Garfield Faces Another Alleged Sexual Assault Incident
Tears of frustration, anger and sadness filled my eyes when I finally learned why the choir teacher at Garfield had been put on administrative leave. ( I knew the teacher had been put on leave a month ago but did not know why.)
There was a Garfield choir field trip to New Orleans earlier this year and there was some kind of incident involving an alleged sexual assault on two girls.
Tomorrow, some Garfield students are planning to walk out of class and have a noon press conference. From their press release:
Garfield High School students will walk out on Wednesday in solidarity with the Garfield Choir teacher, Carol Burton, who has been recommended to be terminated by the Seattle School District due to events on a March Field Trip to New Orleans.
We as the Garfield student body cannot, and will not accept the decision to fire vocal music teacher Carol Burton. This decision will impede the musical education of hundreds of students, jeopardize the future of all choral music at Garfield, disregard the legacy of Ms. Burton’s fourteen years of instruction at Garfield, revoke the positive mentorship provided by Carol Burton, and dissemble an amazing and unique community. The District is sacrificing the well being and education of its students, and attempting to rob Garfield of yet another teacher in one year.
It is unclear to me the exact details of what happened and, of course, the District has said nothing. The students met with the Executive Director, Sarah Pritchett, who came off as condescending to students.
Here's what seems to be known:
- two girls were allegedly assault by one boy
- the girls told friends who then told the choir teacher as they were all at the airport about to leave. I don't know who the teacher reported this to beyond the District. It is not clear if any police department - either SPD or NOPD - was notified.
- the boy may have had a prior record of inappropriate contact in middle school but this was not info that either the teacher or chaperones appear to have known. He seems to have left Garfield.
- the District has done some sort of investigating because it appears the District found out the chaperones were lax in tracking who was in what room (boys and girls are supposed to stay out of each other's rooms).
- the District/Garfield pulled the teacher out of her classroom without explanation (and for some period of time, without a real substitute). Parents spent their own money to hire someone to sub for some event and lost money because their students in the choir could not attend an event.
I will attend the press conference and try to talk to students and administrators.
It is deeply disappointing and I have to wonder if perhaps the leadership at Garfield needs to be changed.
There was a Garfield choir field trip to New Orleans earlier this year and there was some kind of incident involving an alleged sexual assault on two girls.
Tomorrow, some Garfield students are planning to walk out of class and have a noon press conference. From their press release:
Garfield High School students will walk out on Wednesday in solidarity with the Garfield Choir teacher, Carol Burton, who has been recommended to be terminated by the Seattle School District due to events on a March Field Trip to New Orleans.
We as the Garfield student body cannot, and will not accept the decision to fire vocal music teacher Carol Burton. This decision will impede the musical education of hundreds of students, jeopardize the future of all choral music at Garfield, disregard the legacy of Ms. Burton’s fourteen years of instruction at Garfield, revoke the positive mentorship provided by Carol Burton, and dissemble an amazing and unique community. The District is sacrificing the well being and education of its students, and attempting to rob Garfield of yet another teacher in one year.
It is unclear to me the exact details of what happened and, of course, the District has said nothing. The students met with the Executive Director, Sarah Pritchett, who came off as condescending to students.
Here's what seems to be known:
- two girls were allegedly assault by one boy
- the girls told friends who then told the choir teacher as they were all at the airport about to leave. I don't know who the teacher reported this to beyond the District. It is not clear if any police department - either SPD or NOPD - was notified.
- the boy may have had a prior record of inappropriate contact in middle school but this was not info that either the teacher or chaperones appear to have known. He seems to have left Garfield.
- the District has done some sort of investigating because it appears the District found out the chaperones were lax in tracking who was in what room (boys and girls are supposed to stay out of each other's rooms).
- the District/Garfield pulled the teacher out of her classroom without explanation (and for some period of time, without a real substitute). Parents spent their own money to hire someone to sub for some event and lost money because their students in the choir could not attend an event.
I will attend the press conference and try to talk to students and administrators.
It is deeply disappointing and I have to wonder if perhaps the leadership at Garfield needs to be changed.
Comments
Has the board decided, once again, that it's just he said, she said, she said?
HF
Momof2
Older Wiser
HF, some of what I was told about the Executive Director's meeting with the students was Ms. Pritchett trying to explain that the students may not fully understand the complete picture of what oversight is supposed to look like.
I'm sure an investigation could possibly reveal the weight of any one person's oversight (or lack thereof). The students may not themselves be aware of all the circumstances.
I have to wonder why this teacher would be exited when others were not in other incidents.
HF
It wouldn't even keep students totally safe if we kept them in our house and didn't let them out. Something could still happen.
GHSmom
The last possibility is that this is an "under the bus" move by those higher up (downtown or at Garfield) who have decided that since this is the 2nd time, a head has to roll, and she is just the scapegoat. A very troubling thought -- and so one I hope is not true.
I agree with you on the student support thing. I hope the students are doing the right thing all the way around, because it sounded to me like maybe some did not in the Naturebridge incident.
Older Wiser
As usual in these matters. WSDWG
HF, last year many Garfield grads and students came out in support of student safety. I know because my daughter and I stood with them.
GHSmom, I don't disagree. Part of the findings from the incidents over the last three years have been that downtown did not due what Title IX requires of them. So rather than let the crapshow be about the supervising teacher, let's also examine what was the follow up.
A teacher and chaperones can do everything right, yet something can happen. I believe we should expect the best effort of everyone involved and weigh the evidence with that in mind. My impulse would be to afford a long-term, highly-regarded teacher some consideration - but based on the preventative and procedural measures taken in advance of the trip.
Reader
The actions of District officials, acting in their role as District officials, are what reflect on the District.
So there are two questions for discussion here. One is about the actions of the people on the field trip: What did the students do and what did the teachers do? That discussion, however, is personal to those individuals. The other question is: What did the District do? That discussion is broader.
How did - or will - the District comply with their own policies and procedures about field trips and reports of sexual harassment?
How did - or will - the District comply with the requirements of Title IX in the wake of such a report?
