Would She Still Have A Job If It Wasn’t “Those Kids”? 

Rich La Belle, Executive Director

Family Network on Disabilities            

          I’ve just finished reading the arbitrator’s decision in the case of Diana O’Neill.  Ms. O’Neill challenged her firing by the Sarasota County School District based on her treatment of students with disabilities who were assigned to her classroom.              

          Frankly, I’m a little confused.  The arbitrator finds the following:  

          “It is true that Ms. O’Neill committed insubordination because she hit, hurt, and treated students – especially Tara – roughly in ways unrelated to the learning process.”  He describes her conduct as a “pattern of abuse.”  Ok – insubordination, hitting, hurting, treating students roughly, engaging in a pattern of abuse.  Got it.  So what happens next?             

          He reinstates her.  He orders her to be “restored to her prior teaching position or an equivalent position.”  Can you see why I’m confused?              

          The arbitrator – Mark Lurie – tries to explain his reasoning as he goes through the various allegations against Ms. O’Neill.  One of the most serious concerned an incident where Ms. O’Neill’s aides claimed that she slapped one of her students on the side of the student’s head.  Ms. O’Neill characterized the incident differently than the aides, but the arbitrator believed the testimony of the aides.  And then he said this, at page 37 of his opinion:            

          “Normally, hitting a student in this manner would be grounds for termination of a teacher’s employment, because it would normally constitute misconduct in office so serious as to impair the teacher’s effectiveness in the school system.  In this case, the mitigating fact of Ms. O’Neil’s 18 years of service to the District, in a job that would grind most educators down, must be taken into account.”             

          So, “normally” this would be enough to get her fired and “normally” it would constitute serious misconduct, BUT … what?  Okay, I get the part about longevity of service.  Certainly, that’s a factor to be taken into account when deciding the proper level of discipline of an employee.  But, then there’s that other part – “in a job that would grind most educators down” – in this sentence.  Am I reading this wrong, or does the arbitrator say that a mitigating factor to Ms. O’Neil hitting one of her students on the side of her head with her hand is that she is teaching kids with disabilities?  That her conduct can be understood or explained on the basis that teaching kids with disabilities – our kids – is so demanding it “would grind most educators down”?  I’ve read this passage a bunch of times and, frankly, in my humble opinion, I think that’s what this says.              

          This leads me to ask the question – if she hadn’t been teaching kids with disabilities – “those kids” – our kids – would she still have a job?  If teaching our kids wasn’t so demanding that hitting one of her students in the head can be explained because of it?  If the kid she hit in the head didn’t have a disability, would the arbitrator have ruled in her favor?  I’m really not trying to be oversensitive here, but I think that this is a very fair question.  Don’t take my word for it.  Here’s a link to the entire decision: 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/assets/pdf/SH1806091.PDF.  Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusion.          

          Here’s the conclusion that the arbitrator reached.  For the act of hitting a student in the head with her hand – which would “normally” constitute grounds for termination, he ruled that Ms. O’Neill should be – ready for this? – suspended for two weeks.  Seriously?  Again, is it because he found that she hit a student with a disability?  I find it very difficult to understand how, even in light of her 18 years of service, she could receive such a minimal penalty, unless that’s really the reason – that our kids are less valuable, less important, more stressful.  Maybe it’s because they’re more deserving of what happens to them, because they have disabilities?   

          All together, for actions that included “bopping” students on the head with various objects, using her foot on the buttocks of a student to push him forward, ripping skin off of the lips of a student and causing bleeding, and causing the gums of that same student to bleed when she fed her, Ms. O’Neill received, from the arbitrator a total of two written reprimands and four weeks of suspension.              

          Ms. O’Neill’s “humor” and “observations” formed the basis of several allegations against her by the School District.  Let’s go with what Ms. O’Neill admitted:  (1) She admitted to stating that a student’s mouth looked like – I’m not making this up – a “butthole”; (2) she admitted to stating, in front of one of her students to another adult who was present, that all the student was doing was “sitting there sucking up oxygen” and; (3) referring to a student, whose name is Olivia, as “Oblivia,” which Ms. O’Neill stated was used as a “term of endearment, the implications of which Olivia would not have comprehended.”           

          In his decision, the arbitrator took judicial notice that, in high stress professions, humor is essential to deal with the stress.  He found that:  “The District has not shown that any of Ms. O’Neill’s comments were intended to have been heard and comprehended by persons other than the two TAs and Nurse Pillsbury.  The Arbitrator finds that her humor and observations furnished no basis for discipline.”            

