Special Needs Education

» drexl - Gaydos v Cupertino Union

Greg Cruey's story about Gaydos v Cupertino Union is one of those tales that destroys my faith in human nature. Let's summarise: a special needs teacher loses her cool and does something stupid. Fat trailer trash parents, probably leaching off social security to fuel their crack habit, rush out and sue the school union for a gazillion bucks. As a result, vital resources that could have been used to improve the districts schools are funnelled off to a meth-lab somewhere in the vicinity of the trailer park the Gaydos family lives in.

How does society benefit from this? If this child was assaulted, then why weren't criminal charges brought? That would have brought repercussions for the responsible party, rather than the tax-paying public. Instead, the schools district is asked to either support its teachers or accept the unsupported allegations of a parent in regard to the treatment of their child, which is clearly troubled from the various stories I have read, that they have not personally witnessed.

I am personally disgusted at how quickly people will rush to profit from every percieved indignity, and how easily our system rewards such opportunism.

-- posted by drexl

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Forestdweller - Gaydos v Cupertino Union

In response to Gaydos v Cupertino Union posted by drexl:

It seems "drexl" is unfamiliar with the facts of our case. As the mother of the abused child and the person who brought the suit, perhaps I can clear up a few points.

By the time we filed the suit, we had learned that there was a long history of complaints of abuse and negligence regarding special needs children within our distict. Two classroom aides claimed retaliation by the district after reporting abuse (in events involving different teachers.) The district had previously been found out of compliance with the law with respect to a previous abuse complaint made to the state about this teacher, after which she was moved to another school within the same district. An aide working in the classroom with my daughter claimed that the teacher had mistreated children and had hit her (that is, the aide,) but that the principal had refused to take action. The aide claims she met with senior district officials to discuss the problem, after which she was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. Shortly thereafter, the district threatened to fire her if she spoke to parents (!) or went near the school. She says that when she tried to provide details of the abuse to a senior administrator, he would shout her down, saying, "We're not here to discuss that. We're hear to fire you. Do you understand?". In yet another previous incident, a child was removed from the same classroom and placed in a private school after coming home injured by the teacher. CPS and police reports were filed in that case. Both the principal and program coordinator admitted that the same child was being kept in a timeout cubicle (an illegal practise) for the entire school day for several days in a row. The child and his mother claim that he was denied food, water, or bathroom access during this time. An aide, who was unaware of this case, later independently made the same claim with respect to other children. My daughter had come home bruised on previous occasions and we had been very suspicious. Every injury was reported to the principal, who documented the information but failed to alert the authorities (which, as a mandated child abuse reporter, she should have done, especially as she was aware of prior complaints) or to conduct an adequate investigation. She tried to reassure us that there was no problem and, being unaware of the other evidence, we made the mistake of trusting her until the culminating incident, which was completely unambiguous.

After the final incident, we immediately removed our daughter from the school. Her therapist, who saw her injuries the following day, was horrified, felt very strongly that my daughter's account was truthful, and reported the abuse to CPS, which referred the incident to the police. Alas, not all crimes are prosecuted. Abuse, by its nature, is often proven by a pattern of repeated violations, and the police had only one incident as a data point because the previous police report had been filed in another city within the same school district (the police did not cross check.) The police said that, while they felt sure something inappropriate had happened, they did not have the bandwidth to prosecute every case and they felt that our daughter, having been removed from the threatening situation, was now safe in a good home and that she had parents who would address the situation with the district. This we attempted to do. When the police learned that there had been a previous police report in another city and that several other complaints had come to light, they said they would have handled the situation differently had they known.

We immediately complained to the special education director, and the head of HR had the opportunity to discuss the incident with my daughter's therapist. She found him very curt and said that he only wanted to establish that the police had indeed been called. Even after this, the teacher was simply returned to the classroom. Inevitably, a short while later the classroom therapist had occasion to report yet another abusive incident to CPS. CPS has no authority to intervene against public school teachers and suggested that the therapist either speak to the administration or call the police. The therapist apparently spoke to the principal and her manager spoke to the program coordinator. Even after that, the teacher remained in the classroom for a week or two, after which she moved to another district. A private investigator was able to get someone into her classroom at the new district. On that very day, a county therapist was observing the classroom following yet another complaint of abuse. The detective was later able to speak to the therapist, who said she had witnessed psychological abuse by this teacher during her time in the classroom. It is my understanding that this teacher was later fired from that district. The new district was not warned about the teacher's issues and hired her in good faith.

