Suspended teacher Pam Aister’s job hangs in the balance following a public hearing last week.

The hearing stemmed from an incident that occurred during the 2013-14 school year on the Four Peaks/Fountain Hills Middle School campus, in which Aister allegedly violated multiple district policies in her involvement with a verbal altercation between students.

The School Board voted during summer to suspend Aister, with pay, pending a hearing to determine if she should be dismissed, face other disciplinary measures or be re-instated.

The hearing officer for the Sept. 12 proceedings was Prudence Lee, agreed upon by Aister’s council, as well as FHUSD representation.

Aister’s council included attorney Brad Schleier and his paralegal, Cindy Anderson. Representing FHUSD was attorney David Pauole and Four Peaks/Middle School Principal Anita Gomez.

Now that both sides have presented their cases, Lee has 10 days (Sept. 22) to review the evidence and provide a recommendation to Superintendent Tom Lawrence.

From there, the Governing Board may vote to approve or reject Lee’s recommendation concerning Aister and potential disciplinary action.

The incident

To protect the identity of students involved, they and their parents will be referred to in this story by the same numbers utilized during the hearing.

Their testimony was conducted in private, the only portion of the proceedings not held in view of the public last Friday.

While Aister’s representation and the district offer varying accounts of the incident, agreed upon aspects of the event are as follows:

In the morning hours of May 8, before the first school bell, Aister was alerted that a possible altercation involving students was under way. Aister, at the time, was on duty in the lunchroom.

Aister proceeded into the campus courtyard and spoke with the students involved.

The nature and alleged content of this brief discussion resulted in at least one of the students discussing the matter with his parents.

The following day, the mother of one of the students involved contacted Gomez to express concerns. Gomez then conducted an investigation of the incident, resulting in Aister’s suspension and possible termination.

Opening

While Pauole did not offer an opening comment on behalf of FHUSD, Schleier spoke to Aister’s near “quarter of a century” working within the district and her role as a “frequently requested teacher” for local parents.

Pauole argued the incident which took place in early May was the result of an everyday playground dispute, and that Aister merely intervened with a student who was historically the target of teasing.

“[Aister] defused the situation in about 30 seconds,” Schleier said.

He then went on to state that the outcome was the result of young students’ perception of an event, and not necessarily what was actually said.

With Aister missing out on the end of the 2013-14 school year, the beginning of the 2014-15 school year and receiving 10 days of docked pay, Schleier held that the teacher had already experienced adequate punishment for any transgressions.

The hearing then adjourned, reconvening in private to hear the testimony of four of the students involved and two parents.

Gomez

The hearing reconvened in public in the early afternoon for the questioning of Gomez and Aister.

Gomez stated that she found out about the incident on May 9 when a parent of one of the students involved contacted the school. According to the parent, Aister had accused five of the students involved as being “racist.”

Gomez said she then began an investigation, interviewing the five boys involved. The four who had reportedly been teasing the single student were asked to provide written accounts before Gomez questioned them.

Video footage of the incident was also provided and, according to Gomez, the four boys accused of teasing provided accounts that were consistent with what was seen on video.

The student who had allegedly been teased (Student 11) did not report feeling racially taunted or bullied during the incident. Gomez stated that Student 11’s mother never contacted the school about previous incidents involving bullying or teasing of a racial nature.

When asked about district policy concerning such incidents, Gomez said “it should be reported to administration immediately, ASAP, day of.”

According to Gomez, she informed Aister on May 9 that the incident was being looked into. Later in the afternoon, Aister stated that she had been the one to mention it to Gomez.

When asked about the video footage of the incident, Gomez stated that she did not see aggressive behavior from Students 1 through 5, but that she did notice such behavior from Student 11.

There is no audio from the surveillance video.

Gomez described Student 11 as “very energetic and happy most of the time,” but it was clear that his interactions with peers were often “not good” and “aggressive in nature, verbally.”

Gomez said that while Student 11 was frequently involved in incidents on campus, many of which were his own doing, she never got the sense that he was afraid for his safety or reported any serious teasing.

In previous visits to her office, Gomez said that Student 11 had never mentioned Students 1 through 5 as being responsible for previous incidents.

After initial questioning from Pauole, Brad Schleier questioned Gomez. Pauole asked why Student 11 was never asked to provide a written testimony of the incident, and why he was not shown the video footage, as the other students involved had.

Gomez explained that she felt Student 11 would be more comfortable with verbal questioning and did not utilize the other methods because she did not want him to feel like he was in trouble.

Schleier then referenced Aister’s most recent teacher evaluations, mentioning that nothing was noted about her performance that was unsatisfactory.

Gomez stated that she had experienced issues with Aister’s dealings with students in the past and that, following discussions, felt that Aister had made corrections.

Until this point, she did not feel Aister had done anything requiring disciplinary action.

