Inappropriate Teacher Behavior and Consequences

Doing a skim of odd stories today, I came across this one from Cedar Hill, TX. Before jumping to any conclusions, I don't think that this story has any particularly "Texan" or "southern" factors in it. It's something that I believe could happen at any school in any state in the US.

The short version is that a HS teacher has resigned after an incident of "inappropriate hugging" with an 18 yo student. Story here. The official investigation claims that nothing more ever happened between the two, and it was a one-time incident.

Personally, while I can see the potential for disaster in the general situation, the specifics of this case make it seem very much like a tempest in a teapot.

But what bothers me is the ultimate sentence in the story:

Quote:

---

Because the teacher's resignation was accepted, she can retain her certification and move to another school district.

---

Which burns me up, incredibly.

Either what this teacher did was worth that resignation, and the official attention it's gotten - and if confirmed it should have an effect on her career options from this point. Or it's not worth that much attention. This half and half nonsense seems to me like a perfect set up to allow actual abusers to keep going through school district after school district after school district - without an attempt being made to prevent repeat offenses, just so long as it's not in MY back yard.

Yeah, I feel you. The teacher (given your description) probably shouldn't have been fired at all. But if a teacher is fired for inappropriate behavior, why in the world would they be able to teach elsewhere? Either it was inappropriate, or it wasn't.

It says the teacher reported the hugging first, so I'm going to guess that the teacher probably isn't a threat to kids everywhere and deserves another chance.

Well maybe, just maybe in this case, they were unsure if the offense was fire-able or if anything wrong really happened but all parties concerned will be happier with the teacher starting over and not repeating her action.

Her position in school might now be untenable but they do not feel she is in anyway unfit to teach.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hatesfreedom

It says the teacher reported the hugging first, so I'm going to guess that the teacher probably isn't a threat to kids everywhere and deserves another chance.

---

Then why fire her in the first place? :RAEG:

hates, I did say in the OP I felt the situation seemed to be a tempest in a teapot. Certainly seems, from what has been reported, to be much ado about nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by What Exit?

Well maybe, just maybe in this case, they were unsure if the offense was fire-able or if anything wrong really happened but all parties concerned will be happier with the teacher starting over and not repeating her action.

Her position in school might now be untenable but they do not feel she is in anyway unfit to teach.

---

That may be all that's happening, Jim. However, the implication to me was that the story was describing a general policy, rather than a specific decision affecting only this case.

As a one time thing, I have no problem seeing this teacher passing on to another school. Then again, I would have no problem seeing her staying in this school, either.

A general policy of this nature, however, is disturbing, to say the least.

True Loki, very true.

The teacher resigned, but was not fired. Why should any teacher be stripped of their certificate due to resignation? If that was the policy, then every teacher would essentially be stuck at one school for their entire careers. If that wasn't the blanket policy, then how could you enforce it? You can't just arbitrarily strip people of their certificates. I'm not sure how Texas works, but I am relieved it apparently doesn't strip people of their certificates for essentially no reason. In order to do this, she'd probably have to either go to trial or go to the state certificate board and prove wrong-doing. Hugging an 18 year old anywhere in the country, even Texas, isn't illegal.

If she had actually been guilty of inappropriate conduct, she probably would not have had the option to resign. While we do still hear of predators in schools, I would guess that districts are far, far more likely these days to simply fire the teacher rather than try to aid in shuffling them around. The lawsuits and bad press for something like that would not be something they'd want to deal with. And if a teacher is fired, rather than allowed to resign, then they could lose their certificate for that state.

All of the outrage hinges on her being fired, but according to the OP's words and quote from the source, she wasn't "fired" so I don't get the outrage (or general annoyance as the case may be).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

All of the outrage hinges on her being fired, but according to the OP's words and quote from the source, she wasn't "fired" so I don't get the outrage (or general annoyance as the case may be).

---

It hinges on the assumption that she "resigned" -- i.e. was asked to resign, rather than that she just coincidentally decided she wanted a job somewhere else right after the incident. When someone "resigns" it doesn't usually mean they voluntarily left their job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

If she had actually been guilty of inappropriate conduct, she probably would not have had the option to resign. While we do still hear of predators in schools, I would guess that districts are far, far more likely these days to simply fire the teacher rather than try to aid in shuffling them around. The lawsuits and bad press for something like that would not be something they'd want to deal with. And if a teacher is fired, rather than allowed to resign, then they could lose their certificate for that state.

---

You have a very rosy view of the concern that school administrations and teacher's unions have for public attention.

