Comments about ‘Lawyer: Parents blindsided by deal with teacher at center of videotaping controversy’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 9 2014 2:08 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Richfield, UT

It seems the child parents won't be satisfied until they taste blood. However, all conditions should be properly considered. First of all, this appears to be a one-time incident. There is no mention of anything similar to this ever happening before regarding this teacher.
Secondly, this teacher has 14 years vested into teaching at this school district, which represents her tenure needed for eventual retirement. To totally discard and take away all of that because of this single incident seems excessively harsh.

Everyone makes occasional mistakes. In this case, there was no physical abuse done. It was poor judgement, but certainly isn't, by itself, enough to justify ruining someone's entire career that has so many years vested into it. The teacher wrote a sincere letter of apology and has expressed regret both privately and publicly. She is also being penalized an entire year's pay and benefits. That in itself should and would be more than enough to appease most common sense parents.

Our motto in society should be something like, "Let's live, learn and move on" whenever mistakes are made.
An incident needs to be exceptionally atrocious to warrant ruining someone's career over.

Salt Lake City, UT

Alacrity makes some good comments. However, we could also conclude that this is the first time the teacher was caught abusing a disabled person, perhaps not the first time this teacher has abused a disabled person.

The 14 years service are not removed from her record. She will always have those years and credit.

The punishment sought is loss of tenure either at the school or district. She is free to apply for employment at another district or in another career field. She is free to plead her case of rehabilitation from the abuse problem via counseling or whatever method she feels will improve her resume, in another district.

I do not think she should be allowed anywhere near the child. It is "all for the children", correct? Then get the teacher out of the school, and district.

Obviously the brief narrative is incomplete and there must be more to be learned. A possible "elephant" in the room is the teacher's union pressing to retain the teacher so not to loose face with the rank and file. If so, then it's "all for the teacher(s") and not for the children.

to comment encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments