.

No Charges Will Be Filed Against Newark Teacher Arrested in San Francisco

Charges not filed due to "insufficient evidence," but the teacher is on paid administrative leave, school officials said.

A Newark Memorial High School teacher was put on administrative leave after being arrested on suspicion of child endangerment, Superintendent Dave Marken confirmed Tuesday.

The 35-year-old teacher, whose name is not being published by Patch because charges are not due to be filed, was arrested on suspicion of five counts of child endangerment and a misdemeanor battery on Feb. 24 in San Francisco, said Communications Director Stephanie Ong Stillman of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.

However, all charges were dropped “because of insufficient evidence,” Stillman said. The teacher was released from custody on Feb. 28, she added.

The special education teacher was placed on administrative leave Wednesday, shortly after the state Department of Justice notified district officials of her arrest, Marken said.

Stillman said that five youths under the age of 18 were with the teacher when she was arrested. A person close to the incident, who asked to not be identified, said five boys accompanied the teacher to dinner that night. It is believed they are students.

Marken did not comment on whether the minors with the teacher were students but said that notion was “not far off base.”

The teacher will remain on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure, while district officials investigate the incident, Marken said.

C March 08, 2012 at 09:09 PM
So basically what you are saying is nothing happened, because the way I read it all charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence. If newsworthy had happened I would think the San Francisco District Attorney there would have been some evidence (at least from whoever was battered) and charges would have been filed.
Mona Taplin March 08, 2012 at 11:29 PM
It's entirely possible that false charges were filed against this teacher.
Energizer-Teacher March 09, 2012 at 04:38 AM
Ok wait a second. None of you know what happened. She was not drunk. This was a complete misunderstanding. what part of "no charges filed" do you not get?
Sassy March 09, 2012 at 08:28 PM
It doesn't matter if she was drunk or not, she had no business taking 5 boys to the city at night, it was totally inappropriate. There have been teachers all over the news, who are in trouble for having inappropriate relationships with their students, why would she put herself in that predicament? If she was doing it as a reward, then it should have been on school hours as a field trip and learning experience! I know this teacher and she is a "nut job" anyways and this is really not that surprising. She is lucky that it wasn't one of my children, we would definitely have some problems. I think, for her to have been arrested something not right happened, the police don't usually arrest white women in their thirties with a college degree and a career for nothing. She obviously has bad judgement and should not be trusted with children, whom by the way have issues already. She should be terminated! And if the district does not take this serious then they are really asking for trouble, they are lucky children were not hurt, emotionally "maybe". So, what do you not get? She is a bad teacher and makes the good teachers of the Newark Unified School District look bad!
Albert Rubio March 10, 2012 at 03:44 AM
How do you know it was a complete misunderstanding? do you personally know what happened?
Nairobi Aguilar March 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM
I agree!!
DM March 11, 2012 at 12:37 AM
I agree, too! With all of the good teachers that will be laid off due to the recent budget cuts, why would the district want to spend money on this woman's salary? Is this really the best teacher the district can find for our children?! We put our trust in the people who teach our children, and this woman has lost our trust.
Cindy Parks March 11, 2012 at 12:46 AM
She is entitled to "due process." Let the district investigate the situation and then render their decision.
Nadja Adolf March 11, 2012 at 08:14 AM
1) Did the parents consent for the children to be with her? If so, I suggest that everyone sit down and relax.
Mona Taplin March 11, 2012 at 12:06 PM
That makes sense to me Nadja.
concern parent March 11, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Completely agree!
concern parent March 11, 2012 at 09:30 PM
The district and the school should look more closely in the previous behavior of this teacher. I know for a fact that she just want to be "friend" with the students, she is not acting properly and she is lucky nothing major happened! Plus, she does not have the credentials... as I said before, the district should look into it!
MYeltzen March 12, 2012 at 05:09 AM
Strangely enough, after obtaining parent permission for every student, despite being a white woman in her thirties with a college degree she was still taken off private property in handcuffs. The "nut job" wouldn't give the parking attendant her phone in exchange for the $7.50 parking fee, and in turn she was battered by the police and falsely imprisoned. She was never mirandized, never given a sobriety test, and kept in jail for three days - that's one MORE day after the D.A. said it wasn't "in the interest of justice" and that there was "insufficient evidence" to bring charges against this woman. Should one read something besides the Newark Patch, they might be aware of the recent revalation that SFPD is going to have to overturn hundreds of DUIs due to incorrect processing - sounds pretty similar to me! Superintendent Marken had no business commenting on an ongoing investigation. This woman's civil rights were violated in numerous ways, and the response of the Newark Patch and the majority of its readers is to pass on partial truths and salacious gossip? For shame.
Mona Taplin March 12, 2012 at 05:17 AM