Will people be held accountable for their actions, inactions, and non-compliance with policies and procedures? Will people be commended for their actions, inactions, and compliance with policies and procedures?
What changes will the District make to policies and procedures following this experience?
These are the questions which are not a private matter but a public one.
I do not know what happened here and perhaps there is something very obvious that the teacher did wrong that, if I knew about, would make me say, she was really irresponsible. But the overall sense I get from these incidents is that the expectation is that if the incident happened, the supervising adult should have prevented it, and as a result I am not going anywhere near one of these trips.
-HS Parent
-SPSparent
This situation brings a further question to mind. I would NEVER send my child on an overnight field trip that included a child who behaved inappropriately with/to another child in the past. I understand that the alleged perpetrator has rights to privacy, but other children have rights to remain harassment/abuse free and I think their rights trump a previous abuser's rights. So, how can this be handled when we are talking about kids? I am not a lawyer, and I understand that people shouldn't be marked forever based on a single crime, but often these types of crimes are the ones that happen more than once.
-pudding
Did I get an email or post-it with a warning about this? Of course not. Seems absurd. He was, straight up, the most potentially dangerous student I ever had in 30 years (even including that funny one that went to prison for beating a guy nearly to death with a pipe) But you can bet if it was YOUR kid, you'd consider hiring a lawyer with a fancy suit and fight the district to keep it quiet. "Give the little guy another chance."
So parents, that's the question.
Honest answers please. I hope we all feel for the victims here. I know I do. That's NOT my question.
My question is: What if your little precious was the raper? What would you fight for then?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Some parents would allow the kid to take the full measure of the hit, as meted out by the juvenile justice system.
There's absolutely another group of parents that would do anything to excuse it and make it go away. Perhaps with some good motivation: keep the kid out of the "justice" system, give another chance.
And there you are. Don't tell the teacher anything.
HF
reader47
I'm all for calls to ensure that a teacher (whether popular or not) is not thrown under the bus to make admin look like they're being responsible, and as I said before, I hope that if this was a case of wrongful termination that the teacher sues the pants off SPS. But I'm also saddened to see that the moral outrage people feel seems to focus more on the teacher's discipline than on the fact that we once again have another allegation of sexual assault. I feel no shame in letting my emotions rule for a moment and writing that I feel bad for what I imagine these girls are going through, even though I might not fully understand their situation. But I do hope they aren't reading this blog, because if they are they probably think most people care primarily about what happened to the teacher, and little about what allegedly happened to them.
HF
You hear these same types of stories in the education world: the teacher who was moved because of "problems" at the school, the coach transferred for an unknown reason, the student who was forced to changed schools mid-year. It's scary that these types of people can keep hurting others because the higher ups are scared of lawsuits. It's a tricky issue.
You can't eliminate risk, but you can decide not to take known perpetrators on a field trip. Common sense needs to factor in somewhere.
-pudding
I wonder about that too.
The teachers in charge of the GHS NatureBridge field trip two years ago (where a student was sexually assaulted by a peer) admitted that they had not read the field trip policies they were supposed to enforce. The chaperones admitted that they couldn't control the students, who slept in adjacent unlocked cabins. The assistant principal admitted that he signed off on the trip paperwork that listed no male chaperone. The school administrators said they did not authorize the teachers bringing their small children along on the trip, which they did anyway.
Were these teachers and administrators ever disciplined for any of this? Not that I know of. The district "investigated" and exonerated all of them.
Without knowing anything about the current incident, I have the impression that this teacher is suffering the consequences of all of the bad administrative decisions from the NatureBridge trip.
I wonder too about whether the District implemented its Title IX responsibilities after this incident. Or is it all being swept under the rug? Again.
Adam
I can understand waiting way after the fact. They were in a hotel room with the boy which was against the rules so there's that. Maybe they felt they had caused it by allowing him in (or going to his room). Maybe they knew someone might tell the teacher and wanted to tell her before anyone else. Or maybe they knew telling her at the last minute as they got on a plane meant no police (at least for the time being).
I also was told that the girls were told to keep quiet or it would hurt the program/teacher. And, that it wasn't a bad incident, but rather "molestation."
Shades of the Duggars.
I can only say that none of us gets to decide what was a crime or what was serious or not. That's a legal issue and I hope no one tried to persuade these girls to keep quiet.
If dangerous students can be in school, without the knowledge of their history to teachers or parents, why would you send your child to school?
Good thing there is a law that 12 year olds have to sit in the back seat of a car, but in school, potentially any one of 500 students could have a severe criminal past and it is legally mandated to be hidden?
The legislature needs to fix this.
-NNNCr
balance please
-NNNCr
GHS Parent
I work at the school and this is a very complicated case that is about more than the incident that is being discussed above. Our school administration is not to blame. Mistakes were made on many different levels. The final question though is: should a teacher be terminated after a variety of mis-steps have come to light? Does this consequence fit what actually happened? The majority of students, parents and staff who do know the details do not think this is fair or progressive discipline. Please understand all the facts before making any judgements and it will not help the school or teacher to rush to conclusions. Thanks.
Staff member
Okay, I am the blog writer here (along with Charlie and occasional contributors). None of us wanted the teachers to be "metaphorically drawn and quartered." We wanted them - and whoever trained them to be chaperones - to be held accountable.
I am advocating for the same for whatever teachers were on this trip, popular or not. In fact, I have made that clear to my sources who seem to want the story to be "save the teacher."
"We don't know the details of this incident, nor is it our right to know."
What? Yes, we do because it's a public school district. I'm not sure how you missed that.
GHS parent, what part did Adam get wrong about the Naturebridge trip. Because my recollection of the investigation seems to be right with what he said. Naturally, we don't know if the teachers on that trip were disciplined in any way because that's a "personnel" issue.
Newby here - what does the preceding sentence mean? It was taken from a comment above.
Thank you
Elmer, sexual harassment/assault around school issues is part of the federal Title IX legislation. All states/districts are supposed to have a plan and know the policy. In a previous incident involving yet another field trip where a sexual assault is alleged to have happened, the school had not followed Title IX process nor had the district.
