ATR Nomads Angry and Not Accepting Their Union-less Title

At union meeting, jobless teachers decry ATR deal “shell game”

by Rachel Cromidas, at 10:45 am

Tensions ran high at the United Federation of Teachers Brooklyn office on Tuesday, as union officials volleyed questions, demands, and some cries of exasperation from nearly 100 teachers without permanent positions.

The union office was hosting the second in a series of meetings for members of the Absent Teacher Reserve— the large pool of teachers whose jobs were eliminated when their schools closed or cut costs.

The union is holding the meetings to explain changes to the way teachers in the ATR pool are deployed, based on an agreement struck this summer between the UFT and the Department of Education that stipulates that ATRs must travel to a different school each week. The first weekly assignments are set to start going out today.

But union officials spent much of the meeting deflecting criticism from teachers who charged that the constant upheaval would not make use of their expertise and make them less likely to land permanent positions.

Amy Arundell, a UFT special representative, told the roughly 100 teachers at the meeting that the point of moving teachers weekly is to position them for jobs that could open up at the schools where they are temporarily assigned. The previous arrangement, in which members of the ATR pool often stayed at one school for an entire year, allowed principals to use them as free labor, she said, without necessarily incentivizing them to offer the ATR teachers permanent jobs.

Above frequent interruptions from the standing-room-only crowd, Arundell told teachers they must report to their new assignments next week, even if the principals at the schools they were assigned to for September tell them to stay put. She and several teachers in the room said some principals are asking ATRs to ignore their DOE placements and stay on, in violation of the agreement.

She encouraged the teachers to “be proactive” with the principals and press them to find money in their limited budgets to create permanent positions.

“Otherwise, you can’t stay,” she said. “Unless a principal tells you, ‘I hire you,’ Central DOE won’t know that a principal wants to keep you. You know that saying, ‘Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?’ That’s true here.”

That logic sounded hollow for a Manhattan-based teacher who said after the meeting that the normally “pro-teacher” union had agreed to a deal that does not put ATRs’ best interests first.

“This weekly assignment nonsense is meant to aggravate people so they get disgusted and leave,” she said.

During the meeting, attendees called on the UFT to create a chapter just for ATRs and to file a discrimination lawsuit against the city on their behalf. But the union officials present, which included LeRoy Barr, the UFT staff director, rejected those requests, arguing that discrimination is difficult to prove and that chapter leaders at the schools where ATRs are temporarily assigned are equipped to advocate for them.

Arundell urged teachers to contact their temporary chapter leaders with complaints about hostile principals or requests to teach subjects out of their license.

But several teachers complained during the meeting that they had reached out to the UFT and the DOE with complaints, and received no response.

“It may be news for some of you, but there is not union representation in every school,” one teacher called out from the audience. “I was at one school that had no chapter leader.”

Several teachers complained about being assigned by their new principals to lunch duty or clerical work, which Arundell said was not part of their contract. Others spoke of being asked to take on subjects they are not licensed to teach.

One Manhattan-based librarian, who came to the Brooklyn meeting because the Manhattan meeting is not until next week, said her current principal is using her as an assistant to two kindergarten teachers at an elementary school because the school’s library is closed.

“I take the kids to the bathroom every period. That’s about all I do. My principal said to me, ‘I don’t want you here. You’re not going to work anyway.’” She paused for emphasis and whispered, “I think it’s because of my gray hair.”

Teachers throughout the room clapped when one attendee called on the union to file a class-action lawsuit against the city. Union officials shot down the idea, saying that courts require a high burden of proof for discrimination suits that the union would be unlikely to meet.

“But it’s happening everywhere,” another teacher called out. “Stop the shell game that’s taking place.”

Several teachers in attendance said they would like the union to create an ATR teacher chapter to represent them — something the union officials said was not likely to happen.

As the 2.5-hour-long meeting wrapped up, Vincente DeSiano, an elementary school teacher in the ATR pool, collected names and contact information from the roughly 40 people still present, after union officials said they would not provide information about who had attended.

“We have power that we don’t realize,” DeSiano said. “I want us all to be able to share information with each other and see how we can help the situation.”

Experienced v Newbie Teachers in Memphis: A Sign Of The Times

but who is, will be, has, or wants to do something about it?

 

Betsy Combier

 

Friday, October 7, 2011

Tempers Flare at Jobs Fair as Experienced Teachers Told No Jobs

NYCity Eye

LINK

Memphis surplus teachers crisis instigated by policies of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Dancan
Published verbatim from democraticunderground. Indents are article excerpts that the original post cited. Article excerpts have been broadened to include full articles or letters cited. {Bracketed parts} are from this blogger.

