What a loaded and leading question! Shoot first and ask questions later! Of course no one wants such individuals in our classrooms. But the real question should be "Should the chancellor have the right to unilaterally overturn the decision of a neutral arbitrator on the basis of his own opinion, when the arbitrator has determined that there was no merit to the allegations?" Before you give away someone else's due process, think about your own.

This cogent quote from the Op-Ed itself answers SchoolBook's leading question better than anything I can say:

"Dictatorial powers need to be curtailed, not expanded."

Great points. The union is not obstructionist on these issues; there is a zero tolerance of confirmed predators. The city gets three chances to try prove their cases--in criminal courts, with an arbitrator they help choose, and then in an appeals court. Basically, teachers are put in triple jeopardy, and even that seems not good enough for Campbell Brown and her reformer friends.

This is a typical ploy by those who would destroy our union and the teaching profession in general. Unions aren't about protecting the guilty; they are about making sure that teachers get a fair hearing when charges are leveled against them.

This is just an excuse for districts like NYC to get rid of "expensive" teachers on bogus charges without hearings in favor of hiring cheap teachers like those from TFA.

One of my dumb questions:
Aren't accused and proven two different things?

My brother doesn't Facebook, so he emailed me this comment in response to Tim Clifford:

The last commenter on your article made a good point - that unions aren't for protecting the guilty, but are for making sure someone has their rights when charged. The problem is, as it seems to me, there seems to be an assumption that charges equal guilt and that anyone defending the accused is themselves guilty of attempting to avoid justice. It's been that way since John Adams defended the soldiers in the Boston Massacre - he was manifestly unpopular but he got that without a defense for those accused, the entire system amounts to nothing. It amazes me how we continually disregard that.

If the example of Erin Sayer is used... yes. Why? Because if the police have enough evidence (ample, apparently) to charge her, the teacher has no business being one any longer. Throw her out. She'll have plenty of rights when charged - in the NYC court system. Your rights as an employee end when you violate written policies, standards of behavior, etc. She knew perfectly well that she was violating many standards. "Tutoring" during the school day, please... stop defending this sex-queen wannabe. I work in a hospital, and guess what! I'm not allowed to enter patient rooms and seduce them... Sayer is morally reprehensible.

I have been teaching in public schools in NYC for 28 years and have, unfortunately, seen this system in action. At the slightest hint of inappropriate behavior a teacher is removed from the classroom and the hearing process begins. Some of my colleagues have complained that this leaves them open to false accusations, but as a parent I don't want the DOE waiting for the hearings to conclude before taking action to safeguard children. I have known teachers to be found guilty - rightfully so - and fired and I have known one teacher to have been falsely accused. That teacher spent several weeks in what used to be called the rubber room, but was ultimately found innocent and returned to the classroom.

The issue is not whether teachers guilty of inappropriate behavior should be fired, it is how to determine they are guilty and what to do with them while the investigation takes place. Ms. Holman is correct, your rights as an employee do end when you violate policies, standards of behavior and, in this case, the law. She is not allowed to enter patient rooms and seduce patients, but neither should she be allowed to continue having patient contact after an accusation of such behavior. The DOE policy removes the teacher at the point of accusation and fairly defers the firing until the accusation has been proven.

I have been teaching in public schools in NYC for 28 years and have, unfortunately, seen this system in action. At the slightest hint of inappropriate behavior a teacher is removed from the classroom and the hearing process begins. Some of my colleagues have complained that this leaves them open to false accusations, but as a parent I don't want the DOE waiting for the hearings to conclude before taking action to safeguard children. I have known teachers to be found guilty - rightfully so - and fired and I have known one teacher to have been falsely accused. That teacher spent several weeks in what used to be called the rubber room, but was ultimately found innocent and returned to the classroom.

The issue is not whether teachers guilty of inappropriate behavior should be fired, it is how to determine they are guilty and what to do with them while the investigation takes place. Ms. Holman is correct, your rights as an employee do end when you violate policies, standards of behavior and, in this case, the law. She is not allowed to enter patient rooms and seduce patients, but neither should she be allowed to continue having patient contact after an accusation of such behavior. The DOE policy removes the teacher at the point of accusation and fairly defers the firing until the accusation has been proven.

Here is an idea....You know how they have defibrillators in schools? Why not a polygraph machine? Principal: " Johnny, did Ms Smith really say those things to you? " Eeerrrrrr! Machine says that's not true. I mean what is more reliable, an arbitrator making $1800/day or a piece of technology?

Am I crazy?