Educrats and Unions protect sex offenders and other bad apples
The following article was published in the January 2007 Reader's Digest. It caught my attention because I grew up in the Akron, Ohio, area and still have nephews and nieces attending school there.
Protect Our Kids!
How is it that sexual predators are getting a free pass in our children's schools?
From Reader's Digest
January 2007
Passing the Trash
When Randall Crane came to teach at Jennings Middle School in Akron, Ohio, the superintendent felt lucky to get him. After all, the principal at Crane's previous school in Manchester had given him a glowing letter of recommendation, noting his "outgoing personality" and saying, "I wouldn't hesitate to hire him again."
Oh, really? That same principal helped oversee an investigation into Crane's relationships with his female students, after accusations that included "too much touching of girls," "too much like boyfriend/ girlfriend," and "taking girls into rooms with the door closed." Crane denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to resign. No one at Jennings knew about Crane's earlier conduct because, the Manchester superintendent told a local newspaper, "you don't want to pass problems on to other schools, but at the same time, you weigh that against what you can say that might cause litigation for your school too." So Crane got his sterling recommendation and a new teaching job. Last June, he got something else: a two-year sentence for having sex with a 14-year-old student.
After being shown papers detailing Crane's inappropriate behavior in Manchester, the Akron superintendent said to a reporter, "No other district would have hired that individual knowing what you just s howed me in that file." "It's called 'passing the trash,'" says Kansas State University professor Robert Shoop, an expert witness in nearly 50 school abuse cases. "I've worked with individuals who are in their fourth or fifth district, and you find out they've been molesting people for 20 years." This shuffling of sleazy characters from school district to school district is just one way we're failing to fully protect our children. It's no small concern: In 2004, a U.S. Department of Education study found that nearly 10 percent of public school students have endured unwanted sexual attention from school employees, and close to 7 percent had experienced actual sexual contact -- anything from pinching to kissing to outright molestation.
Let's make one thing clear: Most teachers are honest, hardworking, and truly care for their students. And it's important to protect teachers from false allegations, especially when harassment and abuse charges are used as punish ment for bad grades or strict discipline.
Still, there's no denying that the threat from molesters exists in every state. In West Virginia, for example, sexual abuse of students is the No. 1 reason teachers lost their licenses over the past five years -- a whopping 35 percent of all licenses lost. And a Detroit News study found that, in the 15 months from January 2004 to April 2005, 22 present or former school employees were convicted of sexual misconduct involving minors or the mentally impaired. The vast majority were teachers, although a coach and a janitor were also among those convicted. Perhaps the creepiest thing is all the sexual predators we don't even know about. When The New York Times recently investigated pedophiles, it found that "the most frequent job mentioned was schoolteacher. " How many parents shuddered when it turned out that a slime ball named John Mark Karr -- the man who claimed to have murdered Jon Benet Ramsey -- taught elementar y school?
Zero Tolerance
We obviously don't have enough safeguards in place to keep perverts out of the schools. And the biggest problem is a background-check system that looks like Swiss cheese. Most states require a criminal background check for school employees, but some schools only check state databases, not national ones like the FBI's National Crime Information Center. Schools also need to be candid about former teachers when another school inquires about an applicant. That's how an Iowa school in the Northwood-Kensett district got burned in 2000 when a teacher, Daniel Eveleth, was accused of having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student. It turns out that Eveleth had been at the center of sexual controversy before. A few years earlier, court records reveal, he had been accused of sexual harassment at another Iowa public school district known as BCLUW -- a charge that investigators believed to be credible. Eveleth subsequently resigned. Yet, according to the Northwood -Kensett superintendent, before hiring Eveleth, he contacted the BCLUW school district and no red flags came up. Not only that, in exchange for his resignation, Eveleth got a positive letter of recommendation from BCLUW school officials and a promise that the district would keep mum about the accusations against him. Appalling settlements like this aren't unusual. In many cases, the first priority of school districts is to avoid expensive battles with unions and the bad headlines that can come with legal action. So they'll let an accused teacher resign quietly, sometimes with a financial settlement. Since 2000, West Virginia schools, for example, have reportedly paid nearly $7 million in settlements to suspected sexual predators. In the 1990s, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft studied 225 complaints against teachers where there was convincing evidence sexual abuse had occurred. In more than half, school superintendents allowed the accused teachers to re sign or retire with no blemish on their records. And, Shakeshaft says, in none of those 225 cases did the superintendents notify the police, a legal mandate as of 2000. You'd think politicians would be demanding tougher laws, but many shy away from measures like mandatory background checks, in part because they're afraid to cross powerful teachers unions. At a minimum, schools must warn state officials when they have concerns about a teacher -- and the police should always notify schools about any troubling past charges. States might also follow the lead of New York, where a superintendent can be charged with a felony for letting a teacher resign rather than face a sexual misconduct allegation. Or Iowa, where after the Eveleth case, the state legislature passed a law saying that if an employee is terminated or resigns due to the sexual exploitation of a child, it must be reported to the Board of Educational Examiners. And, of course, any principal caught "passing the tr ash" should get the book thrown at him too. It's easy to say we have zero tolerance for sexual predators in schools, but we haven't yet passed the test.
