The L.A. Times has an eye-opening
article about the extremely wasteful review process for public school teachers accused of misconduct in Los Angeles, New York City, and many other districts across the country.
If a teacher is accused of sexual harassment, buying/selling drugs, or anything like that, he or she is entitled to a fair process. That makes sense. It can take months for school administrators to interview the relevant parties and conduct other investigations—and that's when things start to get dicey.
Instead of the accused teachers sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, picking up second jobs, or whatever,
they continue to receive their regular paychecks. And they don't even have to do anything.
It's called being "housed"—under investigation, a teacher is required to show up at an office building during the hours they'd usually be working, only no work is actually being accomplished. The L.A. Times mentioned one teacher accused of sexual harassment who's been "housed" since 2002. The state has poured an estimated $2 million into his legal process and yearly salary over the years.
In fact, the Los Angeles school district spends about $10 million each year on its 160 "housed" teachers and staff—a particularly comforting statistic, since the district is also considering massive layoffs due to budget constraints.
And it doesn't have to be this way. In some other districts, like Chicago, accused teachers are put to work answering phones and doing other office work. (In L.A., such work would violate the teachers' union's contract, as it currently stands.)
Do you think "housing" teachers is wasteful? I mean, is it fair to pay people for doing nothing?
Image Source
Comments (32)
That's not right. If they're being accused of something, their license should be suspended pending the outcome of the trial & they can work another job. Wasting money like that helps contribute to financial ruin.
I think they should get their incomes regardless of the accusations, they are innocent until proven guilty.
@modelstatusxquotes@xanga - Totally agree.
And I highly doubt most educators accused of these things just sit around "twiddling their thumbs." People who become teachers don't do it for the money, these accusations ruin lives. A friend of my brother's almost lost his job because a student claimed he was her boyfriend, when in fact she was dating the janitor. Shit happens, no reason to punish the innocent.
@SleepyLaura@xanga - Exactly, the money is crap wherever you go, they do it because they care. A teacher here got accused of having a sexual relationship with a student and lost everything involving his teaching career, which after almost a year of fighting it, it turns out she lied. And great line, "Shit happens, no reason to punish the innocent."
Teachers are underpaid anyway, consider it as the district's way of making it up to those teachers =P
the system need to be revise, there has be a more efficient way of dealing with accused teachers
It wouldn't be fair to suspend their license- they are innocent until proven guilty. Even if they ARE innocent, it will spoil their reputation. Maybe after proven guilty, they should be required to pay it back?
@Shinbi_Belldandy@xanga - what if they they needed the payment to make end meets on time? they were just being accused, and you want their pay suspended? getting a job doesn't mean it'll take them a week. think about the opportunity cost and effect of not getting your usual payment. if they're unable to find a decent job, how are they expected to pay their bills from rent/mortgage, phone, energy, and to insurance?
instead, the best decision is to give them an advance notice of their suspension within a certain time frame. they'll get their payment, start saving up, meet their own personal expenses, and at the same time, find another job.
anyway, i don't agree with suspension.
160 in one district at one time.
Oh, yeah, and the Catholic Church has problems? (End sarcasm.)
Yes, I actually read about this article about a year ago, and I was FURIOUS. Where's all my tax money going? hm...Union, my butt. The union needs to prioritise...if the county goes down because of budget cuts and wasting money on housed teachers who don't do anything because it's part of the union contract, there eventually won't BE a need for a union.
@falconfraudless@xanga - That sounds fair.
I would say that because these professionals are dealing with minors (usually) as their accusers, it's acceptable to do this. Kids lie about shit all the time- they have whatever reasons to blame somebody for something they fucked up. Sometimes teachers end up bearing the brunt of these false accusations, and I know if it were me, I would be pissed if some little shit got me out of a job for no reason. Teachers are under contracts, and are usually part of a union. It's acceptable to continue getting a salary under these circumstances.
@falconfraudless@xanga - I totally agree with what you said. Also, people are innocent until proven guilty. What would happen if the certain teacher was deemed innocent? She/he would have lost quite a huge amount of her/his salary over false accusations.
@Shy___Away@xanga - That's exactly what I was thinking.
I remember last year, my French teacher got sued by a girl's parent for tossing a shoe at the girl. The incident was really drawn out of proportion. Everyone felt sorry for the teacher, and a friend ran into her a few months after she was suspended. She said the only thing that allowed her to pay the bills were her husband's income and the month's worth of pay she got, awaiting her trial.
