Paying Teachers Not to Teach

What is the purpose of a union? Unions bargain on behalf of their members for wages, work rules and rules about hiring and firing among other things. Remember that the next time someone claims that teachers unions are only interested in educating young people. Individuals may be dedicated, caring teachers but that has nothing to do with the union to which they belong. The union's job is to negotiate the most favorable set of rules for their members, regardless of how it impacts the children they are charged with educating. And they will negotiate the most stringent set of conditions they can for hiring and firing as their mission is to protect first and foremost, their existing members. The union is not interested in the least in whether kids are being educated because that is not their job. It is the job of parents and I suppose their representatives on the school board.

Why do I mention this? Well, this story in the LA Times caught my eye. It seems that the LA Unified School District is paying a group of teachers roughly $10 million a year to not teach. Why? They've been accused of wrongdoing of some kind and have been "housed":

For seven years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has paid Matthew Kim a teaching salary of up to $68,000 per year, plus benefits.

His job is to do nothing.

Every school day, Kim's shift begins at 7:50 a.m., with 30 minutes for lunch, and ends when the bell at his old campus rings at 3:20 p.m. He is to take off all breaks, school vacations and holidays, per a district agreement with the teacher's union. At no time is he to be given any work by the district or show up at school.

He has never missed a paycheck.

In the jargon of the school district, Kim is being "housed" while his fitness to teach is under review. A special education teacher, he was removed from Grant High School in Van Nuys and assigned to a district office in 2002 after the school board voted to fire him for allegedly harassing teenage students and colleagues. In the meantime, the district has spent more than $2 million on him in salary and legal costs.


Last week, Kim was ordered to continue this daily routine at home. District officials said the offices for "housed" employees were becoming too crowded.

About 160 teachers and other staff sit idly in buildings scattered around the sprawling district, waiting for allegations of misconduct to be resolved.

The housed are accused, among other things, of sexual contact with students, harassment, theft or drug possession. Nearly all are being paid. All told, they collect about $10 million in salaries per year -- even as the district is contemplating widespread layoffs of teachers because of a financial shortfall.

Most cases take months to adjudicate, but some take years.

Kim, 41, has persisted the longest.

And what, pray tell, did Mr. Kim do?

Kim's troubles with the district began in 2000, when a classroom aide reported inappropriate comments and advances.

In class one October day, according to her testimony before an administrative panel, Kim asked her to stand closer to him while interpreting his speech for the students. When she moved closer, she said, he touched her breast with his left hand, the only one he could slightly control.

Students immediately started making comments about what they'd seen. One said: "Oh, come on, Mr. Kim, you know you liked it," according to a summary of allegations against Kim prepared by a state review panel in 2008. Kim responded to the students that he had.

Over the next two years, another adult andsixstudents would make similar complaints against Kim,according to the summary.

The same month the aide complained, Kim asked a girl if she had a boyfriend and if she was a virgin, according to the girl's testimony during an administrative hearing.

Another girl said that Kim kept staring at her and urged her at one point not to change her hair color, according to documents filed with the state.

Joseph Walker, then the principal at Grant, confronted Kim, who denied most of the allegations. Walker then wrote a memo to the teacher telling him that it was important "to stay out of the students' personal life and personal space," according to district records filed in court.

And that wasn't all:

Complaints of misconduct kept coming, according to district records filed in court.


After a male classroom aide reported that he had seen Kim touch a girl on the shoulders and near her crotch, Walker asked for advice from L.A. Unified's personnel division. The principal noted that Kim "has been charged with sexual harassment for the fourth time within a one-year period," according to his December 2001 memo in court files.

Two months later, a school counselor complained that Kim ran his hand back and forth across one of her breasts during a meeting, according to the court filings and the commission summary.

So, why didn't they just fire him? Well, according to the union contract, as a tenured teacher, he was entitled to a set of hearings before being fired. He also sued the district for disability discrimination (he has cerebral palsy), although he eventually lost the suit.

And the union contract also forbid him from being assigned other work:

Now, district officials say, they are prohibited from assigning chores under the contract with the teachers' union. Although there is no specific reference in the contract to housed employees, an attorney for L.A. Unified pointed to Article 9, Section 4.0, which defines the "professional duties" of a teacher, such as instructional planning and evaluating the work of pupils.

With no mention of photocopying, stuffing envelopes or answering telephones in the contract, the district and union have interpreted this provision as prohibiting clerical duties.

So why has it taken so long to fire him?

In February 2002, the district ordered Kim housed at an administration building while the allegations were formally investigated. The school board voted to fire Kim in October 2003.

For seven years, the district and Kim have battled in administrative forums and courtrooms.

Kim sued Walker and the district for disability discrimination and ultimately lost. By then, Walker had retired -- exhausted, he said, by the battle to fire Kim. He currently heads a charter school in Pacoima.

Separately, a Commission on Professional Competence -- a three-member panel with ultimate administrative authority over teacher firings -- concluded that Kim had indeed engaged in unprofessional conduct by touching three female students. But, the panel decided, he should not be fired because "his conduct was a result of poor judgment, rather than overtly sexual."

The panel found no evidence that Kim was a poor teacher or that he had injured his students. Instead it faulted the district for poorly documenting its case and not informing Kim promptly of the allegations.

The district successfully appealed to the superior and appellate courts, which sent the case back to the commission for reconsideration. Earlier this year, the commission backed Kim again, ruling this time on a 2-1 vote that all of the touching was the result of "involuntary arm movements."

And so it goes on, with no end in sight. As Kim continues to collect his teacher's salary, the district is planning yet another court appeal.

His conduct was the "result of poor judgement"? And that isn't enough to get him fired?

The unions have negotiated such stringent rules that a teacher effectively can't be fired except for criminal behavior for which they've been convicted. If you can't get rid of this guy, what are the chances you can fire someone for just being incompetent?

The education system in this country was built by the unions for the benefit of the unions and their members. We will never get better results from this system. This isn't something that can be tinkered with around the edges and get better results. Public education is a public good and I have no problem with the government collecting tax money and distributing it to ensure that children are educated, but there is absolutely no reason to insist that those children be educated in this rotten system. It is immoral and unacceptable.