Once a teacher achieves tenure they can only be dismissed for actions that directly effect their performance. Incompetence and willful misconduct are the two main ones. A teacher who can no longer effectively teach should, in my opinion, look for a change in careers. The book supports this opinion on page 21 but does say that anyone fired deserves a right to due process. Willful misconduct also constitutes a reason for termination of a tenured teacher. Thus a teacher who has sexual relations with a minor or even a former student who has graduated recently (Pg. 123) can be terminated. The third reason a tenured teacher might be fired is immorality, but schools should weigh wether or not said "morality" effects the teachers performance? Because what constitutes morality is always changing this could be harder for the school to justify. Many states that hold that homosexuality is immoral can not use this for grounds for termination because the Supreme Court has recognized homosexuals as a protected class under the Fourteenth Amendment (Pg. 122). My favorite term from the book is "one touching" (Pg. 16). It refers to "something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public, the performance of her duties, showing that he is not a fit or proper person to hold the office." For me this sums up the ability of a school to fire a tenure teacher very nicely.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Parental Rights in Education
This is a very interest case and many teachers will have to deal with similar parents at least once in their career. Amy Rowley's parents simply wanted what any other caring parents want, the best for their child. Sometimes, though it is beyond the scope of the school to offer services to a student that are unnecessary. There is a point when FAPE is covered and a point at which the school has a right to decline a request as long as it is giving the student appropriate treatment. I also like that the court went on to say "We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Because in this case we are presented with a handicapped child who is receiving substantial specialized instruction and related services, and who is performing above average in the regular classrooms of a public school system, we confine our analysis to this situation. (458 US 176 at 202; emphasis added.)" Basically stating that each student should be analyzed on their own abilities and disabilities. The court went on to say that as far as FAPE goes as long as the instruction meets the State's educational standards and approximate grade level requirements it satisfies FAPE requirements.
Separation of Church and State
I think that It is interesting to note the evolution and outcomes of the landmark cases that are the pinnacles of both the establishment clauses and free exercise. In Wisconsin vs. Yoder the free exercise clause is still hotly discussed. Recently in a seminar held at the Supreme Court, Shawn Francis Peters who is a scholar and wrote a book about the case noted that the original complaint was from the school who noticed that many Amish students where no longer attending. His primary concern was not for the students but for the $20,000 in lost revenue. I think that weighing this against the parents right to keep there students from GYM class and the locker room is really a waist of court time. Despite this I agree that every student should be given an education so that they can make religious choices for them selves. Wisconsin v. Yoder makes it a priority for students protection and right to education regardless of the facts of the case. I agree with Justice William O. Douglas who wrote for the dissenting judges in the case that "the court failed to take into account the rights of the Amish children, and that their views about whether they wished to attend high school deserved consideration." I feel that the Amish had every right to keep their children from attending public school for the reasons involved in this case but I also think that every student deserves the best education possible. The establishment clause rightfully limits what involvement government has in regulating religion and at the same time separates religion from having a place in government. The best interest of the student is at the heart of both cases. When can a student make their own choices? The compelling state interest should always be towards making better citizens and an educated citizen is a better citizen. Although the outcome is a little more sever a 1999 law was passed in Oregon that allows the state to force a child to undergo medical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ) even if it is against the parents religion. I know this is a little bit of a stretch but children who don't receive an education are disadvantaged. Interestingly enough the original children from the Yoder case had been attending school sponsored by their church and I would fully support parents who choose to teach their own children.
Teachers Dress
- Once again it comes down to effective teaching. Who in the end decides what makes an effective teacher? Ultimately it is the administrations job to determine if a teacher is effective and using due process to make sure every teacher is effective. If a chosen curriculum or dress code policy is dismissed and ineffective pedagogy persists it is totally within the rights of a principle to terminate a teacher as long as they are given due process. The dress code and participation may not be as obvious a factor in the quality of a teacher but if there is an established code, the teacher must respect it. As for the participation in organizations outside of school it is a right for the teacher but also a right for students not to be subject to disruption due to such an association. (Chapter 4 page 60)
- In the end, what ever happens due process must always be observed.
Teachers Rights
- After reading the summary of the Pickering case I feel I now have a better understanding of teachers role in society. When it comes to day to day teaching, we have a responsibility to teach our students the subject at hand and not to promote our own agenda, but when it comes to our role as citizens we have the same responsibilities and freedoms as every other citizen. We have a right to make criticism where due. In Lusk v. Estes the court found that "It can no longer be seriously asserted that teachers have no right to criticize their employers." Importantly it should also be noted that all criticism must be factual. "The Court holds that truthful statements by a school teacher critical of the school board are within the ambit of the First Amendment." The Anderson v. Evans case illustrates the point that once personal opinion effects the ability of a teacher to do their job then it is perfectly within the right of the administrators to terminate the contract after using due process. The concerns of the students and effectively teaching them are of the the first priority and I believe that in all three cases the best interests of the students where, in the end, upheld.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)