Since the last meeting, the school’s side has been asked to furnish evidence that pertains to the teacher deserving to be fired.
So far, the school had used the following as defense:
– a 1-year contract (the judge had said that despite the temporary-seeming nature of the contract, reasons for non-renewal still had to be given; also the teacher’s lawyer showed that the past 40 teachers who had left the school, left for reasons nothing to do with the 1-year contract, but rather for retirement or leaving of their own accord–not because 1 year “was up”)
– 3 documents that were proficiency charts (2) and a list that the teacher had requested herself (1) (the judge had said that since specific information about the teacher was not written on these documents–such as her name–more evidence would need to be given)
This time, the school submitted the original arguments that the elementary assistant principal had submitted during collective bargaining with the teacher’s union in February 2008. These have been translated into Japanese. Originally, in English, they had included comments such as the following:
– during a math lesson, when the teacher was explaining something about a math test, some students looked at the math test and not at her
– the teacher organized events for her class without including the 50-60 students in the other 3rd grade classes
So, it stands to question, had the school waited to submit this “meat” of their argument because it was most effective? Or had the school been reluctant to submit this because it contained assertions that would be hard to prove?
Assertions by the school that the teacher did these things, is not the same as objective evidence that she was a lacking teacher. (One can assert that the world is flat, but can one prove it?)
The teacher, of course, will submit a rebuttal of every point, categorically. She will let the judge know that however these accusations may sound, they were originally given to her in Feb. 2008, 14-17 months after all of the alleged things observed, happened. She had never been told or written to officially, that any of these points were a problem at the time they supposedly happened. No disciplinary action on any of the points had ever been taken in any way.
The next hearing is at the same place, at 11am on April 23, a Thursday.