Hein: “You Look Like My Wife. She’s Infertile…What Are Your Plans After HS?”

Newly obtained documents -- including a district "letter of direction" -- shed light on the alleged actions of a Lake Stevens educator accused of serially violating student-teacher boundaries

“You Look Like My Wife. She’s Infertile…What Are Your Plans After HS?”

- 55-year-old math teacher, to a 15-year-old female student.¹

LAKE STEVENS — This jarring bit of dialogue is pulled from exclusively obtained investigative files that detail the ongoing criminal and administrative investigations into Lake Stevens High School teacher Mark Hein’s misconduct with students.

A quick refresher: Hein was arrested and booked into jail on January 25, 2023 after Lake Stevens Police Department (LSPD) obtained probable cause for his arrest on six charges of sexual misconduct involving minor students. Charges were dropped prior to Hein’s arraignment, with prosecutors and police stating that investigations remained open. Both the prosecutor and the police stated that they intended to refile new charges against Hein. To date, that hasn’t occurred².

However, J425 continues to obtain and analyze new information pertaining to the ongoing criminal and administrative investigations into Hein’s actions.

A 22-page affidavit unsealed January 25, 2023 attributes the above quote to Hein. According to the author of the affidavit, Detective Kristen Parnell of the LSPD, Hein directed the above statement to the 15-year-old girl that he’d centered his attentions on at the beginning of the 2021 school year. J425 was able to verify this quote from a third source, and we decided to publish it after considerable debate.³

The 15-year-old student on the receiving end of Hein’s casual marital betrayal is the initial victim that we’ve previously referred to as JANE. The nightmarish ordeal she’s been subjected to is detailed in earlier reporting and the newly-obtained affidavit contains a few more excruciating new details like the one above… while covering familiar narrative ground with regard to Hein’s reported treatment of the kids this community entrusted to him to educate.

But that’s not all.

Via Public Records Act request, J425 obtained a new trove of documents that include relevant portions of Mark Hein’s personnel file, as well as copies of documents that the school district provided to the LSPD in response to a June 2022 warrant seeking — among other things — Hein’s electronic communication with students and Hein’s activity in the high school’s electronic grade tracking program.

As part of the district’s PRA response, for the first time, J425 has obtained a copy of the Lake Stevens School District’s (LSSD) investigatory findings as summarized in a Letter of Direction provided to Hein on February 15, 2022. Remember the date.

In our previous report — one of the most-read and shared stories in J425 history — we broke the news that even before the LPSD investigation into Hein began, the school district had already completed a probe into Hein’s actions, determined that he’d violated policy, and repeatedly directed Hein to cease all contact with the students in question. We also reported that this direction had no effect on Hein’s pattern of communication with the 15 year old victim: in fact he picked up his pace of communication after receiving written direction to leave the girl alone.

And while our previous report stated that district investigators determined that Hein violated student-teacher boundaries as defined by district policy, we were unable to delve into specifics.

Today, we’ve got the precise information.

This is the two page letter of direction issued to Mark Hein after a district investigation found he’d violated student boundaries.

In addition to the letter of direction, documents obtained from the school district included copies of the notes mentioned in earlier reports.

---

Aftermath of the Letter

One would assume that if any room for a misunderstanding of this situation existed, that misunderstanding would’ve been cleared up in no uncertain terms by the letter of direction above. It’s pretty clear cut. Hein is told to leave the students alone. But he doesn’t. He defies the letter. And in doing so, he provides us with an object lesson in the effectiveness of district (non) disciplinary measures against a focused predator⁴.

Our last story detailed how — after stoically making it through a full semester of Hein’s um hands-on approach…JANE transferred to a new math class to get away from Hein.

Photo of handwritten note Hein would place on JANE’s desk and impatiently wait for her to respond. Pictured note shows Hein’s reaction to JANE informing him of her impending transfer at the semester break. Photo via LSSD PRA response.

Unfortunately, he only increased the pressure, forcing JANE & her mom to report it all to the district. Re-read the last article if you want those details.

JANE’s report prompted the district inquiry that began on February 1, 2022 and culminated in the letter of direction which was provided to Hein in a meeting with his superiors on February 15.

The question we’re left with now, after reviewing the letter of direction and receiving a copy of Hein’s personnel file as it was constituted following the end of the 2022 school year this: Why doesn’t the file contain ANY further records of reports or related discipline regarding Hein’s harassment of JANE following the February 15 letter of direction? Because it’s apparent that Hein’s contact with the student continued.

- Both JANE and Detective Parnell state that multiple additional complaints detailing Hein’s continued and escalating misconduct were submitted to LSHS administrators.

- The letter of direction we’ve published today clearly lays out the escalating discipline Hein is supposed to face should he ignore the direct order to cease contacting the students in question.

And yet his file contains nothing at all.

So where are the records of JANE’s reports, and why does it appear that nothing further was done to stop Hein from harming the student?

