Log in

Wide ripple effect from teacher firing

Posted 10/7/14

Reverberations continue to be felt in Fountain Hills and elsewhere following the School Board’s decision to dismiss teacher Pam Aister by upholding a recommendation provided by a third party …

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

To Our Valued Readers –

Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.

For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.

Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.

Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.

Sincerely,
Charlene Bisson, Publisher, Independent Newsmedia

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor

Wide ripple effect from teacher firing

Posted

Reverberations continue to be felt in Fountain Hills and elsewhere following the School Board’s decision to dismiss teacher Pam Aister by upholding a recommendation provided by a third party hearing officer.

Following the ruling, news concerning Aister’s case quickly circulated through town and across the country, popping up on news outlets as far away as New York.

Locally, the reaction has included an outpouring of support for Aister in the form of an online petition and planned demonstrations, while district officials feel many facts surrounding the case have been overlooked or misconstrued.

The Times has received letters to the editor from Four Peaks Elementary School teachers supporting the board’s decision, while Aister backers continue to weigh in with their opinions.

Concerns also revolve around the status of the capital override question on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The recommendation for Aister’s termination was made following a hearing to investigate her involvement in an altercation involving Four Peaks students in May.

It was determined by the hearing attorney that Aister’s actions and verbal communication with the students was inappropriate and violated five board policies, providing grounds for termination.

In a media release provided by the district (printed elsewhere in its entirety), it states that the students originally accused of bullying (and later determined to have been responding to teasing themselves) are receiving the same treatment many now claim to condemn.

“…A group of young students is made to sit by as they are unjustly labeled and maligned as racists, bullies, and now liars,” the statement reads.

The crux of the original incident stems from the fact that Aister mentioned “racial name calling” when disciplining the group of children, though it was determined that no such name calling had been heard or reported during that particular incident.

In the recommendation provided by hearing officer Prudence Lee, it was determined that Aister had “possession and use of power in an inequitable way that resulted in the intimidation of students, causing them unnecessary anxiety and fear,” which provided grounds for termination.

When the School Board voted to uphold the recommendation, Aister’s supporters quickly and loudly responded.

A petition was started on Change.org to “overturn the decision to fire Pam Aister” and, as of this writing, had garnered more than 15,000 signatures.

On Saturday, Oct. 11, a “Stand with Pam” event has been organized as a “symbolic gesture” in protest of the board’s decision. A Facebook page by that name has been started as well.

The protest will be held at the corner of Golden Eagle and Palisades boulevards starting at 10 a.m.

The district, on the other hand, has stated that anyone wishing to read the full hearing recommendation (which provided background for the board’s decision to dismiss Aister) can obtain a copy from the District Office, stressing that “this is not a case of racial taunting or bullying.”

Mayor Linda Kavanagh has been caught in the crossfire as well, initially withdrawing her name from a planned advertisement in support of the capital override due to the board’s decision regarding Aister.

Kavanagh later clarified her position, saying she wasn’t opposed to the override, she simply did not like the wording and timing of the upcoming ad, which she said is being revised by Jerry Miles, a former mayor who is on the override political action committee.

On Monday, Kavanagh sent this statement to The Times, “Yes, I support the override.

“If Jerry’s new version of the ad, as told to me this morning, is accepted by the committee…yes, I will put my name on it.”

The town’s first mayor, John Cutillo, has penned a letter to the editor decrying Aister’s firing and withdrawing his support of the November override question due to the board’s action.

He, too, was asked to lend his name to support the override on the committee’s planned ad.

Aister interview

Two days following the board’s decision, Aister agreed to speak with The Times concerning her side of the story, how she feels about the public’s reaction, as well as her plans for the future.

During the hearing, it was determined that Aister’s testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and, according to the hearing report, the fact that she “provided a distorted version of the facts.”

As a result, Aister’s testimony was not included in the hearing notes.

“I expected it,” Aister said, referring to the Sept. 29 School Board decision.

“They had offered, through my attorney, that I could resign, but I chose not to. I thought, OK, it’s a done deal.”

Aister said that what upset her the most was the fact that the board had not been given an opportunity to hear her side of the story.

She provided written arguments pertaining to the hearing notes before the Sept. 29 meeting and, during the meeting, presented those arguments herself during a speaking opportunity.

“I was disappointed,” she continued.

“There was always the hope that, after they heard my information, that they would rethink it…Thirty-five years I’ve been teaching, so it was devastating.”

Concerning Prudence Lee’s hearing report, Aister said that she found it “very distasteful and one-sided.”

“Nothing there included anything I said, anything my student said, or anything my student’s mother said,” Aister added.

“It was like we were wiped off the face of the earth.”

During the hearing, one of Aister’s former students (Student 11) and his mother spoke as witnesses on her behalf in a closed-door session.

During the incident in question, Aister acted under the information provided by another student that Student 11 was being surrounded by a group of five others.

It was later brought to light during the open hearing that those five students were responding in kind to teasing comments initiated by Student 11.

While Lee’s report states that Aister’s testimony during the hearing was inadmissible, no such clarification was provided for why her witness’s testimony was not. Conversely, the testimony of other district parents/students was included as statements of fact.

Aister was given 18 minutes to provide her verbal argument during the Sept. 19 meeting, though she said that the allotted timeframe was “a little offensive.”

Aister also holds that some of the proof provided in the case against her was inaccurate. She holds that the video she was shown of the day in question, for instance, did not actually show the incident.

“There wasn’t one iota of confrontation on that tape,” Aister said.

“It was marked May 8. We watched it twice.”

Aister also states that Assistant Principal Tony Galietti’s interview with the five students was provided, but that Student 11 was never questioned in the same manner.

“None of their testimonies coincided,” Aister said.

“They didn’t use the same words, they didn’t know if it was inside the cafeteria or the courtyard.”

Aister said that, all things considered, she does not feel that her actions were grounds for termination.

“I did not find anything threatening in my words,” she continued.

“I was disciplining, because what was going on wasn’t right…I talked to all six boys.”

Aister said that, looking back, she does not feel remorse for her actions.

“I was protecting a student I felt needed protecting,” she said.

“I would do it again. I would protect a kid again.”

Looking ahead

According to Aister, there’s an unclear road ahead.

“Because of the unfairness of the way minorities were treated, there are things to be filed with the EEOC,” Aister said.

“I could file an [appeal], but that would cost a lot of money.

“I love this town and I love this school…I believe in doing the best we can here, but there are problems. And when there are problems, adults need to stand and solve them, not put them under the rug.”

Following the ruling, Aister said she looked into retirement and discovered that two more years of employment would have made a big difference, financially.

“So I would have at least liked to work two more years,” Aister said.

“Now I’m going to be out there looking for a job.”

As for where she hopes to find employment, Aister said that she can’t imagine a life without kids.

“I’m an old-fashioned schoolmarm,” she said.

“So I will be looking for something that deals with children.”

pam aister, fhusd