So what does this have to do with D11? No passing of trash could ever happen in D11, correct? D11 is one of the only districts in the region that has a teacher's labor union, so of course this type of thing occurs locally. The labor union leaders openly admit that their role is to represent adults, not children.
In the 2002/2003 time frame, (prior to the election of the reform slate), the principal of a D11 elementary school was released (not officially terminated, but forced to retire) because of sexual harassment issues. The school board, under Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Bruce Doyle, Mary Wierman, Delia Busby, and Waynette Rand, decided to pay this principal a $250,000 settlement. The police were never contacted (nor was a recall initiated, I might add). The principal was accused of inappropriate sexual contact with a female employee and of inappropriate sexual conduct in his school. After I was elected to the board, the board was briefed on the settlement by attorneys from HRO. HRO attorney Deb Menkins showed me and Sandy Shakes a crude sex toy that the principal actually hid in a 5th grade classroom in his school. There aren't too many places to hide such objects in a classroom, so the object was clearly within reach of 5th grade students. The principal was never charged with any crime, so of course he felt confident enough to continue to harass HRO and D11 for further payments beyond his 6 figure buy-out for sexual misconduct in a D11 school building.
Norm Ridder agreed to the buyout, and he did nothing to punish this principal. Dave Schenkel from Human Resources pushed for the buyout to avoid litigation. The teacher's labor union remained silent, even though there was a sexual deviant working in a school.
The following emal exchange was initiated by a D11 parent on a different topic. She still has kids in D11 schools, so I removed her name from this post. The email exchange highlights how D11 administrators turn their backs on wrong-doings of employees to avoid litigation from the labor union and the employees.
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:52 AM
To: sshakesd11boe@aol.com; mannmedia@yahoo.com; craigcox@adelphia.net;tamihaslingd11@adelphia.net; JohnGforD11@adelphia.net;breazell1@adelphia.net; ericchristen@adelphia.net; bishotn@d11.org
Cc: SteveJr@d11.org
Subject: question
Just wondering how a teacher who was dismissed mid year from Doherty HSwas now hired at West Middle School. My child was one of the witnesses, talked with the District lawyer regarding this teacher and at the end of the legal proceedings we were told (as I remember) that she was not fighting her dismissal. How can she be dismissed (for the reasons she was) from one D11 school and then hired at another?I noticed this after reading the last board minutes and the personnel recommendations. mom of D11 students.
This message is sent on behalf of Dr. Terry Bishop:
Dear Directors of the Board: On Wednesday, October 18, 2006, all Board members received an email from parent, (email below). Also, attached is an email from David Schenkel about the situation. According to David, the teacher was not dismissed and she was going to fight her dismissal. If you need additional information, please contact me at 520-2001 orDavid Schenkel at 520-2176. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----From: SCHENKEL, DAVID
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:34 AM
To: BISHOP, TERRY N.
Subject: RE: question
Dr. Bishop,There is not a teacher from Doherty High School that was terminated and working in a middle school this year. This individual is referring to a teacher who was up for termination that we went to mediation about and settled the issue by her accepting probationary status for this year. I have not heard of any problems at the middle school this year but if there are we will deal with a non renewal. The issues involved could have led to a very expensive legal battle on top of the other one we just settled last year. This mediation agreement gave her another chance and avoided large legal expenses to the District. Both principals involved agreed to the settlement as well as the Superintendent (Sharon). If you need further information please let me know.
DFS
Notice how Schenkel's response mirrors the issue in the Reader's Digest article. No one on the board was ever briefed as to the details of this allegation. Administrators kept claiming that the issue was "confidential." Even the mother who reported the issue in the first place, whose child was involved, was never able to receive an explanation for why the teacher was merely transfered to another school (trash passing). This was likely not a case of sexual assault on a child, but it illustrates how even the D11 administration places student concerns well below concerns of the labor union and litigation issues.
