teacher ethics and responsibilities

Your Legal and Ethical Responsibilities as

EducatorsOutcome: By the end of this presentation, teachers should be prepared

to articulate at least 2 legal responsibilities and 2 ethical responsibilities

in order to put them into practice as new teachers and work towards

receiving tenure.

Presented by Ada Carter

OutlineO Introduction

OLegal responsibilities

O Case law

OEthical responsibilities

O Case law

OGrounds for termination

O Due process

OConclusion

OReferences

Outcome: By the end of this presentation, teachers should be prepared to articulate at least 2 legal

responsibilities and 2 ethical responsibilities in order to put them into practice as new teachers and work

towards receiving tenure.

Introduction

O Congratulations, you’ve entered the

profession of teaching!

O This presentation will remind you of your

most basic legal and ethical

responsibilities to ensure that you keep

your job!

Introduction

Legal responsibilities

Ethical responsibilities

Grounds for termination

Conclusion

References




Legal Responsibilities

O Keep student information confidential

O Do not physically/verbally abuse the

student

O Do not inappropriately touch a student

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Willful Neglect of DutiesO Kenna Williams, Petitioner v. Joint Operating Committee of the Clearfield County Vocational-Technical School, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

No. 336 C.D. 2002

O Filed March 18, 2003

O Facts of the Case

O Kenna Williams was a Clearfield County Vocational-Technical School (CCVTS) employee for about 30 years. Williams served the last nine

years as the Assistant Director of the school. His duties included advertising, writing specifications and reviewing the bids for computer

purchases, a task with which he had experience and had no previous mishaps.

O An anomaly in this process occurred on May 13, 1998. A bidder for some computers that were to be purchased, Linda Ward Craig, was

present to submit a bid and then entered into a discussion with Williams. This discussion was about computers that did not meet the

specifications and also cost about $150.00 less than computers that she could supply that met specifications. Also, Williams opened a bid from

a different vendor in front of Craig and also discussed them with her. This had never occurred before a deadline at CCVTS, according to the

chief officials recollection. The Joint Operating Committee (JOC) did not review the bids, and approved the bids for Pentium II computers from

Craig’s company. It later came to light that the computers purchased were not the Pentium II computers that the bid originally specified. Craig

later told the Executive Director of the school, Terry Horton, that Williams had altered the bid. The computers had to be upgraded at a cost of

thousands of dollars.

O Williams was given statement of charges and notice of hearing on charges of incompetency, immorality, willful neglect of duties and persistent

and willful violation of or failure to comply with school policy. Eight hearings later, the JOC decided to terminate Williams on all charges except

incompetency. Williams appealed the decision to the Secretary of Education. On January 3, 2002 the Secretary affirmed the decision of the

JOC’s determination. Williams then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

O Williams appeal was argued upon a lack of evidence to support dismissal on the charge of willful neglect of duties, persistent and willful

violation of school laws and immorality. Williams also argued that the nearly two years between his hearing before a hearing officer and the

Secretary’s decision violated his due process rights, and asked for damages, legal interest and award of counsel fees under Pennsylvania Rule

of Appellate Procedure 2744.

O Decision

O The order of the Secretary of Education was affirmed by Commonwealth Court to terminate employment on the charges of immorality, willful

neglect of duties and persistent and willful violation of school laws. Also, the decisions made by the Secretary were within the scope of the

Secretary’s decision-making power. Finally, the time between hearings did not violate due process rights.

O Basis for the Decision

O A dictionary decision of neglect has been written as “1. to give little attention or respect to: Disregard 2: to leave undone or unattended to esp.

through carelessness [.]” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 775 (10th ed.2001). A willful violation requires “the ‘presence

of intention, and at least some power of choice.’” Cowdery v Bd. of Educ. of the Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 531 A.2d 1186, 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth.

1987). No continuous course of conduct is required. The willful neglect occurred when he opened the bids before the noon deadline on May 13.

O The argument that the Secretary’s decision concerning Craig’s testimony as the only source of evidence was improperly made was not valid.

The Court explained that the “Secretary is the ultimate factfinder, with the power to determine the credibility of the witness” Also, Williams

testimony and actions are aligned with Craig’s, as he testified he agreed with the less expensive computers Craig offered.

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Persistent NegligenceO Katharina Lauer, Petitioner v. Millville Area School District, Respondent,Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 657 A.2d.

119 (1995)Facts of the Case

O Katharina Lauer, an elementary teacher since 1968, was dismissed in October, 1991, by the School Board of the Millville Area School District for reasons of incompetence, intemperance, persistent negligence, and willful and persistent violation of theschool laws. These reasons stemmed from a series of inappropriate comments made to students and parents on several occasions over a four-year period. The teacher was confronted by the principal at the times of the inappropriate commentary and told that the comments were improper. Lauer made further comments after these administrative confrontations and her admission that these comments were inappropriate.

