Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Practice Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents protest PAC findings on teacher conduct; board tables final decision pending review of hearing video
Summary
Multiple parents and former students testified that a teacher’s conduct toward deaf students amounted to repeated humiliation and harassment. The Professional Practice Advisory Committee previously found unprofessional conduct but recommended no discipline; after public comment the board removed the item from consent and voted to table a final decision until members can review PAC hearing video and related transcripts.
Dozens of public commenters, including parents and former students, urged the Arizona State Board of Education to impose discipline after allegations of repeated demeaning conduct by a teacher at a charter school serving deaf students. Speakers described patterns they said included public humiliation, isolation during lunch and incidents that led families to remove children from the school.
Marcy Barenberg, mother of a former student, said the professional practice hearings left families feeling re‑traumatized and accused the committee process of prioritizing procedural issues over student safety. Former students Eric Cardinus and Raul Cardinus described personal experiences they said illustrated a pattern of bullying and repeated violations of safety plans. Several commenters said the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) had found the school at fault for allowing a hostile learning environment to develop in related complaints.
Garnett Burns, director of enforcement actions, and Assistant Attorney General Joseph Kada summarized the PAC proceedings. They said PAC found the teacher’s language and conduct on the record but recommended no disciplinary sanction after concluding the school’s administrative response and the case record supported that outcome. Transcripts show PAC members focused in part on whether proper chain‑of‑command and administrative remedies had been exhausted, and the committee allowed parent testimony at a second hearing but did not impose discipline.
Board members expressed unease about the dissonance between PAC’s finding of unprofessional conduct and the lack of discipline. Several members said they lacked clarity about the PAC’s reasons and asked staff to provide the actual PAC hearing video. The board voted to remove item 9B4 from the consent agenda and table a final decision on the matter; staff will provide PAC video clips and the item will return for Board action in December. The board discussed available remedies — from upholding PAC’s recommendation to letters of censure, suspensions, or revocation — and noted any board order overturning PAC would need to state rationale responding to PAC findings.
