Teacher ethics and responsibilities

Your Legal and Ethical
Responsibilities as
Educators
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.
Presented by Ada Carter

Outline
OIntroduction
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
Introduction
Case law
Case law
Due process
Conclusion
References

Persistent Negligence
O 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 the
school 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 Responsibilities
Association 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

Immorality
O 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

Immorality
O Nancy J. Zelno v. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors
O No. 420 C.D. (Pa. Comwlth.2001)
O
Facts 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 her
conduct 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.
O
Decision 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.
O
Prepared 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

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

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

Teacher ethics and responsibilities

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Teacher ethics and responsibilities

Similaire à Teacher ethics and responsibilities (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Teacher ethics and responsibilities