Appendix A
SURVEY RESULTS OF SELECTED CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS
We surveyed selected public school districts throughout California to learn whether they remove teachers from their classrooms in response to allegations of misconduct and, if so, the process they used for removing them. Because the Los Angeles Unified School District is the largest school district in California, we selected other large districts around the State. We sent our survey to 71 school districts. We selected all of the State’s districts that had at least 1,000 teachers and any districts that had fewer teachers but that were among the 50 districts in the State with the highest number of schools. Additionally, to include districts likely to have experience in addressing teacher misconduct, we included in the 71 district total those school districts with the highest number of misconduct reports made to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. We received responses to our survey from 60 of the school districts we selected. Because one of the districts responding indicated that it had not removed a teacher from the classroom in the past five years for allegations of misconduct, we analyzed the responses of the remaining 59 districts.
Our survey consisted of 20 questions regarding the district’s approach to handing allegations of teacher misconduct. For example, the survey included questions about the conditions under which the districts would remove a teacher to investigate misconduct. We also asked the districts to provide the number of teachers currently removed from their classrooms at the time of the survey as well as the total number removed during fiscal year 2014–15. In addition, we asked several questions about the districts’ general policies and procedures related to investigating and resolving these cases.
We observed notable similarities in teacher removal practices among the school districts responding to our survey. For example, among districts that have removed a credentialed teacher in the past five years, all districts stated that they have a current policy to remove teachers from their classrooms in certain situations to investigate an allegation of misconduct. When we followed up with a selection of districts to ask about the reasoning behind this practice, most generally reported that their goal is to ensure student safety and to prevent potential interference with the pending investigation. Additionally, all districts reported that violence and sexual misconduct would be circumstances under which a teacher would be removed from the classroom for purposes of investigating those allegations. Districts also reported similar administrative practices, such as directing teachers to stay at home as opposed to requiring them to report to a district building during the reassignment. Table A more completely summarizes the trends we identified among the school districts’ responses.
Table A
Survey Results From Selected California School Districts
| 1 | In the past five years, has your district removed a certificated teacher from his or her classroom in order to investigate an allegation of the teacher’s misconduct? | ||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 59 | 98% | |||
| No | 1 | 2 | |||
| Totals | 60 | 100% | |||
| 2 | Is it a current practice for your district to remove a certificated teacher from his or her classroom in order to investigate an allegation of the teacher’s misconduct? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 59 | 100% | |||
| 3 | Does your district have written policies or procedures that describe this practice? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 24 | 41% | |||
| No | 35 | 59 | |||
| Totals | 59 | 100% | |||
| 4 | What circumstances might lead your district to remove a teacher from his or her classroom? (Please check all that apply). (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question; more than one response possible.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| An allegation of a teacher’s violent misconduct.* | 59 | 100% | |||
| An allegation of a teacher’s sexual misconduct.* | 59 | 100 | |||
| An allegation of a teacher’s drug or alcohol use. | 56 | 95 | |||
| An allegation of a teacher’s inappropriate language or verbal abuse. | 55 | 93 | |||
| Problems with the teacher’s instructional performance or effectiveness. | 25 | 42 | |||
| The teacher’s alleged failure to adhere to administrative policies (attendance, record keeping, training, etc.). | 21 | 36 | |||
| Concern that the teacher’s ongoing presence in the classroom may influence an investigation into his or her alleged misconduct.* | 52 | 88 | |||
| Other | 12 | 20 | |||
| * Indicates a reason for teacher removal consistent with examples called out in Los Angeles Unified School District's policy. | |||||
| 5 | Who is responsible for deciding whether to remove a teacher from his or herclassroom? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question; more than one response possible.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| A school site administrator | 2 | 3% | |||
| A district‑level administrator | 59 | 100 | |||
| Other | 5 | 8 | |||
| 6 | Who is responsible for investigating the teacher’s alleged misconduct? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question; more than one response possible.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| A school site administrator | 36 | 61% | |||
| A district‑level administrator | 57 | 97 | |||
| A dedicated investigation officer(s) or team | 26 | 44 | |||
| Other | 16 | 27 | |||
| 7 | Who decides whether to return a teacher to his or her classroom or to discipline theteacher? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question; more than one response possible.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| A school site administrator | 6 | 10% | |||
| A district‑level administrator | 59 | 100 | |||
| Other | 0 | 0 | |||
| 8 | When a teacher is removed from his or her classroom pending the completion of an investigation, where does that teacher report for duty? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question; more than one response possible.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| His or her normal school site | 1 | 2% | |||
| An alternative administrative site or district building | 8 | 14 | |||
| The teacher stays home but must be reachable | 59 | 100 | |||
| Other | 0 | 0 | |||
| 9 | How many certificated teachers are currently removed from their classrooms (regardless of the removal date?) (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| 0 | 13 | 22% | |||
| 1–3 | 33 | 56 | |||
| 4–6 | 5 | 9 | |||
| 7–9 | 6 | 10 | |||
| 10 | 2 | 3 | |||
| Totals | 59 | 100% | |||
| 10. | Has your district removed a certificated teacher from his or her classroom while your district investigated an allegation of his or her misconduct since July 1, 2014? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 59 | 100% | |||
| 11 | How many times did your district remove a certificated teacher from his or her classroom between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| 0 | 2 | 3% | |||