In 2000, a local teacher was found to have "inappropriately" touched a student. As part of a deal with the student's parent, and the prevent bad publicity, the teacher was removed from a classroom environment, and no charges were filed. The parent was assured that the teacher in question would never be back in a classroom situation.

Fast forward a few years: the parent found out that David Heil, the teacher in question, was back in the classroom.

Fortunately this happened before the seven year statute of limitations had passed, so she filed charges, and the DA went on to get a conviction.

The point here is that I believe that this incident, while a single incident, is indicative of just how much concern school administrators have about bad publicity. They will choose the quiet option, and to hell with the good of the students.

ETA: Certainly at the time of the publication of the 2007 AP study about sexual abuse in the public schools, they used the Heil case, which had just gotten back from the jury, as an example.


On preview: Or what Exy said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

It hinges on the assumption that she "resigned" -- i.e. was asked to resign, rather than that she just coincidentally decided she wanted a job somewhere else right after the incident. When someone "resigns" it doesn't usually mean they voluntarily left their job.

---

Since she reported herself and cooperated with the investigation, I would imagine that she intended to resign as soon as she went to her superiors. She wasn't "caught," and since she is the reason for the investigation, I would be willing to bet money that she tendered her resignation before she was prompted to do so. From the story:

Quote:

---

The teacher was the first to come forward about the hug when she offered her resignation about two weeks ago.

---

I have no reason to doubt that. I certainly don't see why I should assume she was really, secretly fired but allowed to save face and her certificate with a resignation.

ETA: Both of you are assuming facts not within evidence. Since I have absolutely no way of decoding what you think is happening and comparing it to what actually happened (since I'm not a mind reader nor I was there during the meetings with the teacher), I'm just going to have to disagree with you and leave it at that. Nobody in this story was victimized, we have no idea how the school or district has handled similar issues in the past, we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the news report, and no realistic way to close this apparent loophole without fucking over everybody who does resign in good faith.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

It hinges on the assumption that she "resigned" -- i.e. was asked to resign, rather than that she just coincidentally decided she wanted a job somewhere else right after the incident. When someone "resigns" it doesn't usually mean they voluntarily left their job.

---

I don't think the article supports your assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the article

The teacher was the first to come forward about the hug when she offered her resignation about two weeks ago.

---

As it stands, I don't see much to get outraged about. The student wasn't even a minor, and the teacher was the first to come forward.

I don't doubt that there have been school district cover-ups, but this story is not a good example of such.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

I have no reason to doubt that. I certainly don't see why I should assume she was really, secretly fired but allowed to save face and her certificate with a resignation.

---

Pepper, Orual, see post #6 in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

That may be all that's happening, Jim. However, the implication to me was that the story was describing a general policy, rather than a specific decision affecting only this case.

As a one time thing, I have no problem seeing this teacher passing on to another school. Then again, I would have no problem seeing her staying in this school, either.

A general policy of this nature, however, is disturbing, to say the least.

---

What general policy are referring to? That teachers can keep their certificates when they resign? Or are you saying they should have said "You did nothing illegal, but we won't let you resign! There's a (legally adult) student involved, but you're fired anyway! And you'll never teaching again!" I really don't understand how the facts of this case can be extrapolated to other cover ups. She approached her superiors, she resigned, and now she's finding working at a new district. Are you saying that teachers who resign at all should lose their certificate? Are you saying that teachers who resign because of something related to a student should lose their certificate? How would you, or anybody else, enforce that? It seems ripe for abuse. Are you saying that teachers who "resign" but are really fired shouldn't be allowed to use that "loophole"? Then why not find a story that's remotely related to that stance?

Yeah. What pepper said.

I don't understand the narrative you guys are pushing here. As far as I can tell, the teacher didn't actually do anything wrong, and that being the case, she shouldn't have been encouraged to leave. Unless it's pure coincidence and she had just gotten another job in another district -- which is probably not the case, given what time of year it is -- why would she have decided to voluntarily resign? I'm peeved about this because it looks, as far as I can tell, like an innocent teacher got railroaded here. It seems like you have to make some pretty weird assumptions for her resignation to have been completely voluntary.

On the (clearly unlikely) possibility that she did something that was actually inappropriate -- i.e. gave the kid an inappropriate hug right before giving him an inappropriate fuck -- then the district permitted her to continue.

I don't think that's likely, but as far as I can tell whether or not she did something bad, an injustice was done here -- and probably, she got de facto shitcanned so the district could make a show of "protecting the kiddies" when she wasn't a threat in the first place.

