Another Black Eye for SEA as well as SPS

 Man, is this story from KUOW sad/bad timing, given both SPS and SEA are in the news because of the strike by teachers. (all bold mine)

Seattle teacher was fired for abusing kids. State says he can keep his teaching license

A former teacher found in a state investigation to have serially physically abused children at a North Seattle elementary school was allowed to keep his teaching license with a reprimand.

Martin McGowan, who taught for nearly three decades at West Woodland Elementary School in Seattle’s Ballard neighborhood, enjoyed a reputation as a star teacher. But a KUOW investigation in 2020 found that he had been formally and informally reprimanded at least five times between 2005 and 2019 for pulling first-graders by the ear, grabbing them by the neck hard enough to leave red marks, slapping them on the hand, and mocking them in front of the class.

Seattle Public Schools fired McGowan in December 2020 in the wake of new abuse findings. In one case, a current student complained of having his ear pulled. 

So what did the state do? First,

Despite this, McGowan retains his teaching license in Washington state. After conducting its own investigation, the state schools Office of Professional Practices proposed a 30-day suspension of McGowan’s teaching certificate.

And then,

After negotiations with an attorney for Washington Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union, which represented McGowan, the state agency lowered the discipline to an order of reprimand with McGowan’s admission of numerous acts of unprofessional conduct.

The explanation for a teacher REPEATEDLY laying hands on children getting a reprimand seems missing.

“Our number one goal is to protect the students in the state of Washington, but also to hold educators accountable for their behaviors,” said Catherine Slagle, executive director of the Office of Professional Practices. “We feel that we did that in this case.”

Could have fooled me.

But when parents of one child McGowan admitted hurting in 2019 learned of the state’s decision, “I was devastated,” said the mother, who asked to remain anonymous to protect their son’s privacy. McGowan had admitted to pulling her son’s ear, which the boy said happened “hundreds of times,” for things like getting a math problem wrong.

“It wasn’t just one kid or event. It was many kids, over many years, all these investigative reports,” the mother said. She had hoped McGowan would no longer be allowed to teach.


Revoking McGowan’s license was never on the table, Slagle said.

“Usually a revocation is issued when somebody has committed a felony crime,” or when they lack “good moral character and personal fitness,” she said. “We didn’t feel that Mr. McGowan’s behaviors rose to the level of revocation.”

Raise your hand if you think Mr. McGowan has low "moral character and personal fitness." 

The state would have had grounds for more serious discipline had Seattle Public Schools reported McGowan’s previous misconduct to the state, as required by law, Slagle said. Instead, her office was not notified by the district until 2019 that he hurt children in his care.

Following KUOW reporting on lax discipline for teachers found to have repeatedly abused students in Seattle Public Schools, and the district’s frequent failure to report the abuse to the state, district leaders said they were doing an audit of all past misconduct cases and reported many previously undisclosed to Slagle’s office for state investigation.

Ah, there's the Seattle Schools I know - always trying to hide and cover up and avoid issues. Anything to not get sued. 

The father of the victim from 2019 said he has grown cynical of the school district's commitment to child safety.

“We were fighting an uphill battle against a system that didn’t really seem to think that this was a problem,” the father said.

I'm going to editorialize here to explain this is EXACTLY why people don't trust unions. It's one thing to fight for worker protections against safety issues or overworking union members but when you stand with a member who has hurt dozens of children over many years, many will just shake their heads. 

It's the same with the police union.

If unions really did something about ridding themselves of those members who bring disgrace to their professions, many more people would support unions. Somehow that particular message means less to unions than protecting its membership. 

Comments

Unknown said…
And we have the temerity to point fingers at places that openly allow corporal punishment and shake our heads as if we are superior to them.

SP
Anonymous said…
This isn’t the union’s fault. First, under federal law they have something called a “duty of fair representation” which means they have to defend anyone protected by the contract. They cannot pick and choose. The result is they wind up having to defend someone like this even though it’s bad PR.

Second, the union could not have stopped him from losing his certificate — because the state chose not to pursue that option.