Of course it is wasteful. Rather than taking away their paycheck completely, they should be put to work doing office jobs or something else service related for the county. I don't want my tax dollars going toward a teacher's long vacation. Whether they are guilty or not, they do not deserve to receive a paycheck if they are not working.
The public school system is a huge joke, and it is only failing children in the long wrong. An education from a public school is hardly worth anything anymore with so many budget cuts and increased class sizes.
Our wonderful government spends more money on prisoners than it does on children in public schools.
If they're going to do that, why make them leave their home to go to a "work" place at all? Why not just send them their paycheck at home for doing nothing but being at home and watching television? Its the same thing, I'm sure. I wouldn't doubt the biggest hits on office computers these teachers use when they're being "housed" is probably YouTube.
Truthfully, I understand the reasoning, in a way. This way they are...kind of...doing something, and they are still getting paid, because you don't want to fire someone or at least suspend them without pay for something they might not have even done in the first place.
However, I think that the way this is being gone about is rather beyond ridiculous. Especially that mention of the teacher who has been being "housed" since 2002. That is ridiculous. There is no reason for that. It sounds a lot like instead of actually trying to actively investigate this person, they are instead just making it look like they are, and removing this teacher from the venue in which the possible sexual harassment took place. At least, hopefully, this person isn't anywhere near children at "work," but it still bothers me that this person might be a sexual predator and is more or less getting away with it and being free to continue living at home, coming and going as they please, perhaps not even staying away from areas that are known to be places that children frequent, such as playgrounds, etc.
This is actually incredibly disturbing, and it reminds me a little bit of hearing about Catholic priests who were accused of sexual harassment/molestation of children and instead of being defrocked, they were instead just simply moved to a different parish and everything was covered up, nice and neat. And they were free to offend again and again. Each time just being moved to a different parish when complaints started to come in.
I'm glad that at least these teachers are not just transferred to different schools or school districts. That's a plus, at the very least. But, it still is a far cry from making this acceptable, as far as I am concerned.
If they want to do it this way, then they need to come up with a more acceptable way of doing this, and they need to be more diligent and active when it comes to investigating such accusations. This is just ridiculous.
I would hope there's more effective ways of handling accusations other than just having them show up to a random building. The unions need to worth together with the state to figure out what's acceptable and update their rules, because that's ridiculous.
Teachers, as well as any American citizen, are innocent until proven guilty, and have a right to continue to earn as if the accusation hadn't been made, and earn as much as they had been earning, not a penny less. They don't, however, have a right to continue to earn that much without doing something for it. There's got to be a better solution.
@SleepyLaura@xanga - But they should still have to work for the money, instead of not going to their job. So they're paying one person to not do the job, and then another person to do the job! It's a waste of money.
That's really lame.
It's not acceptable to take away pay just because there was an accusation of guilt. It is a shame the contract wont let teachers do other work, though. If anything, blame the teacher's union!
Holy crap.
Just lost a little bit more of my faith in humanity. =/
Its hard to say, because if a teacher is accused of ANYTHING (even with no evidence) it HAS to be investigated, because there are minors involved and all that crap.
I'm going to be a teacher, and if some kid decided he didn't like me and wanted to accuse me of something I didn't do, I shouldn't have to suffer financially!
Since this would be my situation, I can't make a fair judgment.
When you say "getting paid for doing nothing", it makes perfect sense to have a problem with that.. but if you have any knowledge of the justice system or the whole process of "clearing ones name"... .it can take a LONG time.. years even! Can you imagine the injustice if you're innocent but being penalized by stripping away your livelihood in terms of monetary funds.. for what? Once again, for doing nothing wrong! For the guilty person, of course it's a waste of funds..
but for the innocent (which the majority of time, they are), it's a way of attempting to preserve the good name of said person until proven guilty. I know, its not really fair.. but its not always black and white unfortunately.
but they are just accused. they werent proven guilty. its not right to take away their paychecks when they are still innocent
The process sounds ok to me. Bottom line not everyone that is accused is guilty, and why should the accussed be denied he/her livelyhood while their being investigated. (Now think about this one for second. The average teacher salary in NY is a little over $57K, and you're wanting to pay them to answer phones.) Now if they are found guilty of the charges, repaying the salaries sounds reasonable to me.