The District and Union Both Have a Problem: Exhibit A - Muir Elementary

I reported here about the alleged rape of a child at Muir Elementary during school year 2016-2017 by an IA, Albert C. Virachismith.  The child said nothing to his parents until the next year when that IA had been moved to another school.

I'll just state outright - unions, especially teachers and police - need to stop protecting bad actors.  Yes, follow protections in the union contract of how a member is supported when being called less-than-effective.  But the level of the support should be a minimum when you have a member who clearly needs to be exited.  When all the proof is in and the person is given the opportunity to change and doesn't, then that person should then be exited from the job.

The Times had a recent article on this story which adds new information that presents a real challenge to both the district and the union because both could have made different choices that could have protected this child.  I believe both should provide a clear explanation of why they proceeded as they did (but they won't).

I'll try to condense the Times story AND add in what a trusted source has told me.  (The Times article has several links to district documents.

• Virachismith started working for the district in 2014 as an IA.  He worked for two years at MLK,Jr. Elementary before going to John Muir Elementary for the school year 2016-2017.

• The Times does not have personnel reports on Virachismith for MLK, Jr. Elementary but does for Muir for 2016-2107.  It's pretty shocking reading and it's hard to understand how he was kept on.  

“He does not follow District policies by coming to work with an overwhelming odor of alcohol."

I can understand if someone is an alcoholic but even so, that person cannot be around children at a school if he has been drinking. Ever. 

He got "unsatisfactory" marks on every single section of his review.  From those who had to work with him - OT, PT, Sped teacher - not one good thing was said.  They question his judgment, his interaction with children and his reliability to do his job and be at his job.

• At the end of school year 2016-2017, the district sought to fire him but SEA filed a grievance challenging that.  The district then agreed to allow him to keep working but as a sub for school year 2017-2018.   (At that time, the child rape issue was not known to the district.) He could work in any school but Muir.

• That rehire agreement was termed "Last Chance Settlement Agreement."   This agreement was signed by three district staff and Vairachismith in September 2017.  It appears that Virachismith violated the terms of his rehire by failing urine tests and required counseling but the district still didn't fire him.

• During 2017-2018,  he subbed at seven schools - Bailey Gatzert, Mercer, Aki Kurose, Van Asselt, Denny, Orca and Washington. 

• In January 2018, the district created a letter, telling him he was fired because of his failure to complete a drug treatment program and, that in November 2017, a drug treatment counselor had said he tested positive for alcohol use.   It's unclear whether that letter was ever sent as it was marked "draft." 

• In early Feb. 2018, he was arrested by SPD and charged with raping a second-grader at Muir repeatedly during the 2016-2017 school year.  SPD is trying to investigate whether he may have done this to other children from when he started in SPS in 2014.  Families at schools where he worked were notified about this issue.  It is unclear if any other families who were  notified have contacted the district or SPD about their child.

As to what I have learned from a valued source, there is more to the story.  The Times reports what the SPD report states:

“The defendant, because of his professional role, was well aware of the rule that only one student was allowed in the bathroom,” the documents say. “The defendant knew that the young victim would be alone and isolated in the bathroom. This knowledge allowed and empowered the defendant to sexually assault the second grader uninterrupted and undetected.”

So ,Virachismith was an IA and so allowed to take a child alone to the bathroom.  But my source tells me that the principal at Muir, Brenda Cuthbertson, appears to have not followed district guidelines about elementary students and bathrooms.  Namely, that bathroom use should be done on the buddy system so no kid is alone in the bathroom.  Naturally, as an IA, Virachismith didn't have to bring another child but if this policy had been enforced, it might have made a difference.  (And, it's yet another example of principals who get to go their own way on district policies.)

As well, it appears that Principal Cuthbertson may not have done mandatory Title IX trainings with staff for nearly two years and tried to get it done in June of 2017.  Again, you might have to wonder if that might have made a difference if Virachismith knew that these kinds of issues were of top importance at Muir.

Lastly, there was a different kind of drama going on at Muir at the same time that may have had Cuthbertson's attention. It seems there was a conflict between a cafeteria worker and the guardian of a child.  The guardian perceived the cafeteria worker was racist because she refused to allow kids to bring in backpacks.  My understanding is backpacks are not allowed in the cafeteria because kids drop them anywhere and someone could trip over them.  But the guardian perceived the cafeteria worker thought kids of color might steal food.

Somehow this continued on for months with the cafeteria worker requesting the guardian not come into the cafeteria.  I believe at some point the legal system got involved (the worker asked for a restraining order) and, for whatever reason, Cuthbertson allowed at least four staff (and maybe more) to leave school for a day to go to King County Court to testify against the cafeteria worker.  (I believe the worker asked for and received a settlement to leave with no acknowledgment of any wrongdoing on her part.)

I would guess that Virachismith may have felt some confidence in what he was doing because the principal seemed to be quite involved elsewhere.

My understanding is the family of the child who was attacked wants privacy and we can all appreciate that feeling.

But to look at this episode is to wonder - where are the adults?  Or rather, where are the adults who seem to be more worried about CYA than protecting students?  Because there is no looking at this chain of events - where there were several times that he could have taken out of the system and given a desk job if that's what it took to protect kids - and believing that SEA or the district did right by kids.

It is absolutely true that if he had been taken out of the system sooner, that child would not have been raped.  I certainly hope that it is not proven that he did this to any other child.

I hope the Board thoroughly investigates this and asks for change.

Because by protecting adults, the protections for children got lost.