Teacher arrested and removed from school in handcuffs
The NY Teacher trumpets every time there is a rare grievance victory. BloomKlein just laugh and refuse to enforce even sustained grievances. Weingarten brags about the pamphlet “Know Your Rights” but when you do stand up for your rights you find the union behind - far behind.
A little over a week ago I got a chilling phone call. It was from a former colleague who taught across the hall from me for a decade. That day (Thurs, Feb. 15) she was arrested and taken from her school in handcuffs based on a bogus charge made by a parent. She was not told the reason or told her rights. Most egregious was the actions of the school administrators. The AP came up to her room and told her she was wanted in the office. Not one other word that there were 5 cops waiting for her to arrest her. 5 cops! I guess there are no other crimes to solve in this city. But I do not blame the police for this.
The former Leadership Academy principal, who is close to the parent, was smiling ear-to-ear. She had finally found a way to remove a teacher who was a thorn in her side (the teacher ran for chapter leader last year and lost by a slim margin.) It was certainly within her power to convince the police that this case did not warrant an arrest.
What kind of monsters do we have running our schools?
How do we know the charge was bogus? While the teacher sat in the police station until 7pm, the police investigated at the school and the child was taken to the hospital by the police and found to not have a mark on her. When they returned to the station, the cop said it was all “nonsense” and they rescinded the arrest. They had looked at her 22-year record and found not one mark against her. “People we spoke to had good things to say about you,” they said. Someone from child support services told the teacher that the parent, who was at the station, said that if the teacher offered an apology, “this would all go away.” “Hell no,” the teacher said. For escorting a child to her seat after she had run out of the room twice? “Hell no!”
The teacher will now spend months or longer in the rubber room. We are efforting to help her find a lawyer to sue everyone involved. Maybe one day she will own the school building where she was so humiliated. And hopefully, the principal’s house.
The principal can keep smiling ear-to-ear, for now, having removed the one person who stood up to her. What a lesson to the rest of the people in the school, which has undergone enormous turnover in just a few years. Ask people if things are not worse than when the principal arrived.
Now, where does the blame lie for this fiasco? The principal? Sure. But I also blame a union leadership that can be so weak, helpless or worse, not consider that this can happen to any teacher in the system at any time, a high priority issue to address.
Why not, you might ask? I should put it in terms of they are more concerned about the bad public relations that might result from a teacher that is guilty than they do about the innocent teachers who have to be put through this. When I told some union officials about the case, they said, “Why didn’t she call the union?” The teacher has no faith in the union and when she did call the district rep the response was not exactly immediate. The UFT will say, “She should have read the “Know Your Rights” pamphlet in their "blame the victim" mentality.
I went to the rubber room at 25 Chapel St. Monday, Feb 26 and videotaped a statement from the teacher as she came out at 3pm. Then we went to the UFT Executive Board meeting where we both spoke. “We have a policy,” was the response. “We get a lawyer to assist you.” What is left out is what they don’t assist you with. The legal assistance is limited. I asked why doesn’t the union take this to the top level of the police department so cops will be alerted that these cases are all too often “nonsense.” The response: “People are guilty too. We’ll get them a lawyer.”
Thus, the UFT has the same response whether the teacher has committed a crime or whether there is a vendetta on the part of a principal or parent or even a child. This attitude is what is undermining the union at the basic level – the school.
There are no repercussions for anyone at the DOE because the teacher is left to fend for herself. If she wants to sue for false arrest, the burden is on her to find and pay for a lawyer. Then if she wins after spending an onerous amount of her won money, the union will trumpet the victory as theirs.
Oh, she might even win her way back into the school from hell after the DOE investigates after months in the rubber room. But what of the image children, parents and colleagues have of her removal in handcuffs?
I can point to case after case where Randi Weingarten has protected principals and superintendents, not wanting to interfere with cozy political arrangements.
When Jeff Kaufman, one of the ICE HS reps on the current Exec Bd and himself a former lawyer made a resolution last June calling on the UFT to provide more support to teachers in this position by hiring paralegals to do their own investigation apart from the DOE—questioning witnesses, etc, Weingarten and the Exec Bd were opposed. After all, they have to use the money for more insipid commercials. This is one of the reasons why Weingarten is so anxious to get Kaufman and other ICE-TJC reps off the Board.
At the Feb. 26 Exec. Bd meeting, Jeff and others in ICE gave the teacher a sense of support she does not get from the UFT. Jeff told her what she would have to do and gave her a lot of advice. At the end of the meeting, long-time Unity hack Sandra March, one of our 3 pension reps, attacked me, typical of the standard Unity response.
Because ICE raised this case to such a high profile, we expect the UFT to respond with a higher level of attention than the average teacher would get.