I’m not sure why you’re blaming the union here for a situation caused by 1) an asshole of a teacher 2) federal law 3) weak state education administrators.

Facts Matter
Anonymous said…
There was a music teacher a number of years ago who worked at several north end schools, including Sacajawea where my son went. He grabbed a student by the neck one time when he got angry about the child's misbehavior. He had previously been in trouble in the Concrete school district for watching porn on school computers but SPS hired him anyway.

I'm not sure if he's still teaching in SPS but he was definitely around a few years after the incident.
Facts Matter, and what did the union itself do to get rid of a member who they know should not be in a classroom? Don't tell me there was absolutely nothing the union could do.
Anonymous said…
There is literally nothing the union can do to get rid of him. They do not have the power to hire and fire someone or revoke someone's credential -- under state law that power rests with SPS and the state Office of Professional Practices. They can't refuse to represent him -- under federal law they must do so as long as he is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, which he was.

Direct your ire at SPS and the Office of Professional Practices, neither of whom thought that this guy should be barred from Washington State classrooms. The union would have still had to defend him, and he'd still have lost his certificate.

Facts Matter
Anonymous said…
Facts Matter is correct on every point. Unions, by law, MUST represent, even the worst scumbags in their memberships. To do otherwise would subject them to Duty of Fair Representation lawsuits. The union in this case is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. The "bothsidesism" in the original post is misplaced. Sorry, Melissa, but by now you should know better.

-- Ivan Weiss
paolo said…
As a former union officer, I strongly second Facts Matter and Mr. Weiss. Time and again I worked beside fellow union members who were terrible employees and an embarrassment as representatives of our work. Still, there was nothing I could do beyond model better job performance, encourage a positive attitude and remind complaining SPS administrators the district has an established process to record problem behavior or poor performance by employees. Written evidence of SPS following that process makes it nearly impossible for a union to successfully defend the member despite legal obligations toward the member.

And good riddance to a bad employee and burdensome coworker when SPS actually follows the process it has contractually agreed to in these matters.
Ivan, et al, I said nothing about NOT defending a member when charges are brought up. It's a federal law even, then that's fine.

I know that districts have to have procedures to get rid of teachers who are problematic. I recall a principal at Roosevelt HS who went thru this tedious process but got rid of two of the worst teachers I have every seen.

No, what I asked is why the union has to keep a member who has these issue. Unions can't deny membership to teachers who are lacking? If unions have to admit all who come to the door - no matter any discipline status they have - then maybe I might want to rethink my stance on unions.

paolo said…
Melissa, re your 11:26 comment, rethinking of your stance on unions needs to begin with knowledge of what a union is. We don't screen members for their personalities, knowledge or skills as that is the employer's interest and contractual domain. We have to take them as is and protect their interests within the frame of our contract with SPS and our responsibilities under federal law. Nepotism, for example, has gotten some rotten, unskilled, hires into SPS. Then the union is stuck with these folks and their nasty attitudes. Union member coworkers are forced to pick up the slack for these hires. And we don't like it one little bit as we have enough duties of our own without covering for the lazy and unqualified. I repeatedly heard complaints from union Local 609 that they had to defend one or another member no one else in the union wanted retained. Again and again the business manager reminded SPS that the union wouldn't have been able to "win" if SPS had followed its own process of writing up the employee.
No Apologists. said…
Bravo, Melissa.

You think the union could do something. According to the article, this particular teacher put his hands around a child's neck and left marks.
Both sides said…
Melissa,

As Paolo said, there is a process, and if Seattle Public Schools follows the process, then the teacher can be fired.

If the teacher is fired, then they can't join the Union. I really don't think it would be a good idea to have a parallel investigation, whereby the Union is allowed to deny someone membership that the district employs.

The reality is there are also bad administrators, who may choose to try and remove a teacher (or an employee) for illegitimate reasons. I've seen it happen both in education and in the private sector. Just like it's important for administrators to track the actions of bad employees, it's also important for teachers or employees to track any bad actions of their managers. For example, every time an administrator violates a policy in relation to a teacher, I would encourage the teacher to at a minimum send themselves a private not-district email explaining exactly what happened; no one ever has to see the email, but later it could come in handy.