Protect Our Kids!
How is it that sexual predators are getting a free pass in our children's schools?
From Reader's Digest
January 2007
Passing the Trash
When Randall Crane came to teach at Jennings Middle School in Akron, Ohio, the superintendent felt lucky to get him. After all, the principal at Crane's previous school in Manchester had given him a glowing letter of recommendation, noting his "outgoing personality" and saying, "I wouldn't hesitate to hire him again."
Oh, really? That same principal helped oversee an investigation into Crane's relationships with his female students, after accusations that included "too much touching of girls," "too much like boyfriend/ girlfriend," and "taking girls into rooms with the door closed." Crane denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to resign. No one at Jennings knew about Crane's earlier conduct because, the Manchester superintendent told a local newspaper, "you don't want to pass problems on to other schools, but at the same time, you weigh that against what you can say that might cause litigation for your school too." So Crane got his sterling recommendation and a new teaching job. Last June, he got something else: a two-year sentence for having sex with a 14-year-old student.
After being shown papers detailing Crane's inappropriate behavior in Manchester, the Akron superintendent said to a reporter, "No other district would have hired that individual knowing what you just s howed me in that file." "It's called 'passing the trash,'" says Kansas State University professor Robert Shoop, an expert witness in nearly 50 school abuse cases. "I've worked with individuals who are in their fourth or fifth district, and you find out they've been molesting people for 20 years." This shuffling of sleazy characters from school district to school district is just one way we're failing to fully protect our children. It's no small concern: In 2004, a U.S. Department of Education study found that nearly 10 percent of public school students have endured unwanted sexual attention from school employees, and close to 7 percent had experienced actual sexual contact -- anything from pinching to kissing to outright molestation.
Let's make one thing clear: Most teachers are honest, hardworking, and truly care for their students. And it's important to protect teachers from false allegations, especially when harassment and abuse charges are used as punish ment for bad grades or strict discipline.
Still, there's no denying that the threat from molesters exists in every state. In West Virginia, for example, sexual abuse of students is the No. 1 reason teachers lost their licenses over the past five years -- a whopping 35 percent of all licenses lost. And a Detroit News study found that, in the 15 months from January 2004 to April 2005, 22 present or former school employees were convicted of sexual misconduct involving minors or the mentally impaired. The vast majority were teachers, although a coach and a janitor were also among those convicted. Perhaps the creepiest thing is all the sexual predators we don't even know about. When The New York Times recently investigated pedophiles, it found that "the most frequent job mentioned was schoolteacher. " How many parents shuddered when it turned out that a slime ball named John Mark Karr -- the man who claimed to have murdered Jon Benet Ramsey -- taught elementar y school?
Zero Tolerance
We obviously don't have enough safeguards in place to keep perverts out of the schools. And the biggest problem is a background-check system that looks like Swiss cheese. Most states require a criminal background check for school employees, but some schools only check state databases, not national ones like the FBI's National Crime Information Center. Schools also need to be candid about former teachers when another school inquires about an applicant. That's how an Iowa school in the Northwood-Kensett district got burned in 2000 when a teacher, Daniel Eveleth, was accused of having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student. It turns out that Eveleth had been at the center of sexual controversy before. A few years earlier, court records reveal, he had been accused of sexual harassment at another Iowa public school district known as BCLUW -- a charge that investigators believed to be credible. Eveleth subsequently resigned. Yet, according to the Northwood -Kensett superintendent, before hiring Eveleth, he contacted the BCLUW school district and no red flags came up. Not only that, in exchange for his resignation, Eveleth got a positive letter of recommendation from BCLUW school officials and a promise that the district would keep mum about the accusations against him. Appalling settlements like this aren't unusual. In many cases, the first priority of school districts is to avoid expensive battles with unions and the bad headlines that can come with legal action. So they'll let an accused teacher resign quietly, sometimes with a financial settlement. Since 2000, West Virginia schools, for example, have reportedly paid nearly $7 million in settlements to suspected sexual predators. In the 1990s, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft studied 225 complaints against teachers where there was convincing evidence sexual abuse had occurred. In more than half, school superintendents allowed the accused teachers to re sign or retire with no blemish on their records. And, Shakeshaft says, in none of those 225 cases did the superintendents notify the police, a legal mandate as of 2000. You'd think politicians would be demanding tougher laws, but many shy away from measures like mandatory background checks, in part because they're afraid to cross powerful teachers unions. At a minimum, schools must warn state officials when they have concerns about a teacher -- and the police should always notify schools about any troubling past charges. States might also follow the lead of New York, where a superintendent can be charged with a felony for letting a teacher resign rather than face a sexual misconduct allegation. Or Iowa, where after the Eveleth case, the state legislature passed a law saying that if an employee is terminated or resigns due to the sexual exploitation of a child, it must be reported to the Board of Educational Examiners. And, of course, any principal caught "passing the tr ash" should get the book thrown at him too. It's easy to say we have zero tolerance for sexual predators in schools, but we haven't yet passed the test.