If ICE-TJC had more influence, we would call a press conference in front of the school and parade the teacher as the poster girl for teacher abuse. We would help her find a lawyer and make the DOE pay to such an extent they will think very long and hard before letting this happen to another teacher.
There would be consequences for allowing this to happen to an innocent teacher. The law will take care of the guilty. The UFT should stand up and deliver for the innocents.
I was not present at the Executive Board meeting and I have no personal knowledge of the case, but Norman's description is disturbing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that the accused teacher spoke with Howard Schoor, the UFT Brooklyn Representative, who will do everything within the law to protect the member who must be devastated as must be anyone caught in the web of an allegation.My gut feeling is that this teacher is being railroaded by "the system"'s numerous components, but her union is not one of them. The union is passionate, reasoned, strong, and ready to fight on behalf of its members. I don't know what it means legally to "rescind" an arrest: sounds very fishy. Anyway, as chapter leader for many years I saw several of my staff members get snagged by OSI, CSI or whatever. Most of them escaped severe outcomes, thanks in large measure to the union's lawyers and other advocacy measures that the union took Norman, you were a chapter leader for a long time and must have had your awareness of what the union has done for innumerable members in these situations lifted by seeing the union in potent and triumphant action. If you deny this, then that denial mitigates your credibility, undermines the people you purport to want to help, and nourishes the seed of suspicion that you are grandstanding at the expense of vulnerable other people. The teacher you describe should be supported powerfully by her colleagues as she is by her union. Let this too help us all understand why we must be united as an organization. Ron
"I was not present at the Executive Board meeting and I have no personal knowledge of the case"
This pretty much says it all.
Wow. I do like the comments about what the union does and how they don't hire or fire, they just help their members get due process.
Ask people in the rubber rooms if they agree with you "what the union has done for innumerable members in these situations lifted by seeing the union in potent and triumphant action."
Redhog did not think that way 3 years ago when he ran against Unity with ICE - he had been chapter leader for many years and was certainly not happy at how Unity operated. He should one day explain publicly why he was so incensed at the union and what happened to change his mind. Could the promise of a job have had an impact?
If you deny this, then that denial mitigates your credibility, undermines the people you purport to want to help, and nourishes the seed of suspicion that you are grandstanding at the expense of vulnerable other people.
Most of the rest of us have emploment "at will" which is defined as:
"the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work.
Works pretty well for the rest of us why shouldn't it work for teachers, especially considering:
1. they are a skilled profession
2. there is a perpetual shortage of qualified teachers
What makes teachers special? Why do they need special consideration?
Doesn't seem to me that school districts are any better or worse than any other employer out there or that teachers are any different than any other skilled employee.
Anyone who works with children on a regular basis is always extremely vulnerable to having some accusation destroy his or her life--and remember, an accusation doesn't require anything except someone willing to make it. Just look at the witch-hunting against daycare providers in the 1980s--that happens on a smaller scale all the time, even today. We need strong, automatic, and fast due process not only in the courts but within our own workplaces.
Teachers do need more protection that most works, for this simple reason. But the rest of the workforce could do with some simple fairness, too.
And here in fun city, thanks to the good work of redhog and his buddies, teachers can be suspended 90 days without pay, based on unsubstantiated accuations.
I know of two teachers falsely accused under this new contractual agreement.
Those who oppose teacher unionism and activism ought to be sending fan mail to UFT President Randi Weingarten.
"Doesn't seem to me that school districts are any better or worse than any other employer out there or that teachers are any different than any other skilled employee."
But yet, it seems like all teachers are constantly under attack and are singled out as the primary problem with our educational system.
Ever figure out who is telling the truth between 2 5th graders who have a disagreement and want to kick each others' ass? Sometimes I have to call several witnesses if one is really good at lying. We have to gather a large amount of proof before a child actually admits they lied. I guess my point is, a teacher will be in trouble, their career put in jeopardy, all because a child simply said it was so.
I have witnessed a teacher calming a student by putting their hand on the students back. A simple gesture. The next day, that same student accused the teacher of choking him. The principal (thank goodness for her) called me and no less than 12 students in her office to verify that the incident did not happen.
TeacherJ speaketh the truth. Our profession is quite different.
Norm's anecdote was interesting. One salient point: There is not such thing as "rescinding" and arrest. Any police officer who makes an arrest without probable cause is liable for false arrest. Taking Norm's account as correct, the police hung themselves out a mile by making an arrest prior to conducting an investigation sufficient to determine if a crime even occurred. Absent that, probable cause to make an arrest cannot exist.
I often hear education critics assert that it is impossible to fire bad teachers, and the cause is usually evil teacher's unions. I've worked in three states and have never seen a union representing teachers. In each of those states, state law provided some rudimentary due process procedures for non-probationary teachers--usually people who had worked in a given district for at least three years--but probationary teachers could be dismissed without cause at any time.