GHS Parent
As a parent, it would be helpful to know what teachers and chaperones are supposed to do in various situations so I can stress to my child the importance of immediately reporting to an adult. I think it may be difficult for some children to know when to keep quiet and when to speak up, and we may have different ideas of what rises to the level of needing to be reported.
-parent
Letters of discipline are public records. Anyone can request them.
At this point, these are personal/personnel issues, not district policy issues, curricular issues, etc. If Ms. Burton wants to fight the charges, then much will come out in public, and discussions will be fair game, but unless/until that happens, do teachers (or students?) have any right to privacy at all anymore? These conversations are public and will last for generations.
Melissa, I think this blog is the single best resource for school-related information and activism in our city, and probably even the region. But I do wonder if there are times when certain news (I'm thinking personnel-related) could be posted by you, but with comments disabled, at least until such time as you can determine the full disposition of the matter. That might keep people from stepping all over each other in the rush to comment on matters that they really don't know about, which in personnel matters can be damaging. And yes people, having a little knowledge can be worse than knowing nothing at all.
Not everything related to schools needs to be a public conversation from the get-go.
This is not to say that anything should be swept under the carpet indefinitely either, just that a little care about what kind of conversations take place might be prudent. This is a very different situation than NatureBridge, and thus far none of the involved parties (to my knowledge) has decided to respond in a way to take the matter public.
"A teacher at Seattle's Garfield High School has been put on administrative leave after allegations surfaced of heavy drinking among staff and chaperones and a student groping other students during a school-sponsored trip to New Orleans in March.
Students reported they saw their teacher and chaperones drinking alcohol while on their bus, and at night on other occasions. In one instance, a chaperone was so drunk they had to be helped back to their room, and a chaperone was "alleged to have engaged in inappropriate contact with a student," while drinking, a school district spokesperson said. It's unclear how many chaperones were involved.
In addition, a report surfaced that a male student groped two female students at night in a New Orleans hotel room. "
This sounds like its very much going to be in the public domain since there is a press conference at 2pm today.
I'm trying to not speculate too much but after the last incident I do tend to hold the administration / field trips to a higher standard and am worried that we have a systemic problem that has not been fixed.
Teachers should not be subjected to abuse, I don't care if there's a plan or not. Dangerous students need a unique educational setting where they and everyone else are safe, unfortunately that place is not a regular SPS classroom.
I can hardly believe people are advocating to keep sexual predictors attending SPS. This has got to stop!
Stop abuse
-speechless
What?! Look, if that represents the general attitude of parents, then it is no surprise that rules get broken and ignored. Even more frustrating is that these events may seriously limit field trip opportunities for those that do follow the rules.
-incensed
Yes, it appears much will be revealed sooner than I would have expected. Thanks for the update Benjamin.
I still think there are times when stories could be posted with comments disabled, just to avoid all the potentially damaging speculation in personnel matters, but this one looks like it's going to be all out in the open soon enough.
Did the students follow through with their walkout? I wonder if any of them will be rethinking their position when everything is public.
You say you don't care if there's a plan or not, you won't follow it. Teachers like you shouldn't be in any classroom.
The other is the behavior of the staff and chaperones on the trip which may or may not have contributed to the behavior by students and regardless is a violation of district policy and state law.
When this blog witch hunts as it does it really shows what this blog is - one of opinion and histrionics and not facts, research and data which it claims and aspires to be.
This should have been posted after the news release and press conference and in turn disable comments to discourage the smearing, slamming and fighting. But then again this would not be as fun to watch
- Stop the talk
I'd be a shame, because field trips can be great experiences, but it would be an even bigger shame for every student in the District to lose them permanently.
I was at the students' press conference. They did an amazing job, especially the young woman who fielded questions from the media. I heard a media person say, while asking a question, that the male student was assigned to sleep in a room with female students. That is unequivocally untrue. My son roomed with the male student and said he was in his bed every night and still there every morning. I actually had heard this rumor back in April, it was being repeated around school by students who were not even in choir, much less on the trip. I hope media people will be responsible and stop circulating such a nasty, false rumor as fact.
Parents and community do have a right to weigh in. Our district already went thru this once before at the same school. It's right to ask questions. It's right - for parents - to weigh in on their concerns about field trips for their children. It's right - for teachers - to weigh in on what they worry about with field trips with students.
"One of the students' main issues is the "outdated" rules about same sex students in the room. They said the boy in question was gay and did not/was not wanted in his assigned room."
That is not what I heard from the student. I believe she said the BOY did not want to be in a room with straight males. Their point about the rule being outdated is not about whether students are assigned to sleep in same-sex rooms, but the rule about students never being allowed into the room of a student of the opposite sex for anything, including watching TV, playing card games, or just hanging out as a group.
In any case, the student was assigned to a same-sex room on the first night, the other boys in the room complained and he was moved to another same-sex room (my son's). The issue of not wanting him in their room had nothing to do with him being gay. That idea is actually laughable if you know anything about the student body at GHS. The boy roomed in my son's room the rest of the trip. There was no point when a boy was rooming with girls. That rumor needs to die a quick death.
Wait. You think a CHILD with a history of sexual assault (and likely also a history as an abuse victim) should be reported to parents of all the other kids in the school so they can all observe that kid closely for years before deeming them ok? What if it's just allegations? Or if the kid has been in therapy for years already? Should there be a statute of limitations from the original incident, or should every parent get their three watchful years from the time they first meet the child? What about if someone just has a hunch about a student, but there's no official history yet? If you're really that afraid about sending your child on a fieldtrip with a student with a history, you should just keep them home form all overnight trips now. More likely than not there's someone who has an undocumented history.