She did, after all, suffer serious harm as a result of his continued contact. And, possibly, from the disassociative feelings she encountered when her post Feb. 15 reports were apparently met with inaction.

By April 2022 JANE was inconsolable with the perceived lack of district response to Hein’s continued contact after he was directed in writing to leave JANE alone.

The affidavit details once incident where JANE reports another post-February 15 contact from Hein to building adminstrators, only to be met by what she feels is disbelief. Incredibly, the affidavit describes administrators pulling surveillance tape to confirm JANE’s accusation — and even after the tape backed up JANE’s report…JANE felt nothing was done to stop him or escalate discipline in the fashion described by the letter. The affidavit describes her in tears, detailing the frustration to her mom.

And despite this and multiple other reported instances of Hein continuing to contact JANE in violation of the written order requiring him to stop, no further discipline or additions to the letter of direction are present in Hein’s June 2022 file. So did administrators record JANE’s reports? Where are they? What was done? Or was nothing further done until the cops showed up?

---

Why Wasn’t Evidence of Grade Switching Included in Letter?

JANE’s ongoing reports of Hein’s contact aren’t the only information that seems glaring in its absence.

Also missing from Hein’s file and the letter of direction are the grade changes that Hein verifiably made in favor of JANE, this despite the fact that the records obtained from the district detail an internal probe examining electronic grade keeping records and questions asked of Hein regarding the changing of JANE’s grades.

Both the internal district investigation and Parnell’s later probe conclude that Hein adjusted JANE’s test grades from D to A on several occasions, against JANE’s stated will and without merit. This is serious even fireable misconduct that’s codified in law. If you know he’s hurting kids, you’d want to use all the ammo you had to get him out of here.

Especially given the district’s past track record in this area: district officials kept a former teacher through at least five documented instances of serious misconduct because of supposed difficulties in finding enough grounds to discharge the teacher.

At the very least, this sort of thing makes for poor optics, or as the former LSSD attorney charged with questioning the predatory teacher put it:

“I mean, you can imagine the headline: Five times investigated; five accusations; still employed.”

So with that in mind, the grade-switching stuff should’ve been the type of A1 info that a district investigating a boundary-invading teacher would want to document. Right?

From our Feb. 13 report:

According to Detective Parnell’s findings…Hein changed (JANE’s) grades without regard to her earned marks, even over her stated objection. 

It’s worth noting … 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.

To be more specific, the fact that Hein’s illicit grade switching isn’t detailed in the letter of direction is noticeable and relevant because it is apparent that the district had compiled evidence of the grade switching; and because this type of behavior is one of the few areas of teacher misconduct explicitly covered in Washington State law and provided as a reason for discipline up to and including dismissal.

And while it may seem like grade switching is a less serious infraction than repeatedly rubbing the bare skin of a 15-year-old student’s thigh after she’s asked for the touching to stop, when viewed in the light that arbitrary grade switching can have a destabilizing and delegitimizing effect on the value of the earned grades of students district wide, it’s understandable why the practice is viewed so seriously in state code.

Which is all the more reason why the improper grade switching is noticeable by its absence in the February 15 letter of direction.

We’ve asked the district for clarification on this topic.

Navigating A Sprawling Timeline

It’s important to remember that the investigation into Hein’s misconduct spans a considerable timeline. JANE’s first day in Hein’s math class occurred in September of 2021. The district investigation and issuance of the letter of direction occurred in February of 2022. JANE’s health declined later that Spring.

Detective Parnell arrived on the scene in June of 2022, some five months after the letter of direction was issued. Hein was placed on administrative leave in August of 2022.

The public at large didn’t learn of this matter until Hein’s January 2023 arrest and the parallel LSPD tweet that laid out the shocking allegations that rocked this community.

Lake Stevens Police @LKS_POLICE

All of this is to say that with regard to this story and the letter of direction we’re publishing for the first time, we are only at February of 2022 on the timeline. It’s important to cover this timeframe because this is when core incidents — and the initial responses to the incidents — occur.

As we’ve covered previously, Hein’s pattern of contact wasn’t interrupted by the letter of direction or his superiors ordering him to cease contact with the affected students.

As we detailed in the Feb. 13 story, if anything, Hein picked up the pace, with little or no interference from his superiors:

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.

According to Detective Parnell’s sworn affadavit, Hein’s continued “stalking” of JANE following the letter of direction were reported to LSHS administrators.

“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.”

It was only after she shared her experiences with an external counselor — a mandatory abuse reporter — that LSPD was notified and Detective Parnell arrived on the scene and began her investigation into Hein, which remains open and ongoing.

Picking up where the LSSD probe of Hein’s actions left off, Parnell’s affidavit states that she talked to district leadership about their handling of JANE’s initial complaint and her ongoing reports of Hein’s improper behavior.