In reality, even excellent, blameless teachers are fired each and every day. Ultimately, teachers have only those rights for which they are willing to fight, usually after they've lost their sole means of financial support. The odds are very much stacked against teachers.
And while some suggest that teachers deserve no more protection than anyone else, who has so little foresight and is so cruel that they would want anyone to be liable for firing at any time on a whim? I would hope that everyone would be assured of minimal due process protections. After all, that's good for business. It costs money to hire and train employees. If they really are incompetent, the evidence will be there for any competent supervisor to gather and present. If not, it's foolish and poor business to fire people who don't deserve it, in education or elsewhere.
That teachers have minimal due process protections should not be decried, but should serve as an example for occupations that lack them.
The "arrested" teacher called yesterday and said she called the precinct and they have no record of her being taken out of the school in handcuffs by 5 cops, forced to sit in a detention room without knowing why, etc. I spoke to a lawyer and he said once they let her go she was never offially arrested since she wasn't booked or arraigned.
Supposedly, the cop went to the school to question the kids involved and the principal refused to cooperate, hoping undoubtably the teacher would spend a night or more in jail. But the teacher gave the cops the names of the children in the class and they corroberated her account. Then the cops let her go without further action.
But the DOE is charging her with something. Give the principal time to "work" with the kids on their stories.
When Jeff Kaufman proposed in June that the UFT hire paralegals to do an investigation on the part of the teachers, Redhog's godess said "NO" and the sheep followed along. I think Redhog may have been at that meeting.
Lots of amusing anecdotes, but I remain unconvinced.
If my boss can fire me for no reason or even a bad reason whenever he wants, what difference does it make if he may be able to find cover from a fabricated story a third party?
In the anecdotes provided that third party is a lying child. But, in most work settings that third party could just as easily be a lying coworker. Sexual harrassment laws provide good fodder for this kind of vindictive behavior. So does the presence of protected classes of workers. The workplace is rife with such pitfalls.
Many years ago a principal in Brooklyn made teachers make party favors for a function he was throwing for his son. He then forced them to work on a political campagin.
A principal in Queens, who was awarded the Principal from Hell title by our union's paper, made life miserable for teachers who would dare to question him.
We know the stories from Brooklyn Tech
where teachers were humiliated in public.
Thank God for union protection. Why should we, or anyone else be dismissed for "no cause"? So if teachers are told to change a grade or be fired, we should do so?
We know that people who work for one beer company can be fired for drinking another brand in a bar, and the courts uphold these decisions????
Yet it's okay for WorldCom and Enron to dupe employees and investors so they and their families can live high on the hog. Where is their justice? Will they get their money back?
Teacher unions are not really the problem. But no one wants to address the real issue--the parents who do not reinforce lessons or discipline their kids.
Actually, David Brooks, of all people, addressed that very issue in the Times this morning. He almost knocked my socks off. I'll probably write about it tomorrow.
Why should we, or anyone else be dismissed for "no cause"?
Because you can quit for no cause as well. And, if you find yourself working for a twit like the ones in your anecdotes you should exercise that ability as soon as possible. It's a seller's market when it comes to skilled labor.
So we can quit. So we aren't slaves.
Maybe you're willing to settle for that...but you haven't convinced me. I;d love to see the city teacher dismissed for no cause try to get a job in the burbs. Just say you're a skilled worker and you're in.
Yea, let's all quit because jobs are so easy to come by.
I say we just change the grades and do whatever illegal thing we are asked to do because that is a form of job security. And of course, the more years we have in, the higher our salary, so we may be laid-off in an attempt to save money for the school rather than serve the needs of students with highly-qualified, experienced teachers.
It's always amazing to hear people who know so little about teaching talking about working as a teacher--and if you've only worked in well-run schools with good administrators, you don't know much about teaching, since the tricks of the trade only come out of the the bag when it's just you and 30 kids and not even the most basic organization or support.
And no, as a teacher, you can't just quit, unless you are a) able to drop kids in the middle of the year, compromising their education (no offense to teachers fleeing schools where no learning is taking place anyway); b) somehow able to find a job in the middle of the year, when teaching openings generally just aren't available after September.
Anyone saying teachers should just quit and find a new job knows zero about teaching.
It is indeed true that anyone in a right to work state may quit a given job when they wish. But to suggest that employers being able to fire employees without cause is merely the other, equal side of a well balanced coin is a bit disingenuous. It may be, depending on the conditions prevailing at the time, an inconvenience for a business to lose an employee, but said business will not likely be in financial jeopardy, risk losing homes or possessions, and be unable to find replacement employees. The same cannot be said of employees, particularly teachers.
