Garfield Choir Field Trip Update
From SPS Communications:
Today, the Seattle Public Schools superintendent found that probable cause existed to terminate the employment of a Garfield High School choir teacher following an investigation into a school sponsored field trip to New Orleans in March 2015. The superintendent found that numerous district policies, protocols and field trip guidelines were violated. Such violations included the consumption of alcohol by staff, allowing chaperones to consume alcohol, allowing boys and girls inside each other’s hotel rooms, ignoring curfew, and no random room checks conducted after curfew.
During this field trip a male student is alleged to have groped two female students at night in a New Orleans hotel room and on a bus, students observed their teacher and chaperones drinking alcohol, a teacher and chaperones drank alcohol at night on other occasions, a chaperone was visibly incapacitated and had to be helped back to their hotel room one night, and a chaperone was alleged to have engaged in inappropriate contact with a student while under the influence of alcohol.
The District hired an investigator, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, to conduct the investigation. The investigation found that numerous policies, procedures, and protocols were violated by staff and chaperones.
A separate investigation surrounding whether relevant background information about prior a student attending the field trip was shared, as well as staff procedures surrounding that information is still underway.
Safety is a top priority. A basic expectation for students and parents is that district staff will ensure the safety of students while under their care, in and out of the classroom.
Comments
If so, most of the senior staff will be gone by February.
Apparently "Violate policies and procedures and you're fired?" does NOT apply to administrators and senior staff.
The message for teachers is "Violate policies and procedures and you're fired?"
Perhaps the above two consequences need to be written in an "accountability and consequences" section of the Policies and Procedures.
-- Dan Dempsey
Today, the Seattle Public Schools superintendent found that probable cause existed to ..........
Now if only the "probable cause existed" standard will be used to:
Improve the SPS by intelligently applying relevant data in all decision-making.
Man-o-man I can hardly wait for this to catch on in city government as well.
-- Dan Dempsey
Rita
As for Dan and Charlie, yes, when will senior leadership ever be held responsible for their lack of transparency and oversight?
That's why we need a new Board AND a new Superintendent. Nyland is a figurehead who is marching to the beat of someone else's drum.
"a failure to exercise reasonable care in protecting a student from sexual assault by a peer,"
What happened to those admin at NatureBridge that failed in multiple ways to follow policies and procedures with disastrous results? Oh right nothing. (Yet?)
But Carol Burton is actually being held responsible for violations unlike so many others in the past.
Looking at this another way... is it more difficult to replace Ms. Burton by finding another top notch choir teacher to lead an excellent program .... than to find replacement administrators? Perhaps Dr. Nyland needs to go back and re-examine the administrators from the NatureBridge incident and "Find probable cause exists for termination".
If the legal liability questions have been resolved from NatureBridge, this would be a good time to enforce policy.
-- Dan Dempsey
It's a hard, hard place to "act adult" even as an adult. And to go into knowing you have to supervise a bunch of HS students?
Gee, sitting in Seattle and picking field trips - did it not occur that maybe a different competition (and there must be many) in a different place might be a better choice?
I'm sorry the teacher lost her job, but I think the trip was as doomed as Gilligan's three hour tour from the beginning, first by choosing the location. Then by having any drink. Not one. Even though the drinks don't appear to be the proximate cause of any of the things that happened, they put the teacher and chaperones in a terrible position to argue they weren't at fault - b/c they had broken a bight line rule, even if breaking that rule isn't the cause of what happened.
But still - maybe they should have looked for a choir competition somewhere like Indianapolis or Columbus or Knoxville or Minneapolis - just right there, make it easier on everyone - harder for the kids to get alcohol, easier for the chaperones to decide to go without, a place with a less laissez-faire/ bon temps roulez vibe.
So, sorry this shook out, but she did make more than one bad choice - and choosing to take a bunch of high schoolers to New Orleans in the first place, knowing how the Nature Bridge thing happened, well... I wouldn't have done it, not in a million years.
Signed: Anon
I have to smile - now it's New Orleans fault? The competitions are where they are and sometimes there are scheduling issues.
But to circle back, why isn't Ted Howard responsible for anything? The investigation says he is not responsible, in any way, for the issues on this trip. I would disagree.
Back after the NatureBridge incident, he put a stop to all field trips for 2014-2015 (I looked it up). Then he changed it to Jan. 2015 (probably because of protests). According to one parent on a field trip in the spring (not this one), the parents on that trip were basically read a low-key riot act before they left over the duties of the chaperones.