If parents are so worried about their kids' safety on overnight field trips that they won't send them because a certain, maybe a better approach is to step up and volunteer to chaperone. I disagree that you're taking on too much liability by doing so--what you're taking on is a lot of additional responsibility. You have to err on the side of caution in providing oversight, reporting, etc., and you have to uphold a certain standard of behavior. None of that should be a surprise, nor should it be a hardship--it's part of the job duties of chaperoning. Chaperoning is hard, tiring work. You might not get much sleep. The fieldtrip might not be that fun for you. But you're supposed to be doing it for the kids, not yourself. Similarly, a teacher who closely adheres to all the rules and procedures for a fieldtrip and exercises good judgement in oversight (of students and chaperones) is likely to be safe from trouble, even in the event an incident occurs.
HF
http://www.kplu.org/post/seattle-schools-investigating-drinking-groping-during-garfield-high-field-trip
I did not say - at any point - that a boy was rooming with a girl. I was told the boy was not wanted in the room he was originally assigned to which is what you said(I find this interesting given how tight-knit the students in choir say that they are.) Okay, so he moved to another room.
BUT the students at the press conference said this issue of LGBT students having to stay in same sex rooms WAS a major issue. Were you there? Because I was and you are welcome to go ask any of the students who spoke there.
"..if I had a child with a history of committing sexual assault and I wasn't really sure he/she was over it by years of observation, I'd be keeping my child home from overnight field trips.
Wait. You think a CHILD with a history of sexual assault (and likely also a history as an abuse victim) should be reported to parents of all the other kids in the school so they can all observe that kid closely for years before deeming them ok?"
How did you get "report to parents of all other kids" from "I'd be keeping my child home?" Let's be fair.
Read the comments out loud. It slows you down and makes you read for content. Some of you are not doing that.
If a school employee brings a loaded handgun onto school property - contract termination is very likely.
I wonder what consequences there are for failure to fulfill duties of a chaperone.
If a school employee fails to supervise students on an overnight trip, what are the consequences?
Are there any consequences for parent chaperones who fail to supervise on a over night student trip?
By "fail to supervise" I mean failure to fulfill the duties specified in the chaperone contract. Drinking alcohol is certainly a failure.
-- Dan Dempsey
"You say you don't care if there's a plan or not, you won't follow it. Teachers like you shouldn't be in any classroom."
Wow I guess it's your way or the highway? We would lose a lot of teachers follow that guide.
If a student has a case of simple anxiety or withdrawal issues, I'm there for them, but I draw the line at violence and or threats of violence. If other students are afraid in the classroom how can they learn? I'm thankful for not having to have experience being assaulted by a student and hope to keep it that way.
My comment about allowing student sexual predators in schools was not pointed at you personally. If in fact allowing sexual predators in SPS classrooms is the law, then we need to change the law.
Stop Abuse
Any high school teacher taking a group of students on a field trip should assume that some of them have been sexually assaulted in the past, that some of them have committed acts of sexual violence in the past, and that additional students are likely to experience one or both in the near future. The statistics aren't pretty. While it might feel reassuring to think that a teacher has background info on a particular student with a history, there are likely to be other kids who have similar histories but for whom there is no official criminal record or any way for the district/teacher to know. Adults responsible for these trips need to exercise the same level of caution whether they "know" or past incidents or not. This does not, of course, mean that anyone expects any guarantees of safety. It just means there need to be rules and safeguards in place, and they need to be adhered to. It's about minimizing the risks, not eliminating them.
HF
Blogger Eric M said...
A few years back, I had a very threatening student dumped in my class. After he screamed at me for asking him to get out a piece of paper, I learned to go nowhere near him (students had already figured this out right away, of course). He was that scary. I was talking to another teacher after about a month of this crazy situation, and he said, "Oh yeah. That kid was removed from school most of last year because he threatened to kill his teacher. To her face."
Did I get an email or post-it with a warning about this? Of course not. Seems absurd. He was, straight up, the most potentially dangerous student I ever had in 30 years (even including that funny one that went to prison for beating a guy nearly to death with a pipe) But you can bet if it was YOUR kid, you'd consider hiring a lawyer with a fancy suit and fight the district to keep it quiet. "Give the little guy another chance."
mirmac1 said...
A student with serious behavioral issues should have a behavior intervention plan. ALL her/his teachers should be aware of, and implement this plan. The plan should cover field trips and the steps necessary to protect the student and other students.
"A student with serious behavioral issues should have a behavior intervention plan"
Teachers should not be subjected to abuse, I don't care if there's a plan or not. Dangerous students need a unique educational setting where they and everyone else are safe, unfortunately that place is not a regular SPS classroom.
I can hardly believe people are advocating to keep sexual predators (fixed) attending SPS. This has got to stop!
Stop abuse
How is that a leap?
Stop abuse
Certainly, something could happen between any two students. But if this is an issue, have them go to common areas to talk/hangout. But having kids going from room to room unfettered is a recipe for trouble.
Stop abuse, you just co-joined comments that had nothing to do with HF's comment.
I want you to know, it was infuriating to me that no one had told me about how to interpret this student's "kindness" and the danger it presented to the other student's in the program. My student most certainly could have been assaulted due to my ignorance of the "groomer's" past and potential for abusing others. And that makes me angry. However, I wasn't told about him because the "groomer" was not on my case load. FERPA prohibits informing me, or giving me a heads up unless I am directly linked to his education or care. The law limits who is told what about whom.
Clinically, the "groomer" couldn't help his behavior, which is why he was placed in the facility's care. This young man hated the way he was. He hated that he behaved in that way, and it angered him to the point of violence when he was stopped mid "groom". It saddened me to see him suffering while wrestling with being that way. He was just a boy.
There is a difference between receiving notification in order to use caution and remain observant, and receiving notification in order to ostracize and/or lash out in some aggressive or micro-aggressive way. These are kids. But the behavior of grooming and abusing isn't easily "cured" if even curable. It is sad. Really, sad.
-catch22
"HF, what? I didn't say anything about mandatory reporting to other parents. I was saying what I would do as a parent if my own son or daughter had been a perpetrator of sexual assault in the past. I think that's the question Eric M. was asking."
Yes, thank you, Patrick, for your reasonable response. Obviously I misinterpreted your statement and I apologize for that. I initially read it more as "say there's a child with a history..., then I'd keep my own child home." Since Eric M had also mentioned having a kid with issues in his classroom, I took "having a kid" in the more general sense.