Pepper, let me begin by stating that I always view any kind of mid-term resignation with a great deal of suspicion.

It doesn't suggest to me someone looking for a job that better suits their established career goals - it implies to me that something about the situation has become completely and critically untenable. There may be other explanations: health emergencies come to mind, or the potential need to move on short notice, but neither of those situations obtain here.

Here we have a teacher resigning after an investigation into what the school board seems to have taken as a credible report of a serious impropriety. That you and I both agree that the impropriety should never have been considered an offense doesn't change how the school seems to have treated the report. Now, as a result of this investigation, the school is saying there was no harm and no foul. And, oh, by the way, that evil teacher has resigned - so we won't have any similar problems in the future. Not that there was any problem in the first place.

If you can't see why that sequence of events raises disturbing implications to my mind, you're probably sane and very trusting of institutions. ;) I have no faith in school administrations, nor in teacher's unions. I have met many people who have been members of each type of organization whom I would trust with anything I hold dear - but I still think the institutions themselves are as amoral and self-focused as any other bureaucracy.

To offer an analogy: How would you feel if a young Catholic priest had reported himself to his superiors for inappropriate hugging with a young parishoner in his care? The Diocese reports that their investigation found that while both parties admitted to the inappropriate hugging, they both credibly corroborate the claim that nothing else happened at all. So the conclusion is that nothing improper happened. But the priest in question has offered to resign his current position, and so is free to be reassigned to a different Diocese without any permanent note of this being added to his record.

Do you not see how the process there, in a case where there is no faith in the good behavior of the organization in question, offers ways for abusers to keep moving through the system against any official methods to control or curb such abuses?


Now there may be many legitimate reasons for the teacher in this incident (Or the hypothetical priest above) would want to end her current assignment at the school before the term is over. Not least of which being the desire to shake the dust of the school district from her sandals and move on. If her actions never reached the level of threatening her teacher's certificate, which I believe to be the case, why does it matter that her resignation seems to be what is protecting her teacher's certificate? The implication of the last sentence in that story, for me, is that a resignation will protect a teacher's certificate in cases where the revocation of the teacher's certificate is merited.

And that infuriates me.

When I read the story, I didn't immediately think that the report was a lie and that she was really railroaded into leaving. Maybe if the article had said "She resigned after student allegations..." or "Her resignation came after a student prompted an investigation..." or "After a three-week investigation where she was cleared of wrong-doing, she resigned..." But that's not how this story went. The information we have says that she resigned and offered this incident as the reason, which prompted the investigation which cleared her of wrong-doing, but she'd already resigned. Maybe she's very attracted to this student and she wanted to get away from him. Maybe she's repulsed by him but he's bigger and threatening her. Maybe there are a hundred other reasons that we're not privy to. Regardless, I don't think that it's a stretch to believe that she resigned of her own volition.

I also don't read scary subtext into the final sentence. The story involves a teacher and a student. Said teacher is not going to lose her certificate despite an investigation. Why isn't she? Because she resigned and people don't lose their teaching certificates for quitting. I'm not saying I wouldn't be angry to learn that a teacher guilty of genuinely inappropriate conduct resigned to save her certificate, and I'm sure that it does happen, precisely because it's not illegal to say "You can't fire me, I quit!" But this seems like directionless anger to me. You're upset because somebody could potentially abuse a "loophole" that only exists because there's no realistic, moral, or legal way to close it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

You're upset because somebody could potentially abuse a "loophole" that only exists because there's no realistic, moral, or legal way to close it?

---

So, Pepper, am I still imagining threats?

Quote:

---

Joel Moody, 31, a popular band director of Winter Park High School's marching band, resigned March 18, about two weeks after another Winter Park student reported to a teacher that she had seen sexually suggestive text messages Moody sent to one of her friends.

---

Of course, it's all okay - she was an adult:

Quote:

---

That friend is an 18-year-old International Baccalaureate student, and a member of the band.

---

So, since it's in the paper, the investigation had to have been finished, and reported, right?

Quote:

---

No charges have been filed against Moody. Winter Park police have said that no victim came forward to file a complaint. A spokeswoman from Orange County Public Schools said the district ended its own investigation because Moody resigned.

---

So, less than a week later, the exact scenario I was proposing is going on.

And this is just coincidence that it broke this week.

How many more cases, do you think, are hushed up each school year?


Do you really think I'm still jumping at shadows, without cause, Pepper?