Fixing LAUSD’s Rubber Room With Hot Knives

Teachers Locked Down in LAUSD's Notorious "Rubber Room"

Los Angeles Superintendent John Deasy’s take all prisoners approach to teacher discipline in the wake of the Miramonte Elementary School molestation case last year (see here and here) has swelled the number of teachers in LAUSD’s rubber room (teacher jail) to over 300.

Today the school board will consider a proposal to speed up and “improve” investigations, ostensibly to speed up the removal of criminals and exoneration of innocents. The problem is that the only true innocents, in the eyes of Deasy, are the children. Deasy has repeatedly asserted that his primary goal is to protect the children (never mind if that means punishing or firing innocent teachers).

Under the resolution by board member Tamar Galatzan, employees would have to be told why they were being removed from their job (unless it would compromise a law-enforcement investigation). This leaves open the possibility that a teacher could be placed in the rubber room based on spurious accusations by discontent parents or students, and not be told why they were there. According to the Los Angeles Times, the resolution would also require that they be quickly advised about the expected length of the investigation and whether or not they would be paid in the interim.

There are several other problems with the resolution. If the LAUSD bureaucracy did not have time, expertise and willingness to complete its investigations promptly and competently before, why would they have this ability now? Additionally, speeding up the timeframe for an investigation runs the risk of weakening teachers’ due process rights. Though the goal is to protect children, it is important to remember that people get accused of things all the time which are untrue, including teachers. Speeding up the inquiries could limit teachers’ abilities to defend themselves against specious accusations or exaggerated punishments for minor infractions.

Bill to Undermine Teacher Due Process Revived in California State Legislature

California state senator Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) has reintroduced legislation that is supposed to speed up the dismissal of teachers for gross misconduct, the Los Angeles Times reported this week. The new legislation, SB 10, will be very similar to a failed bill advanced last year by Padilla. The text of the bill was not available as of Monday.

In the wake of LAUSD’s sex abuse scandal (see here, here and here), it is understandable that the public would want a more efficient and effective process for removing child molesters from the schools. However, the problems in LAUSD were not the result of ineffective disciplinary rules. Rather, the school district was asleep at the wheel, routinely ignoring parental complaints, losing personnel records, and not doing the necessary investigative work when it did respond to complaints. Several parents are currently suing the district for its incompetence in handling the Miramonte case.

According to an audit released last week, LAUSD frequently failed to report teacher misconduct to state Commission on Teacher Credentialing authorities and took too long to investigate abuse allegations. In one case, a principal took eight months to notify an employee after it had concluded its investigation. Overall, the audit found that LAUSD failed to promptly notify state authorities about 144 misconduct cases. Some of the cases were report as much as three years after the allegations were first made.

Padilla’s previous attempt at “improving” the disciplinary process would have done nothing to make school districts more accountable, more effective at record keeping or better at their internal investigations. It would, however, have significantly reduced due process for teachers, by taking the final disciplinary decisions away from an objective state body and placing them in the hands of local school districts, which are often biased against their own teachers and which have a strong stake in controlling public perception, even at the expense of teachers’ due process rights. LAUSD demonstrated this last year when it fired the entire staff at Miramonte Elementary, even though only two of its teachers had been accused of abuse.

The state audit concluded that the lengthy and expensive dismissal process for teachers in California contributes to districts making settlement agreements with them instead of fully investigating and disciplining them. This is because certificated employees (i.e., teachers) who appeal their dismissals are currently entitled to a hearing before the Commission of Professional Competence (CPC). One of the goals of the Padilla legislation is to reduce settlements by speeding up the dismissal process, in part by ending teachers’ rights to a hearing before the CPC.

While it is certainly desirable to get molesters out of the classroom as quickly as possible, the right to an appeal is a necessary due process right, as innocent teachers are sometimes arbitrarily or vindictively accused of misconduct by administrators, parents and students. Ending this right will do nothing to protect children, as districts already have the right, as well as the legal obligation, to immediately remove accused abusers from the classroom, even while investigations are pending. While the new legislation would do nothing to expedite the removal of molesters from the classroom, it would reduce the amount of time it takes from the end of the investigation until a teacher is dismissed, thereby saving districts money that would have been spent housing teachers in “rubber” rooms or paying them salaries during the appeals process.

AFT Plan to Overhaul Teacher Discipline

Teachers accused of misconduct should have their cases decided within 100 days, said Kenneth Feinberg, the arbitration expert investigating teacher discipline at the request of the American Federation of Teachers. Feinberg will release his plan next week for how to deal with accusations against teachers like absenteeism, corporal punishment and sexual abuse. However, his call for a quick response, while seemingly in the interests of schools and teachers, may actually undermine teachers’ right to due process.

His report calls for:

• Objective criteria, rather than vague and subjective allegations
• Immediate notice to the accused teacher
• A preliminary process for screening out meritless complaints and informally resolving meritorious complaints quickly and, when possible, without a full-blown hearing
• Hearing Examiners chosen and trained by the Program Administrator should be given full authority to supervise discovery and conduct a hearing culminating in a written final decision

Feinberg correctly notes that one existing problem with teacher discipline is that some state statutes allow punishment for vague and subjective infractions like “moral turpitude and immorality,” “neglect of duty” and “general cause.” However, Feinberg’s calls for a revamping of criteria  do not entirely solve this problem, leaving substantial room for subjectivity and vindictiveness on the part of administrators. Here are just a few of his recommendations below (in black) and my criticisms (in red).

• “Conviction or allegation of a felony or other crime involving moral turpitude.” This still allows for the subjective determination of what constitutes a “moral” infraction.
• “Improper use of physical force” and “Inappropriate physical contact.”  Again, these still allow for the subjective determination of what is “improper” or “inappropriate.”
• Excessive and repeated absenteeism and or tardiness is also subjective. What if a teacher or their child has a chronic health condition that requires repeated absenteeism?

Another problem with the plan is that it does not specify how evidence shall be collected or weighed. For example, if a student accuses a teacher of making a racist comment, will that accusation be the only evidence considered? Will the principal be allowed or required to interview student witnesses? If so, will the principal be allowed to “cherry pick” witnesses or be required to interview all witnesses or a random sampling? Will the teacher be allowed to bring in eye witnesses and character witnesses?

How this evidence is weighed is of critical importance. Statements by teachers who were not present, but who “know” about the accused teacher’s misconduct through rumor and innuendo by students and other teachers should not be allowed as evidence, as it is not proof that the accusation is true. Yet administrators sometimes do bring up such accusations to support their case. Furthermore, even statements by eyewitnesses are not entirely reliable, as they can be biased or inaccurate, especially in the case of students who have “an axe to grind” with the accused teacher (e.g., unhappy over grades or strict discipline policy).