| 1–10 | 40 | 68 | |||
| 11–20 | 11 | 18 | |||
| 21–30 | 4 | 7 | |||
| 31–40 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 41–50 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 50+ | 1 | 2 | |||
| Totals | 59 | 100% | |||
| 12 | For teacher removals occurring between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015, what is the average length, in workdays, between the date the teacher was removed from his or her classroom and the date the teacher was either reinstated ordismissed? | ||||
| Please only include instances of completed investigations in your response. (Note: Only districts that responded greater than 0 to question 11 responded to thisquestion.) |
|||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 0% | |||
| 1–30 | 34 | 60 | |||
| 31–60 | 14 | 25 | |||
| 61–90 | 4 | 7 | |||
| 91–120 | 2 | 3 | |||
| 120–150 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 150 + | 2 | 3 | |||
| Totals | 57 | 100% | |||
| 13 | How many times has your district removed a certificated teacher from his or her classroom since July 1, 2015? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| 1–10 | 47 | 80 | |||
| 11–20 | 6 | 10 | |||
| 21–30 | 4 | 6 | |||
| 31–40 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 41–50 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 50+ | 1 | 2 | |||
| Totals | 58 | 100% | |||
| 14 | Does your district pay teachers while they are removed from their classroom during an investigation of an allegation of their misconduct? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Total | Percentage | ||||
| Yes | 59 | 100% | |||
| 15 | Are teachers removed from their classrooms during an investigation of an allegation of their misconduct paid their full salary and benefits? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 59 | 100% | |||
| 16 | Has your district evaluated the cost of removing teachers from their classrooms while your district investigates an allegation of teachers’ alleged misconduct? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 17 | 29% | |||
| No | 42 | 71 | |||
| Totals | 59 | 100% | |||
| 17 | Has your district documented the results of its cost evaluation? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 16 responded to this question). |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 1 | 6% | |||
| No | 16 | 94 | |||
| Totals | 17 | 100% | |||
| 18 | Has your district evaluated the effect on the students of teachers who are removedfrom their classrooms while your district investigates an allegation of ateacher’s misconduct? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| Yes | 14 | 24% | |||
| No | 45 | 76 | |||
| Totals | 59 | 100% | |||
| 19 | Has your district documented the results of that evaluation? (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 18 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Response | Total | Percentage | |||
| No | 14 | 100% | |||
| Totals | 14 | 100% | |||
| 20 | What steps, if any, does your district take to minimize disruption to classroom instruction when a teacher is removed from his or her classroom? (Pleasedescribe) (Note: Only districts that responded “Yes” to question 1 responded to this question.) |
||||
| Districts generally reported that qualified (certificated), long‑term substitute teachers are used in order to minimize classroom disruption and/or that they try to complete misconduct investigations quickly. | |||||
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of survey responses from 60 California school districts.
The following 11 California school districts selected did not respond to our survey:
- Anaheim Union High School District
- Baldwin Park Unified School District
- Chula Vista Elementary School District
- Compton Unified School District
- Hayward Unified School District
- Mt. Diablo Unified School District
- Pajaro Valley Unified School District
- Palm Springs Unified School District
- Pasadena Unified School District
- Pomona Unified School District
- Saddleback Valley Unified School District
Appendix B
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING
The Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Teacher Credentialing) is an agency tasked with licensing educators within the State. It is also responsible for administering discipline to credential holders when necessary. Teacher Credentialing provided us with data that included the number and status of disciplinary cases for credentialed employees, including teachers, employed by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) as well as the type of disciplinary actions taken in each case, if applicable. The data included information for fiscal year 2011–12 through mid‑March 2016.
Table B reflects our summary of the Teacher Credentialing data related to the number of disciplinary actions it had taken based on reports of misconduct during that time period. A manager in Teacher Credentialing’s Division of Professional Practices explained that misconduct reports go through a lengthy review process. Teacher Credentialing investigates the allegations before its Committee of Credentials makes a disciplinary recommendation, if any. Credential holders may appeal a recommended discipline decision by requesting an administrative hearing. Therefore, cases reported in a given year may close with adverse actions in the following year after completion of the administrative hearing. Additionally, the manager indicated that Teacher Credentialing’s data reflect the date the case was opened in the Teacher Credentialing database, not the date of the misconduct. Together, these facts may help explain why Table B shows fewer cases resulting in no adverse actions for fiscal year 2015–16 and also why fewer total cases were reported to Teacher Credentialing by LAUSD that year than in previous years.
Table B
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing’s Case Status for Reports of Misconduct by Credentialed LAUSD Employees, July 1, 2011, Through March 2016
| Case Outcome | Number of Cases in Fiscal Year 2011–12 | Number of Cases in Fiscal Year 2012–13 | Number of Cases in Fiscal Year 2013–14 | Number of Cases in Fiscal Year 2014–15 | Number of Cases in Fiscal Year2015–16 (through March 2016) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No adverse action | 215 | 103 | 194 | 155 | 35 |
| Private admonition | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Public reproval | 13 | 1 | 11 | 4 | 0 |
| Revocation | 44 | 23 | 43 | 11 | 0 |
| Suspension | 67 | 38 | 25 | 13 | 0 |
| Pending cases* | 7 | 3 | 28 | 28 | 57 |
| Totals | 352 | 170 | 302 | 211 | 92 |
Source: California State Auditor’s analysis of unaudited data for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) provided by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (Teacher Credentialing) from its Credentialing Automation System Enterprise database.
* According to a manager at Teacher Credentialing’s Division of Professional Practices, some of the pending cases in this table are awaiting administrative hearings at the Office of the Attorney General.