So what does this have to do with D11? No passing of trash could ever happen in D11, correct? D11 is one of the only districts in the region that has a teacher's labor union, so of course this type of thing occurs locally. The labor union leaders openly admit that their role is to represent adults, not children.
In the 2002/2003 time frame, (prior to the election of the reform slate), the principal of a D11 elementary school was released (not officially terminated, but forced to retire) because of sexual harassment issues. The school board, under Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Bruce Doyle, Mary Wierman, Delia Busby, and Waynette Rand, decided to pay this principal a $250,000 settlement. The police were never contacted (nor was a recall initiated, I might add). The principal was accused of inappropriate sexual contact with a female employee and of inappropriate sexual conduct in his school. After I was elected to the board, the board was briefed on the settlement by attorneys from HRO. HRO attorney Deb Menkins showed me and Sandy Shakes a crude sex toy that the principal actually hid in a 5th grade classroom in his school. There aren't too many places to hide such objects in a classroom, so the object was clearly within reach of 5th grade students. The principal was never charged with any crime, so of course he felt confident enough to continue to harass HRO and D11 for further payments beyond his 6 figure buy-out for sexual misconduct in a D11 school building.
Norm Ridder agreed to the buyout, and he did nothing to punish this principal. Dave Schenkel from Human Resources pushed for the buyout to avoid litigation. The teacher's labor union remained silent, even though there was a sexual deviant working in a school.
The following emal exchange was initiated by a D11 parent on a different topic. She still has kids in D11 schools, so I removed her name from this post. The email exchange highlights how D11 administrators turn their backs on wrong-doings of employees to avoid litigation from the labor union and the employees.
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:52 AM
To: sshakesd11boe@aol.com; mannmedia@yahoo.com; craigcox@adelphia.net;tamihaslingd11@adelphia.net; JohnGforD11@adelphia.net;breazell1@adelphia.net; ericchristen@adelphia.net; bishotn@d11.org
Cc: SteveJr@d11.org
Subject: question
Just wondering how a teacher who was dismissed mid year from Doherty HSwas now hired at West Middle School. My child was one of the witnesses, talked with the District lawyer regarding this teacher and at the end of the legal proceedings we were told (as I remember) that she was not fighting her dismissal. How can she be dismissed (for the reasons she was) from one D11 school and then hired at another?I noticed this after reading the last board minutes and the personnel recommendations. mom of D11 students.
This message is sent on behalf of Dr. Terry Bishop:
Dear Directors of the Board: On Wednesday, October 18, 2006, all Board members received an email from parent, (email below). Also, attached is an email from David Schenkel about the situation. According to David, the teacher was not dismissed and she was going to fight her dismissal. If you need additional information, please contact me at 520-2001 orDavid Schenkel at 520-2176. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----From: SCHENKEL, DAVID
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:34 AM
To: BISHOP, TERRY N.
Subject: RE: question
Dr. Bishop,There is not a teacher from Doherty High School that was terminated and working in a middle school this year. This individual is referring to a teacher who was up for termination that we went to mediation about and settled the issue by her accepting probationary status for this year. I have not heard of any problems at the middle school this year but if there are we will deal with a non renewal. The issues involved could have led to a very expensive legal battle on top of the other one we just settled last year. This mediation agreement gave her another chance and avoided large legal expenses to the District. Both principals involved agreed to the settlement as well as the Superintendent (Sharon). If you need further information please let me know.
DFS
Notice how Schenkel's response mirrors the issue in the Reader's Digest article. No one on the board was ever briefed as to the details of this allegation. Administrators kept claiming that the issue was "confidential." Even the mother who reported the issue in the first place, whose child was involved, was never able to receive an explanation for why the teacher was merely transfered to another school (trash passing). This was likely not a case of sexual assault on a child, but it illustrates how even the D11 administration places student concerns well below concerns of the labor union and litigation issues.
posted by Craig Cox | 9:53 AM
1 Comments:
MSNBC has an article about a Pennsylvania school district that wasn't protecting employees, but was protecting "the reputation of the district" by concealing from parents the fact that one school child had raped several others. The school says that it has no responsibility to protect kids from each other! I am copying the article below. D11 regularly hides incidents in its schools as well. My childrens' schools never accurately report the violent incidents that occur each year in their buildings. That is a state requirement, isn't it?
Parents: School hid rapes of four 1st-graders
Student, 12, was allowed to stay in school after first assault
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - Teachers and administrators at Central Elementary School knew they had a problem with F.H., a 12-year-old who had been accused of going into a bathroom stall and sexually assaulting a first-grade boy.
But instead of calling police and removing F.H., district officials covered up the attack and allowed him to remain in class, leading to the sexual assault of three more first-graders, parents say.
The allegations, contained in a $15 million federal lawsuit against the Allentown school system, have created an uproar in Pennsylvania’s third-largest city, with outraged parents demanding the superintendent’s ouster and state lawmakers working on a legislative fix.
The case has also illustrated how difficult it can be under the law for parents to hold a school system responsible for the safety of their children.
‘Serious issues’ in the district
“I’m disgusted,” said Yolanda Colbert, 36, whose three children attend Allentown schools. “These 6-year-olds are the most vulnerable, and if adults cannot protect them, we have some serious issues in the Allentown school district.”
The district denies wrongdoing and has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. But it has not disputed that assaults occurred, and its legal response has only further inflamed public opinion in one of the state’s poorest school districts.
In federal court last month, the district’s lawyer, John Freund III, argued that under the Constitution school officials cannot be held responsible simply for failing to protect youngsters from assaults by other students.
He cited federal court rulings that say school systems are generally immune from paying damages unless it can be shown that they actually took “affirmative” steps that put youngsters in danger, and that the action taken “shocks the conscience.”
Freund said in an interview that he was making a narrow legal argument, not a generalized statement about the district’s responsibility to its youngsters. Various state and federal laws, not to mention “basic morality, common sense and professional duty ... clearly obligate schools to protect students,” he said.
But his argument rankled parents.
‘Affirmative’ act of endangerment?
“I understand there is a civil case, but it still makes me very uncomfortable that a school district would stand up and say under any circumstance, ‘We don’t have to protect our children,’ ” said Emily Mebust, the parent of a kindergartner.
A judge has yet to rule on the school system’s request for a dismissal. No trial date has been set.
The lawsuit, filed by the parents of three of the alleged victims, said school system officials concealed the assaults “in an effort to veil the long-standing violence” in certain Allentown schools.
The assaults began in December 2003, a few months after F.H., a special-education student with a history of behavioral problems, was transferred to Central Elementary from another school in the district, according to court papers.
After learning of the first assault from a second-grader who witnessed part of it, administrators kept quiet and allowed F.H. to remain in school, the lawsuit said. The 12-year-old sexually assaulted three more first-graders over the next four months, according to the parents.
The final assault, for which F.H. was found guilty in juvenile court of rape and sent to a detention center until he turns 18, took place after he was put on “hallway detention” — out of view of any teacher and next to a bathroom used by first-graders, the lawsuit said. That is a key point in the plaintiffs’ case.
‘Lion into the lambs’ lair’
Scott Wilhelm, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, said putting F.H. next to a bathroom was an “affirmative” act.
One legal scholar agreed.
“You have reason to believe that this lion is mauling the lambs, so you move the lion into the lambs’ lair?” said Perry Zirkel, an education law professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem. “It sounds bad. It sounds like a terrible affirmative act to put the kid next to the bathroom.”
Nevertheless, Zirkel said the plaintiffs still have little chance of winning because the courts have set such a high bar for such claims.
And Freund said the lawsuit overstated the extent to which teachers and administrators were aware of the attacks. “Everyone, to our knowledge, acted as they should have acted,” he said.
But the parents of the fourth victim said the district has shown little regard for their son. Nobody from the district has contacted them since his rape, they said in an interview.
“It’s a constant slap in the face,” said the boy’s mother, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her son’s privacy. “They still will not accept any responsibility. They will not accept any accountability.”
Post a Comment
<< Home