HF
PS - ChoirMom, there's no shame in misinterpreting something, or in admitting an honest mistake. There will be no eating of crow. Sorry to disappoint.
SEA member
My post was in response to pudding's question: My question still remains - if a kid has a known history, should they still have the same rights as other kids to go on overnight field trips? Should the teacher be kept in the dark?
My response was to paraphrase 34 CFR §300.530(f), which reads in part:
(f) Determination that behavior was a manifestation. If the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team make the determination that the conduct was a manifestation of the child’s disability, the IEP Team must—
(1) Either—
(i) Conduct a functional behavioral assessment, unless the LEA had conducted a functional behavioral assessment before the behavior that resulted in the change of placement occurred, and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the child; or
(ii) If a behavioral intervention plan already has been developed, review the behavioral intervention plan, and modify it, as necessary, to address the behavior; and
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, return the child to the placement from which the child was removed, unless the parent and the LEA agree to a change of placement as part of the modification of the behavioral intervention plan.
(g) Special circumstances. School personnel may remove a student to an interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 school days without regard to whether the behavior is determined to be a manifestation of the child’s disability, if the child...(3) Has inflicted serious bodily injury
upon another person while at school, on school premises, or at a school function under the jurisdiction of an SEA or an LEA.
From there you stated that, to hell with the law you (and presumably other school personnel) wouldn't follow it; and that it appeared you thought I was advocating for sexual predators in classrooms. Ergo, the leap and my assertion that perhaps a career move was advisable.
Alum parent
First off, there are a few things that have been said here that are absolutely
untrue. The two victims never directly told their choir director at any point. They confided in a close friend, who then told Burton out of concern for his classmate's safety (God forbid the perpetrator ended up sitting next to one of the girls on the airplane). Also, the girls were never told to keep quiet about what happened to them by Burton, the administration, or anyone else. They have (understandably) kept the incident private. Thirdly, the perpetrator was not a freshman.
As for the press conference, I have a question for those who attended: it was my understanding that a statement of one or both of the victims was read aloud. Is this true, and if so what did the statement entail?
6/10/15, 7:54 PM
another alum parent
1) The District has reason to suspect that chaperones violated the field trip procedures and they are investigating. Is there a set procedure for such an investigation? Is there a budget for this? It's unclear to me when the District chooses to launch an investigation into policy and procedure violations and when they don't. Is this how they will respond to all reported procedure violations in the future?
1a) If the chaperones were staff, and it can be shown that they violated the procedures, will they be held accountable in an appropriate way - neither too lenient nor too draconian? What rules govern that? I would guess that the collective bargaining agreement dictates. Will the consequences be similar to those imposed when chaperones violated field trip procedures in the past (presuming, of course, that any chaperones have ever violated any field trip procedures in the past)?
1b) If the chaperones were not staff, and it can be shown that they violated the procedures, can they be held accountable at all or will they simply be disqualified from serving as chaperone in future?
2) The District has two reports of sexual harassment/assault. We know that there are procedures in place to respond to such reports. The District and the district staff - including the teachers and chaperones on the field trip - should follow those procedures and be held accountable if they violate them. Does anyone want to dispute that?
Who was hostile? I actually thought she was somewhat hostile especially in her remark that we couldn't understand how kids think today. (Naturally I don't take offense. because I know she's a teenager and they all think anyone older than 25 doesn't know anything.) I also know those media people and they are good folks.
So you have seen the district's report? Because I haven't so I don't know how you know what they have said are "half-truths." I had barely read any of the press release and none of my questions were based on it.
Nochoir mom
Duh
-speechless
Ms. Burton is perhaps the most caring and passionate teacher I have run across over the duration of 29 years raising three kids. She literally turns kids lives around and puts them on a positive trajectory - I say this from first hand experience as the mom of a student who is not particularly musically gifted. Burton is a truly a miracle worker.
This is all great, and I think many of us appreciate Ms. Burton's contributions over the years. As the parent of a kid who has also benefitted from her, I know I do.
Unfortunately, she screwed up. Big time. There is no getting around that, and there is no "undo button". This was not a case of chaperones sneaking around on the side doing something they shouldn't be doing, this was a case of Ms. Burton being directly involved in group behavior that puts kids' safety at risk. Regardless of what people's opinions about adult drinking on field trips is, they all signed documents stating that they would not.
I attended all the pre-travel meetings for the New Orleans trip along with another parent who actually chaperoned the trip. Students and chaperones were very clearly communicated with regarding the rules of the trip. Students were allowed to weigh in on the details of the rules. The planning was thorough. The rules were solid. Each traveler signed the very tightly written contract re behavior and obligations before traveling.
What you're saying here is that there is no possible way that anyone could have thought their behavior was acceptable, right?
Unfortunately, the word on the street (hallways) is that this has probably been going on for years, not just with choir trips, but other groups as well, and old habits are hard to break. How else could behavior like this be explained when each person has to sign a mile-high stack of papers spelling out all the expectations so clearly?!
How can adults be trusted to watch over our kids when they can't even behave responsibly themselves?
What a sad day this is. I think the days are numbered for these kinds of field trips. I suspect there are other teachers at Garfield that think they are "untouchable" as well, but if this doesn't prove that's no longer the case in 2015, I'm not sure anything will.
- fingers crossed
parent
In the aftermath of the NatureBridge case, the district's own paid investigator found that the GHS teachers in charge of the field trip, the chaperones, and the administrators did not follow the policies and procedures in place at the time. These staff admitted that they hadn't even read the policies and procedures that were designed for the safety of the children. Were any of these staff held accountable for their noncompliance?
Fast forward two years. In the current case, the district's paid investigator found that the GHS teacher in charge of the trip and the chaperones did not follow the policies and procedures in place at the time (new policies and procedures instituted since the NatureBridge trip). These staff admitted that they did not follow the policies and procedures put in place for the safety of the children. Are these staff going to be held accountable for their noncompliance?