Gomez also stated that, in the past, she had only requested termination once while working as a principal within FHUSD and, in that incident, the teacher had been given an opportunity to correct their behavior first.

When asked why she had not spoken with Aister about potential corrections before seeking termination, Gomez stated that she had “given it some thought, but chose not to.”

Gomez went on to state that she felt Aister’s actions toward the students involved was “bullying.”

Schleier asked that, after Aister’s nearly 25 years in the district and no major incidents reported, if Gomez thought that what potentially occurred between the teacher and students was enough to seek termination over a suspension.

Gomez said “yes.”

Pauole questioned Gomez again, bringing up past incidents reported by parents involving Aister that were “sarcastic, demeaning and inappropriate.” Gomez stated that such incidents had arisen in the past.

In regards to racial incidents, Gomez said that her staff knows to report anything immediately, and that even a seemingly casual comment is taken seriously.

Aister’s side

The final leg of questioning revolved around Aister, who then presented her side of the story.

When asked what types of incidents Aister would consider necessary to report to administration, she said anything involving physical violence, throwing things or spitting.

“There are occasions when you need to be stern, redirect students and get them thinking in a positive way,” Aister said, referencing the school’s Kindness Retreats (anti-bullying workshops), a great training for these types of situations.

According to Aister, a student approached her in the lunchroom and reported that five students were confronting Student 11.

Aister said that she went outside and addressed the students involved, saying, “He’s in my homeroom, so if you pick on him, you pick on me. He’s not alone. It’s not five against one, it’s five against two. No more teasing, picking or racial names. Do we understand?”

Aister said that all of the students shook their head in agreement, and then she told them to “go on and have a lovely day.”

Aister said that she disagreed with several of the students’ testimonies about the event, and that she never told them to “shut up,” that they “had an ugly face,” or that she had told any student they “weren’t a hot shot.”

“One of the reasons Student 11 came to my room was because of these types of situations,” Aister said.

“He was a good kid, but when he got teased and teased, it would build up and he’d respond in a negative way.”

Aister stated that she had told Gomez about the incident the day after and that Gomez said that, through her office window, she saw Student 11 get “in students’ faces” and doing “weird or strange things.”

Schleier asked Aister that, if Gomez told her that her behavior was wrong, would she have been willing to correct her behavior, the teacher responded, “Yes.”

Pauole spoke on behalf of FHUSD next, stating that Aister’s testimony was not consistent with video footage.

Aister stated that she had walked onto the playground and saw five students surrounding Student 11, leaning in toward him in an aggressive manner.

The video, however, shows students dispersing and heading off in various directions before Aister ever came onto the scene and re-assembled them.

Aister held that her version of the account was accurate and was only reporting what she saw. She admitted to not hearing anything that the students had been saying to one another.

When asked why she had mentioned “racial names” in her address to the students, she said it was based on a “gut feeling and previous experience.”

She then admitted that she had heard many accounts of Student 11 being teased in the past but never in regards to race. She also said that she did not give any of the students a chance to explain what was being said before disciplining them verbally.

For the record, it was noted that Student 11 is African American and that one of the five students accused of taunting him is of the same race.

For that reason, Pauole said he did not understand why, coupled with no previous matters involving race and not having heard anything said during the incident in question, she would accuse the students of “racial names.”

When asked if she thought it was fair to accuse Students 1 through 5 of racial taunting without knowing it was a part of the incident, Aister replied, “Yes.”

Closing

Pauole began closing arguments, saying that Students 1 through 5 provided statements that were consistent across the board.

Student 11, though, provided testimony that was not in line with the video footage.

“[Aister]’s testimony is also inconsistent with the video footage, which shows a lack of credibility,” Pauole said.

“Those boys felt threatened, they were nervous, they felt demeaned and they were not given a chance to explain.”

Pauole reiterated his argument that Aister accused the students of racial comments with nothing to base her statement on, and then failed to report the incident the day that it happened.

“We feel that Pam Aister’s conduct violated numerous district policies and we disagree with the suggestion that this is a first-time occurrence,” he said.

Pauole closed by saying that he felt there were grounds for termination in this incident, or at least a longer period of suspension without pay.

Schleier followed, again bringing attention to Aister’s previous record, dedication to the school and 25 years within the district.

He argued that this was a brief disciplinary incident with different sides telling different stories. He said that Aister intervened quickly and defused the situation without further incident.

“The punishment should fit what happened,” Schleier said.

“We could argue that her choice of words was not ideal. But even if you accept the district’s version of facts, which we don’t, is this grounds for termination?”

Schleier asked if the student testimony could really be considered accurate, or were they perhaps the words a 10-year-old would use to recount an incident to their parents?

“[Aister] chooses to teach because she loves teaching,” Schleier concluded.

“We request that any action taken not take that away from her.”