Gaydos v Cupertino Union
© Greg Cruey
Mar 6, 2006
Is having some food rubbed in your face worth $700,000? Or perhaps more importantly, how closely should the principal watch special education teachers. The Gaydos v Cuper
March 6, 2006 - It depends on who you ask.
Some say seven-year-old Paige Gaydos was badly abused by a special education teacher named Karen Miller who humiliated her and physically mistreated her, and that a Federal court's award of $700,000 is fair compensation for what Paige suffered.
Others say that Miller, the teacher, did very little that wasn't within the normal realm of managing a classroom. Policy in her district allows physical restraint of a student when all else fails. Miller often felt she had little other choice. It would have been nice if Paige hadn't gotten food in her hair and on her face. But the worst thing that the teacher ever did was lose her cool for a moment, and $700,000 for a few bruises and a hair washing is excessive.
On February 2, 2006 Paige's parents Craig and Ann Gaydos were awarded $700,000 by a U.S. District Court in California after they sued Cupertino Union School District and Karen Miller (a special education teacher) for the way their daughter was treated during the 2001-2002 school year. The couple learned of their daughter's treatment from an aide who worked in the classroom.
Paige, who now attends a private school, has Asperger Syndrome - a condition usually grouped together with other developmental disorders under the umbrella of Autism Spectrum Disorder.
The court case has received a lot of attention on electronic mailing lists and Internet bulletin boards devoted to disabilities and education. While it may be important as a civil rights case (you can't mistreat disabled people and get away with it), the most important aspect of this court ruling is brought out well by an article in the online version of the Mercury News, that said: "As part of that suit, the family said administrators including Superintendent Bill Bragg and the school board ignored reports of the abuse."
School administrators should sit up and take notice. This ruling may not have greatly changed disability law, but it does make clear that the DISTRICT will be held responsible when the courts think that reports of abuse have been ignored. The ruling could has some impact on the way school districts see fit to supervise special education teachers...
Copyright © 2006, Greg Cruey and Suite 101. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized use will constitute an infringement of copyright.
The copyright of the article
Gaydos v Cupertino Union in
Special Needs Education is owned by
Greg Cruey. Permission to republish
Gaydos v Cupertino Union must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jan 3, 2007 2:23 PM
Pol Pot
:
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.
Jan 14, 2007 11:57 PM
Ann Gaydos
:
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 incide
Jan 17, 2007 9:53 AM
Kay Cooper
:
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.
Jan 18, 2007 8:19 PM
Ann Gaydos
:
"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?!
Jun 2, 2008 6:02 PM
gmatt
:
I am familiar with this case and I can tell you that there was a lot more to it than "having some food rubbed in your face." Paige was in very real danger in that situation. Her education was badly disrupted. The Cupertino Union School District ignored many warnings and the problem had been going on for years. The parents deserve great credit for exposing these terrible people and for advocating for their daughter. They made the district clean up at least some of the mess they made and the worst culprits are now out the door. I know the mother. She is a great lady, kind, smart, funny, and brave. As a parent I would like to say a big THANK YOU to the Gaydos parents. People who have the courage to stand up and be counted for children help all of our kids.
Jun 2, 2008 6:08 PM
gmatt
:
Pol Pot asks "How does society benefit from this?"
Society benefits because all children are safer in school when a district is held accountable for endemic child abuse. Society benefits because a very smart and special little girl who was being hurt in every way might just might be able to live up to her amazing potential now. Society benefits because this school district had a change of leadership. I'm thinking "Pol Pot" is probably one of the district's witnesses who was exposed as a liar at the trial.