          Really?  Others would say this indicates at a minimum a distressing degree of insensitivity and, at the most, discrimination on the basis of the disability of her students.  I ask you to substitute any other group in our society against which discrimination is so properly prohibited.  Would it be okay for these comments to be made to someone on the basis of their racial or ethnic background?  What about their religion or gender?  Frankly, I find it impossible to believe that such comments in those contexts would have been considered to be “humor” used to relieve stress or mere “observations.”  Why is it okay here?            

          According to the arbitrator, it was acceptable to make these comments because the kids didn’t understand it when the derogatory remarks about them were made in their presence.  How can this be a justification for statements that are just plain wrong in the first place?  The ability or inability of the targets of such comments to understand the meaning of such comments in no way excuses the actions of making such comments in the first place.  Further, I can’t find anywhere in the arbitrator’s opinion that discusses the introduction of evidence concerning the cognitive abilities of Ms. O’Neill’s students.  From my reading of the decision, it appears that their collective lack of ability to understand what was being said around them was simply assumed, not proven.             

          Then there’s the “bopping” – hitting kids in the head with a variety of objects, including water bottles and empty tennis ball containers that had been fashioned into a type of arm brace.  Bopping isn’t a technical term, but it’s used by the witnesses, parties, and arbitrator.  Some would call hitting a child in the head “assault,” rather than “bopping”.  Whatever you call it, the arbitrator stated that there was no evidence that this action resulted in pain or injury or was done for any purpose other than to focus the student’s attention.  However, at page 10 of the opinion, he cites testimony from Ms. O’Neill’s aides that, when the “bopping” occurred, students would cry or they would “make sounds indicating their unhappiness with the contact.”  The arbitrator notes that none of Ms. O’Neill’s students who were thus treated could speak.                 

          Indulge me for just a moment.  Folks, I am very fortunate and privileged to be the Executive Director of Family Network on Disabilities.  We are very fortunate to hold two grants in Florida as a Federally-funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI).  As part of our function as a PTI, we are to encourage and promote that schools implement educational strategies for kids with disabilities that are evidence based, i.e. proven to work.  I have to tell you that, throughout the years that I’ve done this, and throughout many conferences and articles and strategies that I’ve heard and seen discussed in depth as being effective for the education of children with disabilities, none of them have involved hitting – sorry, “bopping” - kids with disabilities, verbal or not, in the head, whether it was to get their attention or for any other purpose.              

          The reason why the actions we’re urging – an immediate moratorium on corporal punishment against students with disabilities – are so important is graphically laid out in the response of the teacher’s union to the allegations of the School District.  The Sarasota County School District has a policy that specifically prohibits the use of corporal punishment against all students, including those with disabilities.  However, the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the teachers’ union includes a clause that states that “physical contact” between a teacher and student is authorized in order to gain control of unruly students.  “Physical contact” isn’t defined, but the agreement specifically states that the use of such physical contact is not corporal punishment.  In this case, the union argued that Ms. O’Neill couldn’t be punished for using corporal punishment against her students because the School District’s policy was unclear and, therefore, unenforceable.  This argument makes it dramatically clear why we need to enact a statewide moratorium and why each district needs to address this issue, regardless of whether or not they have a policy prohibiting corporal punishment.      

          Please.  Can’t we move beyond this?  Can’t we make it clear that corporal punishment used against kids with disabilities is strictly forbidden?  I don’t care what you call it or how you describe it – whether it’s “bopping” or “physical contact” or anything else.  It has no place in the education of our children and should be banned.  Immediately.  Again, this all happened in a district that has a policy against the use of corporal punishment. 

          So, please, write the Governor and Commissioner of Education: 

The Honorable Charlie Crist, Governor

State of Florida

The Capitol

400 S. Monroe St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 

The Honorable Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner

Florida Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1514

325 W. Gaines Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

Write your local Superintendents and school boards: 

http://www.fldoe.org/schools/schoolmap/flash/district_list.asp 

Join and help build the Cause (over 500 members as of this writing):

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/341382/71996303?m=6d54c0aa 

Keep up to date and what’s happening:

www.fndfl.org/blog

This is a new school year.  We need to stop this.  Now.  Before it’s too late.