“I spoke to Lake Stevens School District Superintendent Ken Collins who acknowledged Mark had been spoken to, that a member of Human Resources, John Balmer, had been present, and that Associate Principal Debra Hay had likely been present as well,” Detective Parnell said.

And while the intitial LSSD investigation considered much of the ground that Parnell later covered… and resulted in the aforementioned letter of direction… that omits grade-switching evidence but orders Hein to cease all contact with JANE…the seeming indifference to Hein’s continued contact with the victim after the issuance of the letter stands out.

Considering that LSSD statements acknowledge ongoing investigations into Hein’s behavior (investigations are compulsory with each new victim, and there are at least two additional students who’ve come forward with on-the-record complaints against Hein confirmed) it is possible that the district is re-examining Hein’s behavior that was already considered by the February 2022 internal probe.

And as we will detail in an upcoming story, Detective Parnell’s riveting one-on-one face off with Hein resulted in multiple new avenues of investigation with regard to district policy…we are working under the assumption that the PRA response we received included all disciplinary/investigatory material involving Hein’s behavior through June 2022.

Meaning that if Hein was disciplined for continuing to escalate his contact with the victim in direct violation of the February 15 letter of direction, we found no indication of such discipline occurring before June 2022, nor any information that demonstrates JANE’s continued reports of Hein’s contact were noted anywhere in Hein’s file.

In short, if anything was done about Hein’s continued “stalking” after the February 15 order — the very behavior that led to JANE’s seizures and the LSPD intervention — the action isn’t detailed in the file.

For now the reasons why Hein wasn’t stopped from continuing to contact JANE remain a mystery, as do the reasoning behind the district decision not to detail Hein’s grade switching in his letter of direction.

However these questions will not go away unanswered. For now, the district is operating under a blanket no comment, citing the ongoing investigation into the Hein matter. We sent these questions to the district’s attention.

We’ll let you know if and when we get a response.

---

Follow-Up Questions Submitted to LSSD

1. Per Detective Parnell’s affidavit, administrators received multiple post Feb. 15 reports detailing Hein’s continued misconduct. Please detail whether the district recorded the victim’s post Feb. 15 reports of Hein’s continued contact...and what escalating actions, if any, the district took to address this behavior with Hein during the 2022 school year.

In short if the victim’s reports were received as the affadavit describes, why wasn’t Hein stopped? What measures were taken to attempt to stop him and/or escalate the matter as described in the Feb 15 letter?

2.  Can the district please address the described instances of administrators reportedly reviewing camera footage to confirm whether Hein was in fact continuing to pursue and contact the victim after the February 15 letter (during the remainder of the 2022 school year)?

If this in fact occurred, please detail where these reports and responses are recorded and the actions, if any, that were taken after reviewing the film.

In short, I’m getting at the appearance that - based on the affadavit — the district had the victim’s report and video evidence that Hein was continuing to bother the victim after his receipt of the February 15 letter, and yet, based on the PRA response that I believe contains Hein’s file through mid June 2022, no further interventions or description of his contact are described or noted. 

3. Please explain why grade switching wasn’t included on Hein’s letter of direction.

It seems evident that the district’s February internal probe ascertained that Hein had switched grades in the system illicitly. This behavior is one of the few teacher misconduct issues specifically covered in the RCWs and WAC, and if included, seemingly would’ve provided additional ground for the district to stand on in disciplinary and legal matters. I’m just trying to understand why this wasn’t documented and addressed with Hein in the February 15 letter.

---

Previous reporting includes:

Hein Ignored Multiple District Orders to Stop Contacting 15-year-old Student

HEIN REPORT - Ripped jeans were his favorite: he'd jam his fingers deep into the seams. She said no. He pushed harder. He was 55. She was 15

1

I initially decided against publishing the quote due to the fact that Hein’s wife and kids may read it. However, upon further reflection, I decided that all I needed to do was verify whether the statement was true, to the best of my knowledge. Because if it was true, then it isn’t my job to try and cover up for Hein. He told a 15 year old girl that his wife was infertile and then segued into asking the girl what she was up to after high school — according to a signed affadavit written by an officer of the law, reviewed by a prosecuting attorney and approved for probable cause by a sitting judge. That’s a high standard of veracity. That said, we independently verified the statement on our own. With that leg work done, there’s no reason to cover up this statement. It exists in public document, it’s relevant to the matter at hand and we confirmed it independently.

2

We refer to Hein’s misconduct without the “alleged” qualifier because an internal Lake Stevens School District investigation found evidence of Hein’s misconduct and determined that Hein had violated student-teacher boundaries detailed in a district conduct policy.

3

“Any falsification or deliberate misrepresentation, including omission, of a material fact by an education practitioner concerning any of the following is an act of unprofessional conduct: …(5) Evaluations or grading of students and/or personnel.” - WAC 181-87-050 Misrepresentation or falsification in the course of professional practice.

4

Predator is a precise term, defined in WAC, referring to teachers who pursue boundary violations against minor students.