O After the dismissal, Lauer appealed to the Secretary of Education and he upheld the dismissal for the reason of persistent negligence, but reversed the other three reasons for dismissal. The Secretary found Lauer's comments to be inappropriate and persistent.

O The argument was heard by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on February 7, 1995.

O Decision of the Court

O Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the Secretary of Education dated June 9, 1994, stating "the teacher's conduct lacked a requisite continuity for dismissal for 'persistent negligence,'" (p. 119 and 120). The charges were based on eight statements made by Lauer. Four of these statements were ruled as hearsay and the burden of proof was placed on the School District. The Court agreed that statements were better left unsaid but the statements did not support the serious charge of "persistent negligence" and her consequent discharge.


O The Court's decision was based on the meaning of "persistent negligence." The School Code does not define the charge of "persistent negligence."

O Cases cited to support the findings are Sinton's Case, 151 PA Superior Ct. 543, 548, 30 A.2d. 628, 630 (1943) which said "persistent means continuing or constant." Stinrich v. Clairton School District, 494 Pa. 297, 305, 431 A.2d. 267, 271 (1981), cert. den. 456 U.S. 982, 102 S. Ct. 2254, 72 L.Ed.2d. 860 (1982) in which the Supreme Court approved the same descriptive terms assigned to persistent, "continuing or constant." Phillis v. Board of School Directors, 151 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 497, 617 A.2d. 830, petition for allowance of appeal denied, 535 Pa. 664, 634 A.2d. 226 (1993), stated that the burden of proof is properly placed on the school district with hearsay evidence.

O The Court then determined that the number of times Lauer was in error verbally did not constitute enough to be deemed "persistent" and further study of the case revealed, in the opinion of the Court, a high level of picayune reprimands by the principal toward Lauer.

O Prepared by: Jane Bowers, Brandon Pardoe, Mel Wentzel; July, 1997 Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Ethical Responsibility

Teachers ‘must’:

O have intellectual integrity;

O have vocational integrity;

O show moral courage;

O exercise altruism;

O exercise impartiality;

O exercise human insight;

O assume the responsibility of influence;

O exercise humility;

O exercise collegiality;

O exercise partnership;

O exercise vigilance with regard to professional responsibilities and aspirations.

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Ethical ResponsibilitiesAssociation of American Educators

O Ethical conduct towards students

O Ethical conduct towards practices and

performance

O Professional colleagues

O Parents and community

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




ImmoralityO Francis Kinniry, Petitioner, v. Abington School District, Respondent,Cmwlth, 673 A. 2d 429 (1996).Facts of the Case

Francis Kinniry was a tenured professional employee of the Abington School District. In 1993 Kinniry pled guilty to the trafficking of counterfeit designer watches. On September 28, 1993 the Abington School District brought charges against Kinniry as an ineffective elementary school teacher, because his conduct offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for students. On November 23, 1993, the board terminated Kinniry's employment as a professional employee in the district on the basis of immorality. On December 9, 1993, Kinniry appealed the board's decision to the Secretary of Education. Kinniry contended that the district did not present evidence that his conduct offended the morals of the community or was a bad example to the children in the district. Kinniry argued that the sixteen-month, twenty-day delay of the Secretary's decision of the appeal violated his constitutional right to due process. Kinniry also alleged that there was impermissible commingling of prosecutory and adjudicator functions in his case because his decertification was being considered by the Department of Education the same time as his appeal concerning dismissal was being considered by the Department..

O Decisions of the Secretary of Education and Commonweath Court

O On May 31, 1995, the Secretary of Education affirmed the board's decision to terminate Kinniry's contract. Kinnery appealed to the Commonwealth Court which held: (1) the federal offenses to which Kinniry pled guilty were offensive and, as federal crimes, offended the morals of every community in the nation and set a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate; (2) since no evidence was provided that Kinniry suffered any prejudice or harm as a result of the delay, his due process rights were not violated; and (3) in the absence of proving any commingling actually took place, Kinniry's due process rights were again not violated.


O The Commonwealth Court based its decision on Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. 11-1122. The Court stated:

O Under Section 1122 of the School Code....one valid cause for termination of a teacher's contract is immorality... Kinniry's illegal actions.... fall into the category of crimen falsi crimes. "Crimen falsi" is defined as an "offense which involves some element of deceitfulness, untruthfulness, or falsification....."(432) Because of the crimen falsi nature of the offenses of which Kinniry was convicted, we hold, as a matter of law, that the District satisfied all three elements necessary to justify Kinniry’s dismissal for immorality under section 1122. (433)

O Written by Cynthia Miller & Drucilla Aumiller, July 1997

O http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/abstracts/kinniry.html

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




ImmoralityO Nancy J. Zelno v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors

O No. 420 C.D. (Pa. Comwlth.2001)

OFacts of the Case

O Nancy J. Zelno, a tenured professional employee, pled guilty on May 5, 1999 to DUI and driving while her license was suspended. This was her third DUI offense and her second offense for driving while her license was suspended. She was sentenced to incarceration on weekends during the school year and was to remain incarcerated through the summer until her sentence was completed (August).