Did that happen for teachers leading these trips? We don't know. Or did Howard, like Ms. Burton (again from the report) to the kids on her trip, say something like "Don't do anything dumb."
Because it does seem odd that it's Garfield that has these high-profile issues. (Yes, I know other high schools have had issues but not like these.)
It does seem odd that it appears no teacher on NatureBridge was punished in any way.
(I have asked but I will ask again.)
It does seem odd that if Principal Howard made it crystal clear to teachers after NatureBridge that they cannot violate the rules and policies on field trips that Ms. Burton did. In several ways based on her own judgment and values.
Her judgment was poor and her own personal values - if not expressed to Howard and addressed by him - have no place in her decision-making.
But yes, in the big picture, what is learned here?
That teens will do dumb things on field trips. (Was that really a lesson anyone didn't already know especially experienced high school teachers?)
That when bad things happen, it helps to be able to say, "I follow the rules to the best of my ability."
That if you are an adult on a field trip, it's your job to act like an adults with students and maybe with other adults (like asking why kids are running around in each other's rooms and why the adults are drinking in front of kids). I have a feeling at least a couple of adults on this trip may have wondered but left it to Burton's judgment.
That the district will be punitive in who they punish. And we will never know why they would punish a teacher when the staff person who reviewed the boy's transcript seems every bit as culpable. (And we don't know if that person was punished.
In the end, I think that what the district has created is an atmosphere of confusion and fear and that most teachers (and parents) will just say no to going on field trips.
But the die seems cast and I wonder about the future of field trips for SPS students (at least overnight).
"But to circle back, why isn't Ted Howard responsible for anything? The investigation says he is not responsible, in any way, for the issues on this trip. I would disagree."
Exactly. Why doesn't Principal Ted Howard bear any responsibility for what happened? On his watch, there have been too many field trips that have placed the school and the District in the public eye.
If Carol Burton had always been too lenient on school - sponsored field trips, why would Garfield admin allow this trip when the stakes were so high?
Does this mean that as of now, jazz band and orchestra trips will no longer be school - sponsored trips, but "school - related" trips, absolving the administration and the District of all responsibility?
---Modern Sound
Kids will find ways to misbehave, but it should be possible to avoid crimes with nonconsenting victims like the girls in New Orleans and the Naturebridge incident.
GHS choir mom
Also, following the rules about mixing in rooms assigned to the other sex would have given the boy one less opportunity.
No one has said the kids are to blame for anything.
GHS choir mom
Yes, Signed: Anon, please do tell us about the musical/cultural history that would be enriching for the students on a field trip to these towns vs. New Orleans.
In Minneapolis, perhaps they could cruise around town hoping for a Prince sighting while The Replacements blasts on the charter buses, on their way to the Mall of America (because kids love The Replacements and malls, right?).
Columbus - Aside from the thrill of visiting the capital of a midwest state that begins with a vowel, a trip to Columbus would ensure students are a mere 2 hours away from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But that museum celebrates the Devil's music, and might entice the students to gyrate their hips. And we all know what happens then.
Knoxville? Well, it's near Dollywood, It's also a mere 5hrs from Memphis & 2+hrs from Nashville - both hotbeds of Devil's music (see above).
Indianapolis? Uhhhhhhh......
Thanks for the most amusing field trip suggestions I've read in quite some time.
Gimme a Break.
Signed,
Nell Harper
Demon Rum
If the answer to both those questions is yes, then maybe they were unsupervised.
Randy Lee Francisco
In your call for progressive discipline, we might also consider the District's discipline over the years. What has the district done with teacher field trip leaders in the past? Is this a huge deviation from established practice?
-- Dan Dempsey
Staffer
I hope Burton appeals and wins a position back - or she could go to another district and build a choir to beat the pants off Garfield. Serve them right.
-IngrahamParent
Moose
SPS has lots of rules that are ignored by schools. People here endorse schools doing that for curriculum adoption, test administration, and other reasons. I get that some people agree with this particular rule and are shocked that it's ignored. A teacher made a judgement call, where an SPS rule was considered as one factor against many others. Teachers do this every day.
CuriousaboutCulture
With that said, I also do not believe Ms. Burton should be fired. I think she should be removed from GHS and reassigned to another school and never be allowed to take students off campus.