See the pattern? SPS can have all the policies and procedures in the world on the books, but if they're not followed, and no one is held accountable, then what's the message being given to staff (and what's the point of having the policies)? Is the message, well, we profess to "take student safety seriously" but when it comes to holding staff accountable for violating procedures designed to keep students safe, we look the other way? And what adult behavior regarding accountability is being modeled to the students?
What do we hear now that the district might actually hold staff accountable? Parent testimonials about the teacher (presumably not from the parents of the molested children)? Student concerns that the punishment doesn't fit the crime?
Parents don't send their kids on field trips to be sexually victimized. If a child is sexually assaulted (including "groping") under district supervision, then the parents have a right to know: what happened, why was this allowed to occur on an SPS field trip, what measures were in place to ensure student safety, why didn't the measures protect the student, and if these measures weren't followed, why weren't they, and who is to be held accountable?
These questions were never answered two years ago for the NatureBridge trip. Will the district step up and answer them for the current case? Or do we have to endlessly repeat these sorry stories?
Adam
Can't teachers be protected from harm by aggressive and violent students without calling for their termination. It's a hard enough job without adding in the threat of physical injury.
This blog is so schizophrenic, one post commending the teachers for the walkout then BOOM off with a teachers head for a small over-site or wanting a safe classroom.
I would like to know who at the district keeps providing inside information to these bloggers and for what purpose? You might not be Eric Snowden, but your doing damage just like he did.
Poison pill
And what would it say if the District looks the other way and takes no action? What message is that? And even though they blew it on the Nature Bridge incident, you can't expect them to say, "Well we screwed up and didn't discipline anyone then, so we can't now." Doesn't this seem like a tiny bit of progress? I would NOT want to see her blamed for a drunk chaperone - that is not her fault. It is her actions that are at issue. As a parent, I don't want my kids "supervised" in this manner. That said, I'd be open to a suspension, like for a year? That would show the district is serious about safety and consequences, while showing some compassion for this outstanding teacher who made a spectacular screw up. Face it, she's never getting hired again as a teacher with this on her record.
And let's remember the girls here. The support of the teacher kinda minimizes their painful experience, which doesn't sit well with me. The teacher owes them an apology.
Honestly, if I was a teacher, I would NEVER agree to go on these overnight trips. But if I did, I'd understand that I was the bottom line. Unfortunate situation all around.
-Rare Commenter
No one at the district has told me a single word on this issue. No one. I knew for months this teacher was on paid administrative leave and said nothing, mostly because I had no further information even though I had asked at the district. Then, when I did get info - mostly because students and parents came forward in defense of the teacher - I printed it.
As for Eric Snowden, it rather looks like he's been vindicated somewhat. At least according to American courts.
Rare Commenter, right on point. I will have more to say when I write up the students' press conference but I am astonished at what parents have said. I understand students being young and earnest but the "oh well" attitude of some parents is astonishing.
I am left at this point to wonder if the victims would not have come forward (one commenter says it was not them but a friend worried they might have to sit next to boy who touched them inappropriately) if they knew this would happen.
What I think is that whoever told the teacher wanted to protect the girls and, possibly, get this boy kicked out of school so he could not do this again to anyone. The problem is that the students did not realize the teacher HAD to report it once it was reported to her. Plus, it was not a simple matter of expelling him. And thus this all unfolded.
Even if some think this a small blot on a teacher's record (and I heard her lawyer say that she had led 48 trips over the years and none with an issue), the problem is that the district AND this school had already been thru this before. The district redid its policies and procedures, directed principals to learn them and uphold them and, from what I heard from one parent about another Garfield trip this year, the principal read chaperones a quiet version of the riot act on chaperoning.
The issue is not one teacher. The issue is multi-layered.
Did the chaperones do their jobs as outlined to them?
Did they use their best judgment in the interest and safety of students?
Did the lead person (the choir teacher) make sure that chaperones understood all this and set an example?
If they did all these things, yes, something could have still happened. Kids are quite crafty and sometimes use some poor judgment.
But at least the district and the chaperones could look parents in the eyes and say, "We did all we could according to district policy." Legal could say to any plaintiff, "We will show that our chaperones were trained, the students knew and signed a behavior policy and the chaperones followed the policies."
I DO think the superintendent should take EVERYTHING about this teacher into account. Obviously, no one was exited over NatureBridge.
Until the teacher or her lawyer step forward and explain her thinking, we don't know. Is she being blamed for things she could not control i.e. the behavior of the other chaperones? Or did she know and do nothing? Or did she join in?
There were at least two separate incidents of inappropriate no-consent touching (this from both students and the district's press release). Did the teacher know about the first one? If so, what did she do?
Did any chaperone know and not tell her? If that happened, that's on the chaperone.
You'd have to see what she did and did not do. That's up to the investigation and the Superintendent.
That said -- the thing I find most astonishing, and disheartening -- is that this situation (where adults reportedly did not follow all of the rules applicable to chaperones) could occur at the very school where NatureBridge happened. How could these adults not have been the MOST CAREFUL chaperones in town, given what occurred such a short time ago? It seems like such a betrayal of the kids (and the school) to not have been the most vigilant, serious, on-top-of-things chaperones ever to walk the earth!
I also know next to nothing about Ms. Burton, and so have no opinions one way or another -- but if people think she is a really great, gifted teacher, I hope they can come up with something like the commenter above suggested (a year of suspension, followed by umpteen years on some sort of probation, or something) so that she can continue to teach.
And at the end of the day -- I hope all the kids are ok -- the ones who were molested, the one(s) who finally told the adults, and (assuming all these allegations are true) the one who evidently needs serious help with behavior that, if not dealt with, will cause him some serious legal and other problems in adulthood -- which is coming up real soon (and that is if it isn't causing trouble already).
Jan
The District failed to mention that they did not follow their own policies, procedures, and protocol by notifying the teacher and principal of a student's recent history of sexual harassment that led to expulsion from another school.