O Employed by Lincoln Intermediate Unit No.12, Zelno had been assigned to teach in an alternative education program where the students were a part of a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. When her employer became aware of her convictions and incarcerations, the board of directors initiated dismissal procedures. Witnesses presented evidence to the board that herconduct violated Section 1122 of the Public School Code of 1949 regarding immorality and intemperance. She did not contest her convictions, but she appealed to the Secretary of Education who affirmed the board's findings to terminate her employment.

O She appealed the Secretary’s decision alleging that even if her conduct was immoral, the witnesses could not prove that she corrupted any student’s morals or that her teaching ability had been hindered in any way.

ODecision of the Court

O The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on November 8, 2001 affirmed the decision by the Secretary of Education, and upheld Zelno’s termination on the grounds of immoral conduct under Section 1122 of the School Code, 24 P.S.


O In 24 P.S. § 1122 immorality is not defined. The section only states that a tenured professional employee’s immoral conduct is cause for termination. The courts have defined immorality as “a course of conduct that offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate.” Horosko v. Mt. Pleasant Township School District, 6 A.2d 866 (Pa. 1939). There was sufficient evidence that her conduct met this definition in terms of offending the morals of the community. There was also proof that conduct made her a bad role model for the youth that she was teaching. Section 3731 (e) of the Vehicle Code 75 Pa. C.S. §3731 provides that more than one DUI violation increases the seriousness of associated penalties in following offenses. Section 3731 (e) thus provides justification that her continued offenses were immoral conduct.

OPrepared by Phyllis Haskins July 9, 2002

O http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/ABSTRACTS%2003/Haskins.htm

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/ABSTRACTS 03/Haskins.htm

Due Process Rights of Teachers

O The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause applies to public school districts and provides the minimum procedural requirements that each public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained tenure. Note that in this context, due process does not prescribe the reasons why a teacher may be dismissed, but rather it prescribes the procedures a school must follow to dismiss a teacher. Note also that many state statutory provisions for dismissing a teacher actually exceed the minimum requirements under the Due Process Clause.The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the evidence obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing. - See more at: http://education.findlaw.com/teachers-rights/teachers-rights-tenure-and-dismissal.htm

O http://education.findlaw.com/teachers-rights/teachers-rights-tenure-and-dismissal.htmll#sthash.AupGqUSW.dpuf

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




http://education.findlaw.com/teachers-rights/teachers-rights-tenure-and-dismissal.htm

http://education.findlaw.com/teachers-rights/teachers-rights-tenure-and-dismissal.htmll#sthash.AupGqUSW.dpuf

Denial or Revocation of Teaching Certificate

O Courts have held consistently that teaching certificates are not contracts. Thus, requirements to attain or maintain a certificate may be changed and applied to all teachers and prospective teachers. The certification process is administered by state certifying agencies in each state, and most of these agencies have been delegated significant authority with respect to the administration of these rules. Despite this broad delegation, however, the state agencies may not act arbitrarily, nor may these agencies deny or revoke certification on an arbitrary basis. Some state statutes provide that a certificate may be revoked for "just cause." Other common statutory grounds include the following:

•Immoral conduct or indecent behavior•Incompetency•Violations of ethical standards•Unprofessional conduct•Misrepresentation or fraud•Willful neglect of duty

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Teacher Rights-termination and dismissal (Mohan)

O Termination-nontenured asked to not return

O (must be notified by 4/15)

O Some states Must be told why

O Dismissal-released during contract or at the end of the contract period

O Hearing

O Notice of charges

O List of witnesses

O Ability to subpoena witnesses

O Transcript of hearingIntroduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




Conclusion

O Fulfilling your legal and ethical

responsibilities are the most basic

expectations of being a teacher.

O If those expectations are followed, you

have a good chance of being offered

tenure.

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




References

O AAE Advisory Board, & Executive Committee of AAE. (2014, January 1). Code of Ethics for Educators. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://aaeteachers.org/index.php/about-us/aae-code-of-ethics

O Ceasar, S., & Blume, H. (2014, June 10). Ruling on teacher job security is an attack on students. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-teacher-protections-ruling-20140610-story.html#page=1

O Mohan, Pat presentation

O Teachers Have Many Responsibilities to Their Students. (2015, January 1). Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/teachers-have-many-responsibilities-to-their-students.html

Introduction


Case law


Case law


Due process

Conclusion

References




http://education-law.lawyers.com/school-law/teachers-have-many-responsibilities-to-their-students.html

teacher ethics and responsibilities

Education

new teachers

casekenna williams

joint operating committee

linda ward craig

previous mishaps

profession of teaching

computer purchases

craigs company