Teacher talked of killer robot in class

View the Video 'Killer robot' attack suggested by teacher

Oceanside Unified School District officials investigated complaints that a teacher threatened to have a robot shoot and kill students, and the educator was allowed to resign and receive a $92,000 settlement instead of being fired.

Officials said the prospect of a lengthy and costly state process to terminate the teacher contributed to the settlement.

The educator, Tuyet-Mai Thi Vo, says the allegations were untrue, and she has a positive recommendation letter from then-Superintendent Larry Perondi to vouch for her ongoing fitness for the classroom.

According to a district report, “Ms. Vo told her class that if robots were teachers, Ms. Vo would program the robot to shoot the students every time the students didn’t pay attention, talked back, or even talked at all. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to zap the students with a Taser if the students failed to complete homework assignments or arrived late to class. Ms. Vo told her class she would program the robot to kill all of the students.”

A student’s report to the district about Ms. Vo’s statements on Jan. 11, 2012.

The alleged threat and other reports of hostile encounters are outlined in documents the district filed with the state while the dismissal process was active. U-T Watchdog obtained the filings from the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings through a public records request.

Reached by phone, Vo, 48, said, “That is not reflective of who I am. What the district claimed was alleged. Alleged means they are not true.”

According to district officials, Vo was on paid leave from Jan. 23, 2012, until June 30, 2013, before leaving district employment with the cash settlement, plus 18 more months of family health benefits (still in effect) at a cost of $1,949 a month.

According to district filings, students expressed shock at her robot comments on Jan. 11, 2012, and “Ms. Vo explained that she did not like teaching students with attitudes.”

The next day, “on January 12, 2012, Ms. Vo forcefully grabbed and ripped a student’s shirt as he walked past her to his seat in the classroom,” the district wrote. “Ms. Vo’s repeated improper and threatening interactions with students and staff and her willful failure to provide required educational instruction violates district rules and state education laws.”

Vo said she was gesturing while teaching, and her contact with the student’s shirt was inadvertent.

Oceanside also raised concern about Vo’s refusal to sign an assistance plan on Jan. 13, 2012, and her quality of instruction, noting that more than 70 percent of students in her five science classes received a D or F grade after 12 weeks.

Vo’s attorney, provided to her by the California Teachers Association, denied the rough encounter occurred and said the robot remark was mischaracterized. He also said the district violated Vo’s due process rights and said she remained fit to teach.

In Perondi’s recommendation letter, he praised Vo’s “commitment to the academic achievement of students,” said she “displayed mastery” in science, and commended her extracurricular activities, coaching the chess team and advising the Asian club.

Less than a year earlier, Perondi wrote in the district’s initial June 2012 accusation, “Ms. Vo jeopardized the safety and welfare of the district’s staff and students by engaging in immoral conduct not befitting a teacher.”

Perondi did not respond to phone and email requests for comment.

Vo said the final letter of recommendation signals she is innocent.

“No one forced the superintendent to sign, and they know that letter of recommendation is an affirmation that this whole thing was wrong and it’s clear as a bell,” said Vo, who taught various science courses in Oceanside for 18 years. “No one can last in an institution that long or in a profession continuously if they don’t have a passion and behave appropriately.

“I think that’s the first rule of teaching, is not to grab kids.”

Asked why the district dropped its efforts to fire Vo, spokesman Steve Lombard said the decision was partly a financial one.

“From a district point of view, we are supposed to do what’s in the best interest of kids,“ Lombard said. “A decision had to be made and the district probably felt that this was the best decision of the two available, to make a settlement rather than go through a lengthy hearing and trial, the likelihood of which would have resulted in a far more costly expenditure.”

Ed Sibby, spokesman for the local chapter of the California Teachers Association, declined to comment on Vo’s case and didn’t respond to requests to discuss teacher protections in general.

Even after the allegations against her, Vo served as a peer-elected CTA delegate at the annual National Education Association Representative Assembly gathering in Atlanta, in July 2013.

The CTA supports strong teacher protections and recently announced it would join Gov. Jerry Brown in his appeal of a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge’s June ruling that said tenure is unconstitutional and violates students’ civil rights.

Professor Jesse Rothstein, professor of public policy and economics at the University of California Berkeley, testified in favor of teacher protections during the Vergara v. California case.

“You want to make it easier to dismiss a bad teacher, but you want to make it harder for a principal to dismiss a good teacher,” Rothstein told U-T Watchdog. “It doesn’t make sense to focus on the mistakes you are seeing in the system unless you are also seeing the mistakes the system is preventing.”

He said lessening teacher job security “would require paying teachers more and would require money we don’t have.”

Attorney Frank Fekete of the Redondo Beach firm Education Advocates Inc. has practiced education law since 1975 and testified about the lengthy and costly dismissal process during the Vergara case. He said his review of teacher dismissal administrative hearings from 2003 to 2013 found districts prevailed in 60 percent of the 147 cases that didn’t settle.

“I certainly don’t think the current system is working,” Fekete told the U-T. “We have so many protections in the law in California today against discriminatory behavior by employers, and especially public employers, we don’t need all those (teacher) protections today. They are only there as obstacles. They are a compliance list and they don’t go to the heart of the matter, which is, should the person be teaching students or not?”

Vo said she was grateful for the right to appeal the termination.

“I felt fortunate that there was another defense,” Vo said. “The degree of support that I have received, as far as CTA is concerned, I applaud them. Being there for teachers is very important.”

“If I really wanted the money it would have gone further. Personally I resolved it in the most peaceful way that I thought was possible,” Vo said. “That number you see is not a large amount compared to the years of service and what I have done. That is not even a compensation to someone’s career and livelihood. There is no value you can place on that.”

A law will take effect in January allowing for the swifter termination of teachers who abuse students or have a problem with drugs or alcohol. Included in the definition of abuse is “the negligent treatment or the maltreatment of a child ... indicating harm or threatened harm to the child’s health or welfare.”

Vo’s credential is still active and up to date on the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing website, and bears no record of employment restrictions.

Pursuant to her settlement, when a future employer calls Oceanside’s human resources office, staff will say Vo voluntarily resigned “to pursue new administrative or other upper-grade level teaching opportunities.”

Vo promised to never seek employment with Oceanside Unified again.

In 2005, Vo obtained her masters in education degree and an administrative credential from California State University San Marcos. She said she doesn’t anticipate a return to classroom teaching.

Her goal: “To eventually move out of the classroom to administration where I can best support teachers and students and to serve the community the best way I can,” Vo said. “That’s why the letter of recommendation is for an administrative position.”

U-T Watchdog asked district officials Sept. 12 how much was spent investigating the accusations against Vo. No response has been provided.