Throughout all this, our district refused to provide us with any explanation whatsoever as to how or why my daughter had been hurt and none of the legally required documentation was filed. I decided to file a uniform complaint, but the administrator who would have investigated the complaint called me at home and was very unpleasant. I felt he was trying to intimidate me. As a result, I gave up on the district and wrote directly to our school board, explaining the situation and requesting an investigation and some reassurance that our daughter, who was still missing school at the time, would be kept safe if she returned to school. Only one board member bothered to respond and his advice was to sue. I also spoke directly to another board member, who failed to provide any direction or advice. Clearly, the board was not going to clean house. I understand that the principal, who was generally regarded as the prime culprit in the case, was a campaign contributor to two of the board members. As I learned more about the problem, I sent three further emails to the board requesting their intervention, but received no response. The board members later claimed they did not receive my letters. Emails to the board were apparently processed by the district before being distributed to board members.

Before filing the suit, we exhausted all avenues open to us. Neither CPS (no legal authority to act,) the police (for reasons given above,) the district, or the school board were able or willing to address the situation. As I learned more about the extent of the problem, I felt it was ethically incumbent upon me to use our last remaining avenue -- a lawsuit. Failing to have done so would have allowed the abuse and negligence to continue and would have been tantamount to collusion in it.

We, as parents, did not make any money off the suit and we knew that when we filed it. We did, however, fully recover all of our legal fees and expenses, which were not insignificant. The award has been placed in trust for our daughter and she will receive it when she turns 18. We took an enormous financial risk in filing the suit and we were prepared to carry this risk because we believed so strongly in our cause. Before the trial, the district could have settled the case for a fraction of what their insurance ultimately had to pay. We do not have a crack habit and our 7,800 square foot primary residence is not a trailer home. Sadly, the children of people who do not have extensive financial and emotional resources are the ones most likely to be forced to accept whatever abuse or negligence their districts hand out to them.

I am extremely proud of what we accomplished through this suit and I feel that our emphatic victory (the jurors were unanimous and vehement, as any sane person who had seen the evidence would have been) is a victory not only for our daughter, but for all children. It was a battle that needed to be fought.

Yes, hundred of thousands of dollars of public money were spent on this case. I make no apology for that as the culprits left us with no other option. Rather, the blame rests squarely with culpable administrators and lawyers who gorge on public money in their efforts to defend the indefensible. We would have been prepared to settle prior to the trial for only enough to cover our expenses and fees provided that we could establish some provisions for future student safety.

Rather than expecting parents to mutely accept the destruction of their children, communities should perhaps recognise that lawsuits are sometimes a last and only recourse. As a community, I think we should work toward establishing options that protect children without subsidizing the legal profession. Mediation programs that take investigation of uniform complaints out of the hands of school administrators (who are, in some cases, the foxes guarding the henhouse) and turn them over to objective third parties would be helpful in this regard. Communities need to hold administrators accountable and one way they can do this is by electing responsive and ethical school board members. Also, the interface between administrators and their publically-funded lawyers needs some oversight. Districts' lawyers are usually hired to defend district *administrators*, not the district in the larger sense (as in the children, families, and other staff members within the district.) Administrators may make self-serving decisions regarding whether to fight a suit. Their lawyers are often paid public money to work against the interests of children. This is another area where effective school boards can provide direction.

-- posted by Forestdweller

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Kaydavid - Gaydos v Cupertino Union

In response to Gaydos v Cupertino Union posted by drexl:

I usually do not reply to messages but haveto on this one. I'm the grandmother of the girl who was abused. She comes from a family of many MDs, PhDs, and MBAs. The families of both sides have always highly valued education. Several efforts made by the parents to correct the situation were blatantly ignored. In order to stop the teacher in question from hurting others (and there were others) a lawsuit was deemed necessary as a last resort. The teacher in questions was fired from at least one other job for the same reason. The lawsuit took a horrible toll on everyone but the fear that this teacher would continue to hurt children was considered serious enough to go through the legal hell. Please be sure of your facts when you make statements in the future.

And -- the teacher was stopped by the lawsuit and by it alone. No other child in a school has to be abused by this person and that is a good thing.

Thank you for listening.

-- posted by Kaydavid

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Forestdweller - Gaydos v Cupertino Union

In response to Gaydos v Cupertino Union posted by Kaydavid:

"lawsuit took a horrible toll on everyone but the fear that this teacher would continue to hurt children was considered serious enough to go through the legal hell."

It was equally important to stop the district and the principal from doing what they had been doing (both were also found liable at the trial.) There was a very clear and disturbing history of indifference to abuse within the district, along with numerous legal violations. One of the revealing moments of the suit was when the principal, in her deposition, said she would have had no hesitation in recommending the teacher to another district, but then claimed she "didn't recall" whether or not a program therapist had discussed concerns regarding the teacher's abusive behavior with her (according to a previous deposition, that discussion did take place)! With that level of concern, how could any child be safe at school?!

-- posted by Forestdweller

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds