignored findings. And the letter in his file.
The detective writes that the principal says she reminded Hein about the letter. I get the feeling that Hein wasn’t too concerned about the letter. Or the verbal instructions he was given. Obviously he still enjoyed the freedom to help himself to whatever he felt like, whenever he felt like it. Most days he felt like it.
This was a girl who didn’t cry. She didn’t complain. She didn’t even rat on him when he was touching her legs under the desk… against her stated wishes obviosuly… every day for four months. She gritted her teeth and endeavored to transfer. Why make a problem when she could just wait him out? Right?
He showed up outside her new classroom, now her third math class of the semester. Each time he would lock eyes with her as she walked into her classroom. And now each day she called her mom crying, because she was so upset that Mark was not following the direction of school administrators.
“Her seizures began a short time after seeing Mark at the baseball game and were so frequent she was unable to attend school or participate in any extracurricular activities as she required the constant supervision of her parents.”