Education Expert - School Expert Witness - Sexual Abuse - School Accident

Any County Board of Education policy #1-111 speaks in part about "ultimate learning outcomes of the students" and the "specialized services involved in inducting the young into social life." It further states "the ideal development of students involves the whole person and should include mental, physical, and social development, value clarification, and career education.

The policy indicates that "As the school assumes more responsibility for the social development of the child, it is imperative that school be a reflection of life situations as well as the pluralism in our community...." In summation, the policy concludes, "Because the highest plane of humanity involves a deeply ingrained code of morality, the developing student should be exposed to character building situations.

School Board Policy #2-222 adopted Month 19xx, requires that each student have a "safe and friendly environment" free from "abuse" and "inflammatory remarks.

Any County Board of Education policy exists for students, to protect students, and to provide them with the best educational environment possible for learning. Such a policy is necessary and prudent to an effective learning and teaching experience. Having reviewed the amended complaint Smith v. Any County, the Answer of Mr. Doe to the amended complaint, the depositions, and Any County Board of Education policies, it is my opinion that the administration of the Any County Board of Education and the Board of Education itself failed to follow its own policies regarding a "safe environment" free from "abuse" and "inflammatory remarks."

According to the deposition of Superintendent Jones, there is no established criteria for teacher selection, no real procedure, and no consistent method of conducting background checks of candidates for employment. That condition continued to exist at the time of Superintendent Jones' deposition on Month xx, 19xx. Prudent personnel procedures include careful screening of candidates including review of university transcripts, placement office credential files, student teaching records, telephone and written character reference checks, state teacher certificate review, National Teacher Examination review, and a structured personal interview to guarantee a fair and consistent evaluation of each candidate.

Within the first twenty days of Mr. Doe's employment as an elementary physical education teacher at ABC Elementary School, allegations of sexual impropriety involving students were brought to the attention of school officials. Assistant Superintendent John James advised Superintendent Jack Jones about allegations of swearing, kissing, picking students up by an arm and a leg, and pinching students. The accepted school system practice when such allegations arise is to ensure the safety of the child or children as well as the welfare of the staff member by removing the staff member from all contact with students. It has been my experience that this is often accomplished by reassigning the staff member to a special project with salary compensation at a place (in an office with other adults) totally removed from students. Such action provides administrators as opportunity to investigate the allegation fully, evaluate the situation, interview witnesses, reach a decision, and take necessary action.

The Month xx, 19xx report of Ann Watts, Protective Services Worker, State Department of Human Services indicates in her investigation of Mr. Doe that he has the "characteristics of pedophilia." This report was submitted by Jane Black, Social Services Supervisor of the State Department of Human Services, to Superintendent Jack Jones on Month xx, 19xx. The report advises Superintendent Jones against unsupervised contact with children on the part of Mr. Doe. The report suggests "other expert evaluation" of Mr. Doe including instruction in ways to interact with children. The report recommends children be protected and concludes by recommending a written course of action be provided for Mr. Doe with copies sent to the State Department of Human Services. This is a common prudent standard recommendation on the part of Human Services agencies in cases of pedophilia that protects both the agency and the school system. County Prosecutor Bob Bates, in his investigation and report substantiates the accusations against Mr. Doe.

The Any County Board of Education adopted policy #3-333 on Month xx, 19xx. This policy serves as an admission the Board of Education failed to employ the right kinds of administrators to lead and manage the schools. Policy #3-333 requires the principal to appear before the Board of Education prior to hearing from a delegation of employees or parents regarding a school problem or concern. It is obvious building principals failed to resolve the community concerns associated with the employment of Mr. Doe. The policy admits administrators encouraged delegations to "appear at Board meetings to generate pressure on the Board and/or Superintendent." If administrators were effectively managing concerns, such policy would not be necessary. School system procedures are commonly administrative practices, not Board of Education policy.

In my opinion, professional school administrators would have willingly complied with the Human Services recommendations. Such would have demonstrated the administration's concern, prudence, and willingness to act. It is incomprehensible the ABC School administration evidently did not solicit an independent educational supervisor from the State Department of Education or another qualified evaluator to conduct classroom observations/supervision of Mr. Doe. Equally perplexing is the administration's failure to require Mr. Doe to be clinically evaluated for pedophilia. This is particularly alarming given the information that surfaced regarding Mr. Doe's sexually abusive behavior which was documented on Month xx, 19xx at Camp Woods. Had the school system established well documented pre-employment procedures, pre-employment reference checks may have uncovered the Camp Woods information prior to Mr. Doe's Any County School employment.