Ms. Burton reported the incident on the field trip as soon as she possibly could. That very evening, in fact. The District responded by placing her immediately on leave and treating her as a criminal, including forbidding her from attending performances of her own neice and nephew at other Seattle schools. Clearly not exactly an incentive for reporting incidences.
The District could actually take meaningful steps to reduce the risk and incidence of sexual harassment. They could provide education on consent, boundaries, and harassment. They could talk with teachers with years of experience about better policies and practices. They could ensure teachers and principals know of the background of students with a history of harassment.
Ms. Burton had one drink with chaperones in the bar during their evening meetings. No students were there. She also had less than one glass of wine with dinner, one night. It seems highly unlikely to me that these were the first chaperones to have a drink at the end of a day (without kids) and wine with dinner. The alleged sexual harassment was no more or less likely because of that.
If the District had followed their own policies, procedures, and protocol, the risk would, actually, have decreased (though, still exists, on field trips, or not.)
The strongest message the District has sent these past months seems to be "don't tell" if you are a victim or a teacher. Your program will be terribly disrupted, and your teacher will be gone. Firing Ms. Burton for this would not only be excessive punishment, it would do absolutely nothing to address the issue of sexual harassment, and likely will have a chilling effect on future reporting of incidences.
School supporter
Actually, there isn't. At least not in anything I've seen. But we haven't seen the investigation report. And there are two alleged incidences, not one.
"...they cherry-pick misleading information from a report that supposedly is not public.."
And you know this how? Have you seen the report?
"The District failed to mention that they did not follow their own policies, procedures, and protocol by notifying the teacher and principal of a student's recent history of sexual harassment that led to expulsion from another school."
This has yet to be proven. We'd have to see the report (which we can't). I would caution you to use the word "alleged history." But yes, if this is true, the district has yet dug itself another hole.
"Ms. Burton reported the incident on the field trip as soon as she possibly could. That very evening, in fact." Again, how do you know this for certain?
School supporter, you sure know a lot. Were you on this trip? How do you know how much she had to drink and when? Were you in her room?
In short, unless you are her, I don't see how you can truly know.
I would agree that it might be a chilling thing to exit her on this basis but I'd have to know what she did, what she knew and when she knew it. You know, like an investigation (unless you believe the investigation is tainted).
P.S. Do we even know the time frame that each incident occurred? Does anyone care? Or think it matters? I sure do.
1) The witnesses/participants in said investigation are instructed to not talk about it to anyone.
2) The District, in response to the visibility of students'/parents' press conference/protest, releases a "It's a personnel issue we can't comment.....but I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin' " press release of their own.
Those directly involved are under orders to shut up. The District HR/PR does what any organization would do - release the minimum amount of knowns plus a little extra "generic" info from which one may draw a conclusion.
Thus ensues speculation, suppositions, if/thens, and "If it was me, I'd..." comments.
It sucks all the way around.
And school supporter, obviously SOME students saw the drinking and must have been uncomfortable about it because they were the ones who reported it
Really?Really?
School Supporter
What I would say about the District telling anyone but the teacher to stay quiet is they don't have that right. It might be in their best interests and they should ask their own lawyer but there is real right for the district to issue a gag order.
I don't know the facts, but I would definitely expect the District to hold accountable an educator who had anything to drink herself. And unless the educator can demonstrate that chaperones drank in spite of her instructions to the contrary, I am also completely comfortable with holding an educator accountable for that as well.
We may never know the facts. And I will not rush to judgment on any front. But the "don't drink around the students" standard seems eminently reasonable to me.
I am quite certain that STUDENTS reported at least some of this, thus the wording, "STUDENTS observed their teacher and chaperones drinking alcohol..." From what Melissa reported, it certainly seems some of the ADULTS misbehavior was reported to investigators by STUDENTS.
In any case, I stand by my belief that adults in charge of minors on a school trip should not be drinking, period, much less drinking to excess, as seems to have been the case with at least one person.
Really? Really?
Why not? Personally, re: teacher discipline, I think it's irrelevant whether or not an incident was reported. If Teacher A drinks on the job and nobody is hurt, and Teacher B drinks but somebody IS hurt, do people really think that only Teacher B should be punished? Teacher A would deserve punishment just as much. And remember, sexual assaults often go unreported, so basing discipline on reported incidents seems a bad way to go.
From the information released thus far, it would seem she clearly knew the rules and blatantly disregarded them. This sent a message to the students that rules wouldn't be tightly enforced on the trip, which may have contributed to student misbehavior. It also sent a similar message to chaperones, which likely contributed to their lax oversight, the apparent inebriation of one chaperone and the inappropriate conduct with a student. Had the students and chaperones felt the teacher was watching closely and enforcing the rules, things may have been different. SO while the teacher's actions/inactions didn't "cause" the groping (in answer to WSWDG's earlier question), it may have been a contributing factor in that and other inappropriate behavior.
Regardless of whether or not an "incident" was reported on the trip, by choosing to ignore the field trip rules the teacher put the students, herself, the chaperones, the school and the district's pocketbook at additional risk. That was a dumb thing to do. If I were an employer, I'd have a hard time justifying the additional risk in keeping such an employee around--even if they were great at the rest of their job. I'm not saying they necessarily should fire her, but I don't think it's an unreasonable option.
HIMSmom
@RR: I'm not sure you read the whole thread, but the knee-jerk, zero-sum analysis serves nobody. I.e., one can be both sympathetic and critical at the same time. Supporting a teacher doesn't mean supporting every step they take, nor is it an endorsement of alcohol on field trips. How you got that from my comment, I'm not sure, but I'm weary of such black or white, up or down, in or out, over-simplified analyses. Does it really need to be said that generally supporting someone doesn't, ipso facto, mean endorsing every single thing they do? Do I really, really have to explain that?
This is what bad policies like zero tolerance and three strikes you're out bring us, I'm afraid. "If you're not with us, you're against us." Uh, no. Not quite. Not at all, in fact. Personally, I prefer to avoid jumping into one camp or another until all the discernible facts are revealed. How my advocacy for that point has led you or others to think I endorse alcohol-fueled field trips, I don't know. But it appears some triggers flip rather easily in these matters.
