Victim of Domestic Abuse Fired

[disykat]

I'm curious if all the people who say the school is wrong would be willing to financially support the school to keep them afloat if they lost a bunch of their students due to fear? If parents didn't want her at school, should they have raised tuition to be able to afford another teacher AND keep her on the payroll?

Private schools have to keep their students in order to be able to pay their bills. If parents are going to leave because of a teacher, that's a problem that can't be solved easily. Is it better to take a stand and protect your friend/employee at the risk of having to close the school? Then a lot of people would be out of jobs.

Private schools function differently than public schools. They have to keep their students or they close, period.

It's easy to sit at our computers and say they should keep her, but we're not sending our kids there and/or paying two teachers instead of one.

I'm not Catholic, but I fail to see how the fact that this is a Catholic school changes things.

Teachers are no different than anyone else. When your private life interferes with work and becomes a safety concern, the fact that it's not your fault doesn't really change the fear. I doubt this was a decision made without a lot of thought and angst.

Speaking of blaming the victim... there are a lot of victims here and the school is one of them. The cause of this problem is not the school, it is the abuser who violated a restraining order and apparently frightened a lot of people. I think people are taking the anger at what has happened to this woman out on the wrong party.

 

[Ember]

Considering more than 1% of Americans are in jail, the chances of a teacher or student being related to a criminal are quite high. If we have to ban each teacher and child who may pose a risk to safety based on who they are related to then we may as well just close schools altogether.

 

[Nancyg56]

If I were a teacher in that school or a parent? I'd be looking for another school. One of the reasons some folks teach in religious schools or send their kids to such schools is the expectations that the schools will conduct themselves by the standards of their faith. This school is conducting itself by the CYA faith instead.

You get to make decision for your family. I get to make decisions for mine. A school administration does not have that luxury. They need to consider the needs and the safety of other peoples children and family. Darn right they are doing that CYA thing. And they should. I expect high standards from any school I would send my child to, but I also expect that if there is a known threat to safety, that threat is take seriously. If that means a teacher is removed to ensure the safety of the children, so be it.

One act was private? We were talking about two incidents neither was private.

Not only would I send my kids to the school I would welcome the mom and her kids in my home. Where is it OK for her to work? Exactly? How about the kids do they ever get to go to school? How is your way even practical?

I meant that if there is an incident that takes place at home, that is one thing. Once the private life of people comes to work, that changes how an employer reacts. Private vs public.

As I said, your home, your decision. A private decision vs a public decision.

This isn't just a private school. It's a private Faith-based school.

If you actually follow the words of the founder of the faith this particular school belongs to, you kinda' sorta' have to be good to everyone. . .you can find the stated precepts of this faith online. I won't quote or link, since there's no religion on the boards, but yeah. . .

But is is still a school. I am Catholic. I follow my Faith, but I do not place my family in jeopardy. I do understand the precepts of my Faith, but I would never place my DGD in harms way.

I think those of us criticizing the school believe the woman shouldn't be a victim twice and that the school should protect the children through security measures. Nothing in any of my posts indicates I would sue any school so this is just making an unnecessary jab at people you disagree with.

I think that we are going to be seeing a lot more of these discussions. This situation has been publicized and there will be someone else who decides this is a great way to punish an ex, consequences notwithstanding. Schools can only be a safe as the exterior allows. They are filled with windows, and leave children vulnerable is someone is bent on destruction. Children are exposed as the enter and exit the building. And don't even think about recess. Today we are talking about a private faith based school, so much of the discussion has included how Catholic schools should be held to a different standard than other private schools or of public schools. Or that school systems should just beef up security to ensure safety. Never mind that it is impossible to do this, and that even if it was possible, the cost could cripple town budgets.

This is going to occur again, and a different administration will have to determine how to keep children and staff safe. The question remains, do we, as a society, start taking domestic violence and mental illness seriously, and put money into programs that have teeth, or do we continue to refuse to enforce restraining orders or properly provide adequate care to those who are ill?