There is no indication any action was taken by school officials other than the transferring of Mr. Doe from ABC Elementary physical education instruction to the same position at XYZ Elementary School. Such transfer completely disregards all of the recommendations contained in the Human Services report. This irresponsible act resulted in parental protests at XYZ Elementary School. It is unbelievable parents were given administrative approval to hold their children out of physical education classes taught by Mr. Doe. Such action indicates something was very wrong. It further highlights the lack of prudent action on the part of school officials.

The decision to remove Mr. Doe from students at XYZ Elementary School, while late in coming, was a responsible action on the part of whomever made the decision. However, that responsible action was overshadowed by the irresponsible decision to transfer Mr. Doe to Attendance Officer at the Central Office. The Any County Board of Education's job description for Attendance Officer in part states: "Extend help to children in the form of home visits, consultations with parents and concerned agencies, and other services needed to help children improve attendance." Students experiencing truancy are often troubled youngsters with multiple problems. It is incomprehensible the administration, in light of the Human Services recommendation, would place Mr. Doe in his own office where one-on-one contact with troubled students could occur unsupervised behind closed doors.

The administration failed to follow the established posting procedure for vacated teaching positions and on more than one occasion took the liberty of removing Mr. Doe form one position and reassigning him to a vacated position in another building. Such action not only violated established vacancy posting practices, but it also violated Board of Education policies, which exist to protect students, keep students free from abuse and inflammatory remarks, and provide students with the best educational environment for learning. It has been my experience that the transfer of a problematic staff member only shifts the problem to another location.

It is equally interesting the Board policy regarding attendance, #4-444, revised Month xx, 19xx, makes no mention of an attendance officer, but refers to a building level School Board Attendance Committee (SBAC). The policy revision on Month xx, 19xx speaks of a building level coordinator of the SBAC, while the Month xx, 19xx policy revision makes reference to a "county attendance officer."

In spite of the school system's attendance policy, there was a school system job description for attendance officer dated Month xx, 19xx. At this time, the Attendance Officer was responsible to the Director of Pupil Services. The revised job description, dated Month xx, 19xx, made the Attendance Officer responsible to the Assistant Superintendent. It appears the job description was changed only because the Assistant Superintendent was conducting evaluations of Mr. Doe, not the Director of Pupil Services as the job description specified. Why did the Director of Pupil Services fail to supervise Mr. Doe for whom he/she was responsible?

Written evaluations of Mr. Doe's employment performance first appear in his personnel file on xx-xx-xx, one day after Mr. Doe was transferred to serve as Central Office Attendance Officer. Mr. John James, Assistant Superintendent, evaluated Mr. Doe's performance as being "Satisfactory." Mr. James indicated the length of the evaluation was "4 weeks" and the date of the evaluation was "continuous." There were no areas needing improvement and there were no suggestions for improvement. The evaluation was a report rather than a performance assessment. Why was Assistant Superintendent James evaluating Mr. Doe when the job description clearly called for the Director of Pupil Services to conduct the evaluations?

It is obvious Assistant Superintendent James was conducting subsequent evaluations of Mr. Doe's performance for an anonymous third party--someone other than Mr. Doe. No written evaluations were directed to Mr. Doe. None said You need to...". All evaluations said "Mr. Doe does..." or "He...". Effective staff appraisal is directed to the evaluatee, provides insights about commendable performance areas, cites specific examples of areas needing improvement, and provides rationale for improvement along with specific suggestions for improvement. None of Mr. Doe's subsequent evaluations contain any of the components of effective supervision. Equally interesting is the complete lack of reference in the evaluations to any of the allegations of sexual impropriety, to the recommendation of the Department of Human Services, or to the investigation of the County Prosecutor. The school administration curiously continued to function as if none of the above mentioned accusations or investigations ever occurred. Furthermore, Mr. Doe continued his employment. The concerns, along with additional allegations, continued to surface.

The reassignment of Mr. Doe from Central Office Attendance Officer to attendance Officer at LMN Junior High effective xx-xx-xx betrays both concerned parents and the recommendations of the Department of Human Services. Such a blatant disregard for the safety and welfare of students is inconsistent with Board of Education policies that foster the well being of students, and fails to meet the standards of student care mandated by Board policy.

The xx-xx-xx letter from Principal North to Mr. Doe warning him about students loitering in his office, the letter of xx-xx-xx from Principal North to Mr. Doe about detaining a male student from class at 7:30 A.M., and the letter of xx-xx-xx from Assistant Superintendent Black warning Mr. Doe about having students in his car and about students gathering in his office had no effect upon Mr. Doe's employment status. In fact, letters documenting Mr. Doe's substandard performance failed to result in any disciplinary action.

