Disclosing Teachers Names

According to an article in today's PI, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that public school teachers who have unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct are exempt under the Public Disclosure act. The ruling was 6-3. From the article:

"The majority says a teacher's identity should only be released when alleged sexual misconduct has been substantiated or when that teacher's conduct results in some form of discipline, even if only a reprimand."

I might go read this ruling and the dissent which apparently says the majority is ruling contrary to the act and that the ruling will put children at risk.

I get this ruling except for one thing. My thinking is just that if a teacher has the accusation "substantiated" (I'm thinking that means evidence and the teacher is brought to trial) or the conduct results in discipline from the district then you should release the name. But if neither thing happens, either from the legal system or the district, maybe it is in the best interests of all to not release the teacher's name.

My one thing? Our district has a bad habit of allowing principals to not record allegations against teachers. It might take awhile before a teacher finally gets in trouble. If I had faith that this district would enforce its own rules on this subject, then I'd agree with the majority.

Comments

Charlie Mas said…
Here's the part of the story that I found most alarming:

"The Supreme Court's majority, led by Justice Mary Fairhurst, ruled that a teacher's identity should be made public only when alleged sexual misconduct has been substantiated or when that teacher's conduct results in some form of discipline, even if only a reprimand.

But when the allegations are determined to be unsubstantiated, a teacher's identity is exempt from public disclosure laws because "such disclosure would violate the teacher's right to privacy."

"Allegations of such abuse should be thoroughly investigated by school districts and, if the allegations are substantiated, the media may request records containing the identity of the perpetrating teacher," Fairhurst wrote."

Ummm... No. I can't believe a Supreme Court Justice couldn't get this right. Allegations of such abuse should be thoroughly investigated by the POLICE.

The District personnel are mandatory reporters. So they are required by law to report these concerns to the police. In addition, what qualifies the District staff to conduct an investigation? Who is going to do the investigating? A principal? Don't they have conflicts of interest?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The proper organization to investigate are the POLICE. The police will naturally investigate when the school district personnel report their suspicions to the police or CPS as the law requires them to do.
7/31/08, 4:12 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more