WSDWG
For those who have experienced a few of these trips know Valium is the way to go, just make sure you have a prescription.
Bud Light
True. Unfortunately, it iS against policy. Here's #2 in the guidelines, which chaperones have to sign and say they agree to comply with.
In order to comply with District policy, during District sponsored events, chaperones:
• may not use, sell, provide, possess, or be under the influence of drugs or alcohol
• may not use tobacco in the presence of, or within the sight of, students
• may not possess any weapon
• may not administer any medications, prescription or nonprescription, to students
HIMSmom (who enjoys a good drink now and again--emphasis on again!--but cannot imagine doing so on a school field trip.)
"So, in the vacuum of actual evidence, we speculate."
So it's not a vacuum; it's more of a withholding. You can speculate on how many drinks, when, number of nights, etc. But was there drinking on the part of some of the adults? Yes.
Bud Light, there is absolutely no reason to have a drink when you are a chaperone on a field trip with students. There's no need and if you really feel you need a drink, don't put your hand up. Because a chaperone may need good facilities and judgment in the middle of the night, need to drive to a hospital, talk to law enforcement, etc.
And, of course, it's against policy. There is no district that could afford the liability of allowing chaperones to drink. Where's your common sense?
The District has a lot of policies and procedures. Most of them are simply ignored and everyone is cool with that. No one reports the violations and no one is held accountable for them. There are, however, a few policies and procedures that are actually enforced. Not many, but a few.
The field trip procedures and the sexual harassment/assault procedures used to be in the big group of policies and procedures that everyone could safely ignore. Look at the NatureBridge case - those people didn't even know the procedures, let alone follow them and none of them were held accountable or saw any consequences.
But, since NatureBridge, the field trip and sexual harassment/assault policies and procedures have moved onto the tiny list of policies and procedures that are actually enforced. Since this list is not official, there was no announcement of the shift. So the teachers and choir boosters at Garfield didn't know that they could no longer do all of the stuff had always done before.
It does seem a bit unfair that the District suddenly starts to enforce policies and procedures that they never enforced before. They should warn people or something before they start enforcing policies that everyone used to be able to violate with impunity.
What makes you say that? Have you seen the report? That's the standard for making claims about what's in the report, right?
BUT: To say that the staff at Garfield, particularly, might have been unaware of the new paradigm seems a stretch after Naturebridge.
That said, earnest attempt by District to adhere to ALL policies would go a long way to strengthening adherence to rules generally. Though if any are to be adhered to, it's good that it's those that relate directly and immediately to student safety.
When there's a crisis, and the finger pointing begins, the policies suddenly assume great importance. No wonder people are confused about when the policies are going to be enforced and when it's OK to ignore them.
Adam
My HS kid went on a field trip last spring where a student broke his arm doing something stupid in his dorm room (they were at the WSU campus). The teacher in charge had to drop what she was doing and take the kid to urgent care. A teacher who's been drinking, even a little, might not be at her sharpest, and THAT is why there is a no-drinking policy in place. Any teacher who ignores that puts kids in her care at risk-period. Ms. Burton might be the salt of the earth, but what if, just maybe, some of what happened in New Orleans with both students and chaperones could have been prevented if she had skipped those drinks?
Really?Really?
Sustained!
I rest my case. WSDWG
No one seems to be subject to any consequences here except for Ms Burton, so the really important questions are these:
1) Did Ms Burton allow the boy into a girl designated hotel room?
2) Did Ms Burton fail to follow the policy and procedure upon receiving any of the three reports of sexual harassment/assault?
3) Did Ms Burton consume alcohol in violation of her chaperone commitment?
4) Did Ms Burton, as the leader on the trip, allow the consumption of alcohol by other chaperones?
And one more question: if the answers to any of these questions is "yes", then what is the prescribed consequence? I cannot imagine that any of these requires the termination of her contract. It never has before and it sets a precedent that I don't believe Dr. Nyland or the District wants to establish and follow in future.
Again, this is the flaw at the root of nearly all of the District's problems: the culture of lawlessness. Procedures, policies, state regulations, and federal laws are routinely violated, they are never enforced, and the people who violate them are never corrected or held accountable. Institutional culture flows down from the top, and the top of Seattle Public Schools is the School Board. The Board turns a blind eye to countless policy violations even though they have a duty to enforce policy. This signals a disregard for policy which is picked up by the superintendent and passed to his staff, who pass it down the chain of command to their subordinates. Likewise, if the School Board chose to enforce policy the superintendent would, in turn, enforce policy on his senior staff and compliance would be relayed down the chain of command instead.
The Board has the tools they need to enforce policy. They have the office of the internal auditor. They could use it to require compliance, but they do not. They have their own authority. They could use it to require compliance, but they do not. Any one Board member - any one of them - can insist on policy compliance at any time, but they do not. It does not require a majority vote of the Board to require policy compliance because the policies themselves are directions to the superintendent approved by majority vote of the Board. It would be an absurd state of affairs if it required a majority vote of the Board to enforce a majority vote of the Board. What if the superintendent still did not comply? Would another majority vote of the Board be required to enforce the direction to follow the policy? That would be madness. No. Any individual Board Director, acting unilaterally, has the authority to require policy compliance. So why don't they do it?
I have been told that they don't enforce policy because they don't want to anger and alienate the senior staff and lose their cooperation. I don't understand that. If the senior staff are not following policy, then the Board doesn't have their cooperation now. There's nothing to lose. Also, senior staff who routinely refuse to cooperate with the Board should be replaced. Who wants 'em?
It's not speculation that a person who hasn't been drinking is probably better equipped to make important decisions for student safety than one who hasn't.
One thing that strikes me about this trip is that what I perceive about what is in the press release from the report is that this was not one day/night but over two days. Just like NatureBridge. We'll just have to read the report to see.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7JWyDpBohCBYmZ3T0FDQ1hQUzZvSnA1cF8zX3M4MTFXSndN/edit
~ Former student of Carol Burton, GHS class of 2010
HP