Throughout Mr. Doe's employment in the Any County Schools he has steadfastly maintained his innocence of wrongdoing. The Month xx, 19xx letter from Principal North to Mr. Doe indicated Mr. Doe lied to Mr. North. Not only did he lie to Mr. North, he telephoned a parent and requested that she also lie to protect Mr. Doe. These acts of insubordination alone are reason for termination of contract.

It is interesting that superintendent James commended Mr. Doe in his evaluation of xx-xx-xx for being "cooperative in transporting students in times of need" and on xx-xx-xx for "transporting students from home to school." One-on-one contact was contrary to the warnings and recommendations issued to school officials by the Department of Human Services. To the contrary, on Month xx, 19xx, Mr. Doe received a letter from Principal North regarding various girls harassing Mary Smith resulting from riding in Mr. Doe's car. Principal North also admonished Mr. Doe for permitting groups of students to gather in his office and for students operating his personal computer.

Even though Principal North was not the direct supervisor of Mr. Doe, he conducted investigations about allegations made by Mary Smith and concerns expressed by Mrs. Green, mother of Betty Green. In addition, Principal North discussed his concerns about Mr. Doe with Assistant Superintendent Black in Month, 19xx. Mr. North also explored accusations about Mr. Doe with Alice Gray, Assistant Director of the Vocational School.

The employment scenario of Mr. Doe was further complicated by the Month xx, 19xx decision to transfer him to a classroom teaching assignment at XYZ Elementary School. This shows complete disregard by the administration for any of the previous concerns, warnings, and recommendations about protecting students and removing Mr. Doe from direct student contact. The subsequent Month xx, 19xx transfer of Mr. Doe to a Behavioral Difficulties classroom teaching assignment at EFG High School was the ultimate administrative blunder. To assign a problematic teacher responsibility for students with behavioral disabilities when these students need direction, stability, and a role model they can emulate is beyond belief.

The Any County Board of Education and its Administrative Staff failed in their responsibility to properly supervise, manage, and initiate necessary action toward Mr. Doe. The Board of Education and Administration failed to fulfill its policy obligation to students by providing them with a "safe and friendly environment free from abuse and inflammatory remarks." The administration shirked its responsibility to students, fellow professional staff members, and to the community by failing to take action against Mr. Doe early in his probationary employment period, and, in effect, created five years of turmoil for students, the school system, and for fellow administrators who had to deal with Mr. Doe being assigned to their staff.

The Administration and Board of Education failed to follow the established posting policy for vacated teaching positions and arbitrarily assigned Mr. Doe to vacated positions or created positions for him, without regard to what was in the best interest of the students. This violated the recommendations contained in the Human Services investigative report. Transfers were without regard for the safety and well being of students, and in fact, increased Mr. Doe's one-on-one contact with students. This only shifted the problem to a different location and resulted in additional students stepping forward alleging sexual misconduct on the part of Mr. Doe.

During the first year of Mr. Doe's probationary employment, enough questionable information, along with an investigation by the Department of Human Services, was brought to the administration's attention to justify non-renewal of contract. The only disciplinary action to Mr. Doe following the his act of insubordination in Month xx, 19xx was the letter placed in his personnel file by Principal North. During the 19xx-xx and 19xx-xx school years, subsequent investigations and reports by Principal North of Mr. Doe's alleged misconduct were not reported by school system administrators to the Department of Health and Human Resources. Principal North's supervisors, Assistant Superintendent James and Assistant Superintendent Black, failed to take other than a "wait-and-see" attitude. Failure of the administration is a breach of administrative responsibility.

Furthermore, the Any County Board of Education committed the worst crime of all by failing to report suspected child abuse (as required by law) to the Department of Health and Welfare in any of the multiple instances of abuse reported by students to teachers and administrators.

In spite of the turmoil throughout the district during this five year period regarding Mr. Doe's alleged sexual abuse and harassment, the administration and Board of Education failed to enact a sexual harassment policy. Sample policies are readily available from the National School Boards Association and most local and state school organizations.

And finally, the Board of Education and administration failed to demonstrate to the Any County Department of Employment Services just cause for the termination of Mr. Doe's employment, even though he voluntarily submitted his resignation from the district effective Month xx, 19xx.

In my opinion, this is a regrettable case of a school system, a Board of Education, and an administration failing to exercise responsibilty to the students and citizens it serves.