We are vilifying a school that responded to a situation that could have disrupted the education and the safety of the students. We really should be discussing how to best prevent the root cause of the problem, and we should be doing this before we encounter another Sandy Hook. Or before the school is not a Catholic school, but the public school down the street.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think if any of us think our kids are completely safe at school, we're deluding ourselves.

 

[Nancyg56]

I think if any of us think our kids are completely safe at school, we're deluding ourselves.

Absolutely not safe. It is a terrible turn of events that now it is "romantic" to target schools and terrorize the children and educators within those walls. Schools were never designed to keep intruders out, never built to withstand the kind of ammunition that is available, and certainly not equipped to make all of the changes that are needed to even come close to safeguarding students.

So what do we do? I honestly don't know, but I do believe that if a threat is discovered, that threat needs to be addressed.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Absolutely not safe. It is a terrible turn of events that now it is "romantic" to target schools and terrorize the children and educators within those walls. Schools were never designed to keep intruders out, never built to withstand the kind of ammunition that is available, and certainly not equipped to make all of the changes that are needed to even come close to safeguarding students.

So what do we do? I honestly don't know, but I do believe that if a threat is discovered, that threat needs to be addressed.

While I agree, I think the threats we don't know about probably outweigh the threats we do. I mean, we live in such a sick society, who's to say this particular school won't be targeted because someone's mad the teacher lost her job? Or some other crazy reason known only to the perpetrator?

What ever happened to not letting terrorists intimidate us? Are we going to live in such a fearful (and litigious) society that we let common sense go out the window?

How about we do the best we possibly can (and no doubt there is room for improvement) to protect the school environment, then we band together as a society to identify and prevent others who wish to do us harm from hurting us?

I can't see that letting this particular vulnerable family go has done much other than throwing them to the wolves, so to speak. Is this what we've become? Really?

 

[Nancyg56]

While I agree, I think the threats we don't know about probably outweigh the threats we do. I mean, we live in such a sick society, who's to say this particular school won't be targeted because someone's mad the teacher lost her job? Or some other crazy reason known only to the perpetrator?

What ever happened to not letting terrorists intimidate us? Are we going to live in such a fearful (and litigious) society that we let common sense go out the window?

How about we do the best we possibly can (and no doubt there is room for improvement) to protect the school environment, then we band together as a society to identify and prevent others who wish to do us harm from hurting us?

I can't see that letting this particular vulnerable family go has done much other than throwing them to the wolves, so to speak. Is this what we've become? Really?

My DH and I have had this very discussion, and it extends to gun control. Makes for an interesting conversation

I don't know what the answer is, and I honestly cannot say what I would do. It is funny because DH and I have turned out to be the very bane of my DD's existence. We are those GP's whose rules changed the second we were gifted with our DGD. We were never overprotective when our own were growing up. So, I see this through different eyes, I think. DH and I would wrap Kady in a bubble

I do think that school systems are between a rock and a hard place because if there is a threat...and this guy did present a visible problem post Sandy Hook....what do they do? What is the balance between reactive and proactive? Suppose they kept the teacher on, tried to make appropriate measures to keep everyone safe and the unthinkable happened. What would this conversation be? So this system erred on the side of caution. Unfortunately, considering this was a private school that needs to ensure paying student to remain viable, (and I bet you a buck there were may promises to remove students if this teacher remained) this school might have had no choice financially.

In a public school system the choice may not have been the same, but the meeting would have been interesting to say the least.

 

[FireDancer]

Considering more than 1% of Americans are in jail, the chances of a teacher or student being related to a criminal are quite high. If we have to ban each teacher and child who may pose a risk to safety based on who they are related to then we may as well just close schools altogether.

But that isn't what happened here. If someone has a spouse or ex-spouse that is violent or a criminal but they never come to their place of employment and cause a security problem they have nothing to worry about. This person caused a security problem which is what got her fired, not the abuse that happened away from school grounds.