Anonymous said…
Oof. Ed reform talking points just write themselves these days? I predict we will be debating school vouchers in WA state very, very soon.

Poor kids
No Apologists said…
Unions are powerful. It seems to me that if a teacher puts his hands around a kids neck which leaves a mark...it seems to me that unions have an obligation to protect students. They can write new laws- or do what ever necessary to protect children.
Anonymous said…
Melissa asks:

"Unions can't deny membership to teachers who are lacking?"

The answer, in short, is no. If the union ran a hiring hall, a closed shop, where people had to be union members before they could work, then the union could exercise that level of control. But SPS, and most teacher locals, are union shops, in which the district decides who is hired or fired. But once they are hired into positions that are covered by a labor contract, then they become members, and the union is required, by federal law, to represent them.

As I explained in my earlier comment, if a union tried to deny membership to any transgressor, after the employer had failed to implement due discipline, the union would be liable to a Duty of Fair Representation lawsuit.

This is federal law. This is NOT "the union protecting bad actors." That line of bullshit needs to die. It is on the employer to document bad actions, and create a paper trail, and testimony, that leads to corrective action or termination. The union's role in these instances is mostly to ensure that proper procedure, as spelled out in the contract, has been followed.

Sometimes it isn't. More times than many people think, management is slipshod, or plain incompetent. Then the union has to go to bat for its member ON PROCEDURAL grounds, and not as a defense of bad actions.

But when management does its job properly, and documents everything, then they can fire people, and the union won't -- can't -- stand in the way.

-- Ivan Weiss
I get all that, Ivan.

But any group that cannot exit a member who is found, either in a court of law or by a district, to have abused a child, is lacking. For me to understand at this late date, it is not how unions operate is disheartening.

Putting all the onus on the employer seems a bit cowardly. Lesson learned.
Anonymous said…
Well, sounds to me like it's dangerous for parents to enroll their children in a school with union members, as they know the union will help cover up and aid any abuse that goes on, because they "have to." Starting to root for charters over here, at least they don't have this particular problem.

Broken System
Broken System, there is no evidence the union covered anything up nor aided the teacher in his abuse. Don't conflate two different things.

Charters may not have unions but they can have bad teachers. Don't think you'll dodge that bullet enrolling in charters. To note, WA state never even filled their charter quota under the law. I think parents just aren't that interested.
No Apologists said…
It is abundantly clear that there needs to be multiple systems to keep students safe. A teacher that puts his hands around a student's neck and leaves a mark should be exited from the system and unions need to be part of that system.

I would have appreciated a shred of honesty and integrity from SEA during the last strike.
Anonymous said…

I just read that a middle school special ed teacher was charged with rape in February. Nothing in the news about this and he appears to still be working at the school, at least based on the directory.

Is there any way to find out what is going on with this? Very concerning if he's still teaching.

Worried parent.
Anonymous said…
Worried Parent

This is a really damaging, light on details allegation to just “drop” here. While there *could* be truth to your allegation, I don’t like that some rando can make an anonymous suggestion in an Internet forum without any facts. I’d start with calling the school where it allegedly happened to see if the teacher has been put on admin leave, and work up the chain after that (call the district, submit a disclosure request etc). With vague info like this, it may also be a rumor.

“People Say”
Anonymous said…
Multiple posters have tried to clear up the lack of understanding of unions' responsibilities to members. I think they have been very patient & clear in reiterating the responsibilities and legal requirements of unions.
Obviously anti-union propaganda is working because if folks jump to the conclusion a teachers' union (not closed shop) should be handing out disciplinary action instead of school administration doing their jobs, then my only conclusion is many folks need to go find a good civics teacher and/or find a friend who has been a union steward.
Unions & labor relations are actually very worthwhile to learn about because many people who have never been in or understood a union could/should currently be benefiting from one.

Son of a Union rail worker
Worried Parent,
I did put up your comment with the intention of saying, where did you read this? You need to post that before the end of the day, otherwise I will delete your comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces