New York City Case Involving

¶ … New York City case involving the use of corporal punishments in school and the writer discusses the implications that the case has for the NYC public school system. There was one source used to complete this paper. Corporal Punishment Appeal Case Impacts NYC Schools With Reminders In recent years many cases of alleged corporal punishment by a school teacher have come to light in the media.

In most of those cases the teacher is accused of using physical force or corporal punishment as a means to get the student to comply with a directive and in some of those cases the allegation is that the corporal punishment was harsh enough to cause physical harm. These allegations and subsequent media coverage have caused school districts across the nation to re-evaluate their corporal punishment rules and reinforce the understanding of those rules with teachers and administrators.

When an allegation does occur it can produce a confusing, complicated set of responses and reactions. In the case of teacher John George vs. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Maria Santory Guasp, Superintendent, Community School District 9, George was accused of corporal punishment and of breaking a student's hand in the altercation. He was dismissed, reinstated then dismissed again. That decision was appealed and later upheld but the process in the meantime was complicated by procedural errors.

The case had an impact on the NYC public school system in that it serves as a reminder to administrators to be sure to follow proper procedure initially so that it can be a smoother process with regard to corporal punishment allegations. The case is founded in a probationary status teacher being accused of using corporal punishment on a student to get him into his seat, and in that altercation the student's hand was broken.

When the allegation was first made the principal immediately moved the probationary teacher to a district office position and then later dismissed the teacher stating the investigation results warranted a dismissal. The teacher alleged that the student actually broke his hand the day before the altercation when he hit another teacher's blackboard in anger. One of the ways this case impacts the school system in NYC is to serve as a reminder that when a student acts out physically in any manner it should be documented immediately.

If the student hitting the blackboard had been recorded and turned into the office immediately there would have been a record that it happened and would provide more strength to the probationary teacher's claim that the student must have broken his hand then. Petitioner contends that he merely escorted the student back to his seat. Petitioner further asserts that any injury to the student's hand had occurred the day before, during an incident in which the student allegedly punched a blackboard in another teacher's classroom.

Respondents, however, contend that petitioner impermissibly used corporal punishment to force the student back into his seat (John George vs. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Maria Santory Guasp, Superintendent, Community School District 9,)." The principal dismissed the teacher without allowing the teacher to take part in the investigation. Because of that decision the teacher was later reinstated with pay so that an subsequent investigation could take place.

The principal based her decision to terminate on the OSI investigation however, the probationary teacher was not allowed to take part in that investigation, therefore was reinstated until a second investigation could be conducted. Time and money could be saved by including the teacher and the union representatives in the investigation initially so that the petitioner could present his side of the case and OSI could make a determination having all of the facts at that time.

New York law does allow for the termination of probationary teachers without cause as long as it is not in bad faith. The probationary teacher contended that this decision was in bad faith as he.