There is no way anyplace can be safe 100% of the time and we can't protect ourselves from every unknown nut job lurking out there. We also can't realistically protect ourselves from every what-if scenario that exists and I wouldn't want to live in a world that sanitized anyway.

What we can do though is take steps to protect ourselves from known security threats and the ex-spouse in this case was a known security threat. Only known security threats get buildings locked down when they arrive. It is purely hypothetical to say every abusive person will show up at your place of work and cause a problem but it is fact that this abusive person has shown up at this place of work and caused a problem.

The bottom line is that a private school is a business and businesses make business decisions. If enough parents and students (read: customers) were not comfortable with this woman being employed there the smart business decision is to let her go and keep the majority of your customers happy.

 

[wvjules]

I'm curious if all the people who say the school is wrong would be willing to financially support the school to keep them afloat if they lost a bunch of their students due to fear? If parents didn't want her at school, should they have raised tuition to be able to afford another teacher AND keep her on the payroll?

Private schools have to keep their students in order to be able to pay their bills. If parents are going to leave because of a teacher, that's a problem that can't be solved easily. Is it better to take a stand and protect your friend/employee at the risk of having to close the school? Then a lot of people would be out of jobs.

Private schools function differently than public schools. They have to keep their students or they close, period.

It's easy to sit at our computers and say they should keep her, but we're not sending our kids there and/or paying two teachers instead of one.

I'm not Catholic, but I fail to see how the fact that this is a Catholic school changes things.

Teachers are no different than anyone else. When your private life interferes with work and becomes a safety concern, the fact that it's not your fault doesn't really change the fear. I doubt this was a decision made without a lot of thought and angst.

Speaking of blaming the victim... there are a lot of victims here and the school is one of them. The cause of this problem is not the school, it is the abuser who violated a restraining order and apparently frightened a lot of people. I think people are taking the anger at what has happened to this woman out on the wrong party.

None. That is absurd.

 

[Nancyg56]

None. That is absurd.

I think that you are responding to the comment that those protesting the termination of the teacher should financially support the school.

I agree that the notion is absurd, who would do that? But.....the students at this private school are not locked into that school. They can go anywhere, and student census is what supports the school and the staff. If enough parents decided that the situation was out of their comfort zone, and removed their children that school would be financially challenged.

My niece is the director at a Christian all year preschool. When she came on she was shocked at the financial status of that school, the Church was supporting it almost completely, because student census was so low, in part becasue the core curriculum was appalling. She had been asked to turn it around or the school would close. I realize that this is an entirely different situation, but the money is not. Most Catholic schools are funded only in part by tuition, the diocese pays the difference. If the school loses too much money, it closes. In my State many fine schools have been forced to close and those that remain open are struggling. It is very easy for those of us who are not in the middle of this to say the situation is not fair, the teacher should remain, the school should just manage. This school may be just managing as it is. If they lost even a small percentage of their student population, that may be what drives the decision to close.

What the poster was trying to say is that if as a society, we should be willing to pay for the decisions we want to make.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I haven't read anything that gave the impression that they're still involved romantically or personally. They have kids together, and often that's a perfect excuse for abusers to continue their intimidation/manipulations... one that is, sadly, frequently enabled by courts that care more about a father's rights than an abuse victim's well being.

She doesn't need to be involved in any way, shape or form, even if they have children. This can be handled by a third party.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My DH and I have had this very discussion, and it extends to gun control. Makes for an interesting conversation

I don't know what the answer is, and I honestly cannot say what I would do. It is funny because DH and I have turned out to be the very bane of my DD's existence. We are those GP's whose rules changed the second we were gifted with our DGD. We were never overprotective when our own were growing up. So, I see this through different eyes, I think. DH and I would wrap Kady in a bubble

I do think that school systems are between a rock and a hard place because if there is a threat...and this guy did present a visible problem post Sandy Hook....what do they do? What is the balance between reactive and proactive? Suppose they kept the teacher on, tried to make appropriate measures to keep everyone safe and the unthinkable happened. What would this conversation be? So this system erred on the side of caution. Unfortunately, considering this was a private school that needs to ensure paying student to remain viable, (and I bet you a buck there were may promises to remove students if this teacher remained) this school might have had no choice financially.

