District, ex-teacher disagree over why she was investigated
By Mike McGann, Editor, The Times
A former Unionville-Chadds Ford School District teacher and the schools’ administration have strikingly different accounts of how she came to resign her part-time teaching position at Unionville High School, after a social media furor was touched off last week over what sparked her departure.
Winden Rowe, a 1997 graduate of Unionville High School, painted a disturbing picture of school and district administrators quizzing first students and then her about her “gay” friend and her mentions of him and their respective social lives during class time. Superintendent of Schools John Sanville and Board of Education president Victor Dupuis issued a statement Monday night, disputing that account, saying the issue had nothing to do with her friend or the sexual orientation of her friend “but rather the inappropriateness of discussing an adult recreational lifestyle with students during class time.”
After Rowe’s controversial account of an investigation into her in-classroom conduct began to make waves in the community last week via social media, district officials had no on the record comment until Monday night’s Board of Education meeting. Although public media had encouraged local residents to attend the meeting, possibly because of the massive weekend snowstorm, there were no public comments about the situation beyond those made by board members and administrators.
Rowe, in an interview last week, said while she could understand why there might be questions about her sharing in class and going off topic — Rowe taught Spanish part time — she said the investigative process, the questions and how it was conducted made it impossible for her to continue teaching in the district.
She said she had no idea that there had been a complaint — which according to the district came from a student, automatically starting an investigative process under district policy — until she was informed by one of her students. She said that students were being called down one by one to discuss the matter with administrators but that no one had spoken with her at that point.
“I felt like I was proven guilty before I even knew I was on trial,” Rowe said. “If that’s the methodology in place, it’s concerning to me.”
According to the district, administrators sought to focus Rowe on teaching the subject matter, planned to enter a letter into her record (both sides agree, she had a spotless record in five years of teaching at the school) and asked her to apologize to her students. They said Rowe chose to resign twice, which was not their intent.
Rowe’s said her account, which has since been removed from Facebook, was published to her private Facebook account, to be shared with a handful of friends, and only became more widely known when a friend of hers pushed it out to a wider audience on the social media platform. The account spread like wildfire through the community — as students began sharing the account in school by week’s end.
She made it clear that was never her intent, though.
“I’m not one of those people who is driven by anger or revenge,” she said. “I just wanted to answer public questions.”
By Tuesday — following the district statement — Rowe posted to Facebook suggesting everyone had said their piece and it was time to move on.
“When I read the statement released from the district last night, I knew it was time to let go,” her post said Tuesday. “Some of you may say that I am somehow incriminating myself as dishonest by doing and saying so. And I understand that thought process. I also know that regardless of what I say there will be both naysayers and supporters, and the possible dialogue is endless. However, that is beside the point of this post. I see a lot of unkindness being shared here, so I ask that we all please stop.”
The Times made a Right To Know Request regarding all materials related to Rowe’s resignation — which to date has not been fulfilled – in an attempt to clarify what appear to be varying accounts of how the issue was handled during the week of Dec. 18, 2015.
I agree with TE Resident. Administrators, union leaders and board members are colluding together to undermine the parents, taxpayers and students. They are washing each others’ hands! The whole incident was a conspiracy to fire an alternate lifestyle teacher.
I didn’t say that.
I think teachers have to be a member of the teacher’s union. I don’t think they have a choice. Administrators try and establish good relationships with union leaders. It’s a you wash my back, I’ll wash yours agreement.
I would wager that Union leaders knew about this and gave their blessing, or Administrators acted alone and were completely taken off guard by her reaction, thinking she would accept the letter in her file and move forward. In any case, it puts Union leaders in an awkward position. Do we support our member or do we keep Administration happy because we’re going to need to work with them in the future. That’s really how it works, depending on how strong the Union is in UCF. I followed the leader during contract negotiations. He seemed like a strong leader to me.
It’s a way to send a strong message to other teachers too.
Thanks to Mike for filing a RTK request. These things should be handled in an open honest and direct way, so everyone knows what happened.