I don't disagree that the larger issue is the lenient interpretation of room rules (boys in girls rooms and vice versa). However my point to those who say that teachers will never want to chaperone trips again or that she is unfairly losing her job...drinking on the job in violation of the terms of her agreement are by itself reason for termination.
Moose
Because some rules, when bent, lead to sexual assaults, while others do not.
If rules had been followed and an incident occurred w/ this male student, then blame could have been placed on the school or the district for allowing the student to participate, not the teacher.
Because some rules, when bent, lead to sexual assaults while others do not.
If rules had been followed and an incident occurred w/ this male student, then blame could have been placed on the school or the district for allowing the student to participate, not the teacher.
If all the rules had been followed then Ms Burton would not be losing her job.
So, yes IMHO all the rules should have been followed, not just the ones bloggers agree with - that is a nonstarter.
It is a very big problem for teachers and other staff members, when they are not informed of potentially dangerous students being placed under their supervision. It happens way too often.
Experienced.
It was a rule, which was broken that set the stage for the assault and the teacher could not argue due diligence.
1) The drinking by Ms Burton and the chaperones had nothing to do with the alleged sexual assault.
2) The alleged sexual assault had nothing to do with Ms Burton's firing.
Ms Burton was not fired because two girls reported sexual harassment/assault on the field trip. Ms Burton got fired because she violated a number of field trip procedures and did so willfully and unrepentantly. If you want to discuss the firing, please address yourself to the true rational for it - not the reported sexual harassment/assault. That's what a student on the trip is accused of doing wrong. Ms Burton isn't getting fired for what the boy did wrong; she's getting fired for what she did wrong. Her consumption of alcohol is not even the big part of that.
If Charlie Mas is correct and her behavior didn't cause anything bad to happen (this will be demonstrated), then this is a situation for progressive discipline, not termination. A hearing examiner will get it if her representation is any good. The school district will spend a lot of your money and lose the adverse action case.
1) The drinking by Ms Burton and the chaperones had nothing to do with the alleged sexual assault.
2) The alleged sexual assault had nothing to do with Ms Burton's firing.
Well, the drinking was one of the rules that the students knew Ms. Burton was breaking, and so was one of the reason the victims attempted to handle the continued assaults themselves instead of reporting them.
If the assaults hadn't happened, there would have been no investigation and no firing.
I have gone on record saying Burton should not be fired but she should also never plan/lead a field trip.
Again, the drinking did not cause the groping. The relaxed atmosphere created by adult behavior almost certainly enabled and empower the male student.
Why are rules important when kids are younger but not with teens? Those who haven't parented thru the teenage years, come back when you have and we'll talk again.
Lastly, I didn't make the rules so I'm not saying which rules can be broken.
The article in the Weekly is also in error by suggesting that the School Board had anything to do with this. That's just objectively wrong.
The Weekly writes:
"Late Friday, Superintendent of Public Schools Larry Nyland passed a letter of termination to Garfield High School choir teacher Carol Burton. Ostensibly, this is punishment for her failure to uphold district policies for field trips on a March excursion to New Orleans, during which, it was discovered: Burton and several of her parent chaperones had partaken of alcohol, tacitly sanctioned mixed-gender chill sessions in hotel rooms and, most damningly for the embattled School Board, oversaw an environment that left two girls complaining of unwanted sexual contact from a male classmate."
Why "ostensibly"? Why isn't the stated rationale for the action credible? Why the presumption that Dr. Nyland is being deceptive?
Why characterize the School Board as "embattled"? What's the source of that view?
Why even mention the School Board? They had absolutely no role in any of this.
I think the writer for the Weekly has some questions to answer.
The root cause of this termination is the misconduct of the student, who should not have been included in trip in the first place. There are certainly some issues with staff and accompanying adults, but it is not a termination issue.
Track unsafe students and keep all supervising adults well apprised!
RLF, agreed. I am astonished that Beryl Miller, the district official who made the call - seemingly by herself - to NOT include his past behavior into the district's database is still working. Of course, maybe she was sanctioned and that's where the Board could come in. Meaning, they may not be able to do anything in this case but they could pass policy that requires that at least they are told about sanctions.
But again, while RLF is correct that this student doesn't care about rules and boundaries, it seems that making a "relaxed" atmosphere for him to act out certainly didn't hurt and may have emboldened him.
Reader
Again, I would have to know what Ms. Miller's job description looks like - she can make these judgements all by herself when it comes to other students' safety? There's no second check on these types of issues?
As well, "the boy misbehaved?" The boy broke the law. Big difference.