Superintendant Marken had no choice but to answer questions, and said there would be aninvestigation. Had hid reply hd been "no comment" You know what would have happened. Everyone would have assumed the school district was covering a crime up.
GT March 12, 2012 at 11:03 PM
It simply amazes me what passes for journalism. The facts stated by MYeltzen are accurate, and had the editorial staff at The Newark Patch done their homework, this story would have had a completely different tone. Shame on the co-workers who have nothing better to do than spread malicious gossip about a teacher who genuinely cares about her students. Check your facts before jumping to the conclusion that a half-baked journalist has done their due diligence in reporting nothing but the facts. I have known this teacher for over three decades. I have had the pleasure of aiding for her class. I have never come across another teacher who goes above and beyond to reach her students the way she does. The superindendant had no business whatsoever in responding to anything other than a "no comment" on a pending and ongoing investigation.
James March 12, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Half baked? Had this been any other News Site, them would be fighting words! <Alter Ego> *Alright Chaps, position zee Cannons and aim fo'rhhhh GT!* Arrrrr
Enraged March 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM
No need to get upset. The teacher returned to work today!
Mona Taplin March 14, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Good! Then I am satisfied that she was wrongfully arrested and the boys never were in any danger.
Maria March 14, 2012 at 05:16 AM
I totally agree with Sassy. This teacher had no buisness whats so ever to take kids to dinner in San Francisco of all places as a reward even if she did have parental consent. As a school employee she should've know better. I understand that the NUSD is doing their investigation and maybe or maybe not more information will come up, but as a parent of a child that goes to Newark Memorial I would never trust my child with this person. What kind of reward was it needed to go to dinner in San Fransico anyway? As a parent I would be thinking other things. As a teacher there are other means of rewarding. Why couldn't this have been on school hours? Did this teacher get the appropriate permit to take students off school grounds? Doesn't sound like it. Someone called the authorties and let them know what took place, they wouldn't have done that for nothing. As for getting parent consent, do we know that for sure? In this day and age we should all know what is wrong and right, and in doing this sent RED Flags every where. There is a place and time for education and friendship and unless this teacher knows these students outside of work on a parent/student/bases this should have never taken place. On a last note it is said to know that in a budget crises, when we are laying off teachers, etc. we have no choice but to use monies that we don't have to not only pay this person but also for legal investigation. So Sad! Money wastely spent when could've been used to rehire.
Nadja Adolf March 14, 2012 at 09:26 AM
Maria, Sassy, Concern Parent - haven't you gotten bored with your malicious gossiping yet? I think you have personal issues with this person - maybe she disciplined your child?
Mona Taplin March 14, 2012 at 03:57 PM
So far it's just speculation that she took those kids to SF to reward them, and parents certainly do have the right to give or refuse permission to go. What makes you so sure she took them off school grounds? This kind of mudslinging could very well wind up in a slander suit. None of us know what happened. I'm really sorry this story was ever published on the Patch, and if it had led to tall tales about me, I would be visiting my attorney.
concern parent March 16, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Nadja, do you know this person? I do! and I wouldn't trust my kid with her. GT are you saying you know her since when she was 5 years old! GT are her mother?
concern parent March 16, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Nadja, do you know this person? I do! and I wouldn't trust my kid with her. GT are you saying you know her since when she was 5 years old! GT are her mother?
concern parent March 16, 2012 at 12:43 AM
GT do you know that a decade means 10 years? Nice try defending your daughter
Nadja Adolf March 16, 2012 at 03:39 AM
I don't know either of you. However, I notice that you are unwilling to attach your name to your attacks on her, which suggests you're just another anonymous poison pen letter writer lurking on Patch.
NL March 18, 2012 at 05:06 AM
Wow. My dad used to say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig". He also told me that it's far better to sit there and let people think you're stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt of it. Such angry, bitter, hurtful, malicious gossip. That's all it was in the first place, when gossip was passed on as "news." Seriously? You are far more dangerous than she is. Like the over-zealous, completely out-of-line cop, you seem willing and ready to ruin the reputation (and livelihood) of an innocent woman, without any facts or due process (AND, by the way, unlike her, no consequences to you, as you go on your bitter, anonymous way, slandering people). In an area of the the country that takes pride in its tolerance, you show appalling ignorance and intolerance. And that includes the Newark Patch. For the record, I am her mother. Shame on you. And no, I won't print my name. You'd probably come and burn down my house.
Mona Taplin March 18, 2012 at 05:20 AM
Innocent till proved guilty is certainly a joke in this case! Not only that, but guilty of what? There were no charges mentioned or filed. I've often said that far too many people will believe anything derogatory about someone, no matter how far fetched the tale is. In this case there wasn't even a charge to believe!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something