Rowe was not a member of Unionville-Chadds ford Education Association, as a part-time teacher, she had that option. Had she been a member, you would have seen at least an attempt at a comment from the union on the matter.
Thanks Mike
The teacher almost certainly had a union rep in the room regardless of whether the teacher was a member of the union or not. If the teacher didn’t request representation, the administration would have insisted. This is a situation that could lead to litigation. It’s in the best interest of the district to make sure the teacher was fairly treated.
And I’ve never seen the union comment publicly on a personal matter. Either they file a grievance because they disagree with the outcome or they are silent because they agree the district acted appropriately.
Whether she had Union representation or not is irrelevant. The question is why did the Administration choose to make an issue out of her talking about her private life with her students when other teachers do that every day. Why was this teacher singled out?
Most people would understand that this teacher was asked to modify her behavior because one or more students complained that the Spanish class they thought they signed up for had turned into an alternate lifestyle class.
But in TE Resident’s world where overpaid administrators everywhere are busy washing each others backs this teacher is being unfairly persecuted and the details are being hidden by Dr Sanville behind privacy laws.
B Jackson: I sent you an email regarding your user name. You need to reply from that email and address those concerns — name jumping and using fake emails (another user is suggesting that you are doing both) is in violation of our Terms of Service.
I don’t consider information from anonymous sources as fact. If you can’t tell me who is leveling charges, I can’t take the charges seriously.
Also, choosing to label this teacher’s friend as having an “alternative lifestyle” is confusing to me. I don’t believe gay is a choice, just like I don’t believe straight is a choice. You are what you are. “Straight” teacher’s talk about their “lifestyles” all the time. Why shouldn’t “gay” teachers talk about theirs. Whatever a person is, they have a fundamental right to happiness.
So no, I don’t mind if teacher’s talk about their private lives to my children in class. And I don’t mind it when my children have “gay” teachers.
Agree with TE. Rapport is built between students and teachers discussing private lives to a certain degree. I wonder where the teachers’ union is on this, if she was a member.
Teachers in TE and I would wager every school District talk about their private lives with their students. Teachers curse to and at students. Teachers name call students and probably vice versa. Only when administrators want to make something out of it, do they act on a “complaint” from a student or a parent. Ask Dr. Sanville who complained. He will site confidentiality and no one will ever know.
I’ve told Administrators about way worse things described here. Nothing was ever done. When administrators make an issue out of something, most times it has nothing to do with the issue they say it is about.
I agree with TE Resident. Teachers should share lots of details of their private lives especially if it revolves around controversial topics like lifestyle and religion. A 25 year old teacher certainly has the perspective to trump however the parents might want guide their children. Forget about the subject matter that is supposed to be taught in class. They can get that in a remedial course next year.
And those darned administrators always make too much money, are incompetent and can be easily replaced by anyone walking into Landhope. And how silly of Dr. Sanville to “site” [cite] confidentiality. Employee personnel files, including evaluations, disciplinary actions, health records, home addresses and phone numbers should be available to everyone and preferably published on the district’s web cite [site].
Didn’t mean to poke a soft spot. Clearly this is not your issue. You are upset about something else.
I see. You don’t want to defend your stated views on the issues of appropriate classroom material and confidentiality. You’d rather resort to personal attacks. Would you want your personnel file made public? Would you want you children exposed to whatever views on religion or lifestyle a teacher wanted to promote?
I’m grateful Mike filed the RTK. If he gets an answer, hopefully he’ll get to the bottom of it.
As the original statement from Mrs. Rowe has been taken down, I am wondering if anyone can do a fact check. Did Mrs. Rowe say anywhere that the district asked her to leave? I seem to remember her only saying that they put her on administrative leave.
Common Core Seventh Grade Standards (L5c) expect that seventh grade students understand the meaning between positive and negative connotations. The district’s instructional materials remind students to make sure they understand the denotation and connotation of a word when they read or use it. Materials also state that writers use connotations to show positive or negative emotions. The statement, “Ms. Rowe then went to social media, blasting the district for allegedly asking her to leave,” connotes something more negative than a neutral word such as “share” would have.