In a public school system the choice may not have been the same, but the meeting would have been interesting to say the least.

I know. I don't think that gun control is the only, or right, answer, necessarily. There are so many facets to it.

Around here there were threats at some of the schools. They went around to see which schools they could actually "get into" as non-school personnel. Some were far better locked down than others. (Some actually are still keeping back doors open and such in warm weather!) So there's room for improvement with that, alone. At minimum, schools need to be locked tight, ideally with electronic surveillance and direct lines to police depts, etc. Perhaps guards as well. (Yeah, I know these all take money. I saw on the news a school in Boston which still has a fire system in place - with bells - from 1910 or something ridiculous like that! And maybe some disagree with that type of school environment, I don't know.)

If you google "school safety", there is a lot of activity and legislation moving forward to help keep schools safe. It's, unfortunately, something we have to learn to live with today; something we all need to be concerned about. (And who would've thought it would be an issue in theaters, too??)

 

[disykat]

I think that you are responding to the comment that those protesting the termination of the teacher should financially support the school.

I agree that the notion is absurd, who would do that? But.....the students at this private school are not locked into that school. They can go anywhere, and student census is what supports the school and the staff. If enough parents decided that the situation was out of their comfort zone, and removed their children that school would be financially challenged.

My niece is the director at a Christian all year preschool. When she came on she was shocked at the financial status of that school, the Church was supporting it almost completely, because student census was so low, in part becasue the core curriculum was appalling. She had been asked to turn it around or the school would close. I realize that this is an entirely different situation, but the money is not. Most Catholic schools are funded only in part by tuition, the diocese pays the difference. If the school loses too much money, it closes. In my State many fine schools have been forced to close and those that remain open are struggling. It is very easy for those of us who are not in the middle of this to say the situation is not fair, the teacher should remain, the school should just manage. This school may be just managing as it is. If they lost even a small percentage of their student population, that may be what drives the decision to close.

What the poster was trying to say is that if as a society, we should be willing to pay for the decisions we want to make.

Exactly. I wasn't trying to say people have to write checks because they have an opinion. My point was that it's easy to sit there and make these grand statements about the right thing to do. Meanwhile the school, if they made that decision, might end up closing because of it.

It's easy to say they should do this or they should do that when it doesn't affect OUR bottom line.

 

[allison443]

She doesn't need to be involved in any way, shape or form, even if they have children. This can be handled by a third party.

I guess I don't know how these things work, but why would someone with a 20 year history of domestic violence (as was posted earlier in the thread) and who got a protective order issued against him, still be allowed to have anything to do with his young children?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I suspect that those who are criticizing the school for it's actions are the same type that would be the first to sue if their child was enrolled at that school and the husband's violence had escalated to include the staff and student body.

No. I would just deal with the husband instead.

 

[allison443]

Exactly. I wasn't trying to say people have to write checks because they have an opinion. My point was that it's easy to sit there and make these grand statements about the right thing to do. Meanwhile the school, if they made that decision, might end up closing because of it.

It's easy to say they should do this or they should do that when it doesn't affect OUR bottom line.

Or when our children don't actually attend this school.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I guess I don't know how these things work, but why would someone with a 20 year history of domestic violence (as was posted earlier in the thread) and who got a protective order issued against him, still be allowed to have anything to do with his young children?

I have no idea, what's in the court documents, so I can't even speculate.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

Exactly. I wasn't trying to say people have to write checks because they have an opinion. My point was that it's easy to sit there and make these grand statements about the right thing to do. Meanwhile the school, if they made that decision, might end up closing because of it.

It's easy to say they should do this or they should do that when it doesn't affect OUR bottom line.

And this is exactly what makes their actions so completely hypocritical.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I would be surprised if there are many schools out there that haven't had some sort of threat - or will.

 

[TLSnell1981]

And this is exactly what makes their actions so completely hypocritical.

How?