PorkChopSandwiches
09-24-2014, 07:15 PM
Oceanside Unified School District officials investigated complaints that a teacher threatened to have a robot shoot and kill students, and the educator was allowed to resign and receive a $92,000 settlement instead of being fired.
Officials said the prospect of a lengthy and costly state process to terminate the teacher contributed to the settlement.
The educator, Tuyet-Mai Thi Vo, says the allegations were untrue, and she has a positive recommendation letter from then-Superintendent Larry Perondi to vouch for her ongoing fitness for the classroom.
According to a district report, “Ms. Vo told her class that if robots were teachers, Ms. Vo would program the robot to shoot the students every time the students didn’t pay attention, talked back, or even talked at all. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to zap the students with a Taser if the students failed to complete homework assignments or arrived late to class. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to kill all of the students.”
The alleged threat and other reports of hostile encounters are outlined in documents the district filed with the state while the dismissal process was active. U-T Watchdog obtained the filings from the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings through a public records request.
Reached by phone, Vo, 48, said, “That is not reflective of who I am. What the district claimed was alleged. Alleged means they are not true.”
According to district officials, Vo was on paid leave from Jan. 23, 2012, until June 30, 2013, before leaving district employment with the cash settlement, plus 18 more months of family health benefits (still in effect) at a cost of $1,949 a month.
According to district filings, students expressed shock at her robot comments on Jan. 11, 2012, and “Ms. Vo explained that she did not like teaching students with attitudes.”
The next day, “on January 12, 2012, Ms. Vo forcefully grabbed and ripped a student’s shirt as he walked past her to his seat in the classroom,” the district wrote. “Ms. Vo’s repeated improper and threatening interactions with students and staff and her willful failure to provide required educational instruction violates district rules and state education laws.”
Vo said she was gesturing while teaching, and her contact with the student’s shirt was inadvertent.
Officials said the prospect of a lengthy and costly state process to terminate the teacher contributed to the settlement.
The educator, Tuyet-Mai Thi Vo, says the allegations were untrue, and she has a positive recommendation letter from then-Superintendent Larry Perondi to vouch for her ongoing fitness for the classroom.
According to a district report, “Ms. Vo told her class that if robots were teachers, Ms. Vo would program the robot to shoot the students every time the students didn’t pay attention, talked back, or even talked at all. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to zap the students with a Taser if the students failed to complete homework assignments or arrived late to class. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to kill all of the students.”
The alleged threat and other reports of hostile encounters are outlined in documents the district filed with the state while the dismissal process was active. U-T Watchdog obtained the filings from the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings through a public records request.
Reached by phone, Vo, 48, said, “That is not reflective of who I am. What the district claimed was alleged. Alleged means they are not true.”
According to district officials, Vo was on paid leave from Jan. 23, 2012, until June 30, 2013, before leaving district employment with the cash settlement, plus 18 more months of family health benefits (still in effect) at a cost of $1,949 a month.
According to district filings, students expressed shock at her robot comments on Jan. 11, 2012, and “Ms. Vo explained that she did not like teaching students with attitudes.”
The next day, “on January 12, 2012, Ms. Vo forcefully grabbed and ripped a student’s shirt as he walked past her to his seat in the classroom,” the district wrote. “Ms. Vo’s repeated improper and threatening interactions with students and staff and her willful failure to provide required educational instruction violates district rules and state education laws.”
Vo said she was gesturing while teaching, and her contact with the student’s shirt was inadvertent.