Which teacher can, in the middle of a school year, decide to leave their employment? Not only do most teaching contracts contain clauses specifying damages, including the loss of a teaching license for such behavior, saying that a teacher can leave at will is reminiscent of the famous quote to the effect of (paraphrasing here): "The law, in its magnificence, allows rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and to beg for alms."
Yes, employees can leave at will, but this is hardly a great advantage considering that if this was not so, employment would represent little more than slavery.
It's always amazing to hear people who know so little about teaching talking about working as a teacher
And, it is so ironic to hear people who know so little about labor law trying to argue with a lawyer while trying to play their teacher trump card. Please.
I do sincerely hope that all of you making such arguments know that such arguments are an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. If you have a point to make, make it on the merits.
Not only do most teaching contracts contain clauses specifying damages, including the loss of a teaching license for such behavior
The operative word in this argument is "contract." You are now governed by a contract, an emplyment contract, which spells out your obligations. In the absence of an employment contract, i.e., "at will" employment, you have no such obligations to your employer.
I'd love to see the city teacher dismissed for no cause try to get a job in the burbs. Just say you're a skilled worker and you're in.
And how is this different than any other employee trying to get a job with another employer in the same industry after being dismissed? I'll give you a hint, it isn't. Moreover, it is foolish to remain employed with a bad employer, once that becomes evident. The smart employee gets out while the getting out is good. The smarter employee finds out the reputation of the employer before employment. Employer repuation is a known commodity is most industries, especially in the Internet age.
I say we just change the grades and do whatever illegal thing we are asked to do because that is a form of job security.
Only a fool stays employed with such an employer upon discovering such bad behavior.
somehow able to find a job in the middle of the year, when teaching openings generally just aren't available after September.
Due to the contract provisions discussed above. We are talking about the absence of such provisions.
And no, as a teacher, you can't just quit, unless you are a) able to drop kids in the middle of the year, compromising their education (no offense to teachers fleeing schools where no learning is taking place anyway)
It is customary for employers and employees to provide a notice period preceding the end of emploment for the purpose of an employee finding new employment and the employer to find a new employee.
Anyone saying teachers should just quit and find a new job knows zero about teaching
And yet here you are knowing zero about labor law opining on matters concerning labor law like an expert. Pot, kettle, black.
but said business will not likely be in financial jeopardy, risk losing homes or possessions, and be unable to find replacement employees. The same cannot be said of employees, particularly teachers.
See unemplyment insurance, availability thereof.
I fail to see how teachers are different than other employees in this respect. Yes, being fired can be a financial hardship. That's why you pick your employer very carefully.
Of course it's no different from losing onhter jobs. I'm not a lawyer butthe post doesn't say teachers deserve more protection. It says other professions deserve the protection teachers have.
And my response pointed out that other skilled professions aren't asking for these protections and that the current level of protections provided by the law seems to be sufficient.
What I didn't point out, but could have, was that when you make it more difficult to fire someone, employers respond by scrutinizing potential new hires. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which potential employees get hurt under such a scheme.
the current level of protection? You mean none? it's sufficient for you maybe but i don't think it's sufficient for most people who work.
Point me to the objective evidence that shows that "most" skilled workers are not satisfied with the protections they have available as "at will" employees.
would be nice it that swe4re what I said. i said I didn't think it was sufficient for most people who work. point me to objective evidence that no protection is sufficient for most people who work.
You made the claim, not me. The yoke is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it.
I worked in schools for a time while persuing an education degree and I've always been amazed at the willingness of teachers to buy into the idea that they are somehow entitled to employment and that unions are helping them. Look at administrators: they make tons of money for not so much work, rarely face termination even when they deserve it and regularly choose to leave to persue the bigger better deal. Then look at the deal teachers get: not so much money, lots of difficult work, stuck with a school where they may be miserable BUT hey - even if you treat the kids like feces and they never learn anything other than about your terrier's health problems you're guarenteed a job. What a deal!
Guess what? In virtually every other field workers negotiate their own pay and therefor make more, can change jobs at will and therefor have a greater likelyhood of job satisfaction and have some real leverage with their employers and can advance based on their skills (hopefully). Of course the trade off is that one does face the risk of being let go without cause. In my experience, this seems to happen to about everyone once in their career. Yeah, it sucks, but over all most people prefer that system to what teachers are stuck with. Heck, school adminstrators seem to be doing alright with it (at least in places where such jobs aren't unionized). If guarenteed employment is such a great deal, why do most teachers quit within 5 years? Obviously because as much as teachers defend it, the trade off just isn't worth it.
BTW take a look at what your union dues are being used for and ask yourself - is it really worth it? Are these people actually looking out for me? Have my working conditions gotten better over the years as the result of union actions? If not then why are ya'll such believers in the darn things?
Commenting by HaloScan