"Gee, Arne. How do you feel about the tempers flaring at the Memphis schools job fair?" {From 10/7 post at democraticunderground, which drew from the "Memphis Commercial Appeal."}

This is your education reform in action, Arne Duncan. Does it make you proud to see all those long-time teachers in their 50s unable to get jobs after devoting themselves to their careers? 

I hope they do file those age-discrimination lawsuits..I will be among the first to offer financial support. 

They are being laid off and replaced by trainees from TFA. Yes, this is your reform in action. Proud of it, are you?

Tempers boil over at Memphis City Schools job fair, "Commercial-Appeal" news story link.
Police were called to calm a disturbance at a Memphis City Schools job fair Friday when about 70 experienced teachers were told there were no openings.
"When I heard that, I turned around and told all the teachers in the auditorium that we need to file a class-action suit," said Dennis Paden, 54, an 18-year classroom veteran with a master's degree.

"Most of the teachers, if not all, were over 50. Several were in wheelchairs. It's a classic case of age discrimination," said Paden, who was told to leave the fair at American Way Middle because he was causing a disturbance and being belligerent.

....Teachers said the flare-up reflects anger over changes that allow the district to hire new teachers over senior staff to help meet "curriculum needs."

One of the comments after the article hits the nail on the head.

"As a result of the teacher shuffling, all sections of physics at Ridgeway High were dissolved this week ... Students were told Friday, a week before the quarter ends, that physics classes would no longer meet."

Ridgeway, isn't that supposed to be one of the better schools in the MCS?

How could an accredited high school not offer Physics? Isn't that sort of like educational malpractice?

As for Dennis Paden, I'd have him teaching my children any day. We can use passionate, interesting history teachers out in the new suburban schools. We could also use someone like him at my children's private school (that is within about a 10-minute drive of his home).

Who's Dennis Paden? Here's his letter today about being treated disrespectfully and being without a job in spite of glowing references. He says the superintendent calls them "lemons:"Letter: "MCS mistakes prove costly," from the Commercial Appeal today:

I am one of the many Memphis City Schools teachers whose official status is "surplus teacher." Supt. Kriner Cash derisively refers to us as "lemons." For him, it may be a joke. For cash-strapped taxpayers it is no laughing matter. By my conservative estimate, his misuse of resources will cost you in excess of $6 million.

Last year I taught advanced placement U.S. history, African-American history, economics, U.S. government and two regular sections of United States history. My other duties included coaching the debate team and serving as head coach for our varsity baseball program. It was a grueling schedule that I accepted as a professional challenge. I did not complain. I was proud to be a team player. At the end of the year when my principal told me that my A.P. class would be discontinued and that as a result of other staffing cuts he needed my slot to hire a football coach, I was stunned. I was placed on the surplus list and have yet to be hired at another school despite glowing recommendations, a master's degree in my subject area and a résumé packed with career experience in virtually every area related to the social sciences. My evaluations contain no deficiencies.

Being a vocal critic of reforms that too often label children, teachers and schools as failures as a result of high-stakes testing, I can understand how I may have rubbed some the wrong way. However, when I meet with other teachers in surplus status, I find they too are highly qualified and were solid contributors in their last assignment. So, what gives?

It is curious to me why so many veteran teachers have been relegated to the sidelines in exchange for less experienced and, in most cases, less qualified Teach For America personnel. According to Deputy Supt. Irving Hamer and John Barker of MCS, it is data that drives all MCS educational decisions. Where is the data that says inexperienced Teach for America personnel are worth the millions of dollars spent to lock proven veterans out of the classroom?

Dennis Paden

In my opinion as a retired teacher, and in the opinion of those teachers I speak to who are still in the classroom....it is past time for the person in charge of all this mess to be fired. 

From day one Arne Duncan started by attacking teachers' unions. He only went to charter schools, he hung around with the reformers and praised documentaries like Waiting for Superman in which teachers were treated insultingly. 

I am sick inside over the way teachers are being treated. Memphis is one of the worst. My thoughts go out to them.{Of course it's totally unscientific, but here's the letter grade that readers gave the record of placing MCS "surplus teachers".}

Commenter wrote:

Similar stories in many districts. This is just sick.

I'm working with a handful of TFA replacements this year. It's disgusting that anyone with a brain thinks they can waltz in and do a comparable job - or even do better - than the experienced teachers they are replacing. 

It's like an alternate universe where up is down, in is out and everyone smiles and pretends the kids are okay.

          Another commenter wrote:
          I'm mentoring my third TFAer. This sucks.

The first two quit; one in the middle of a semester, the other before finals near the end of the year. Most of these people do not belong in front of classrooms. I have only met one TFAer I would consider qualified to teach, and honestly that is because she went back to school and actually took some classes on her own about education, educational theory & practice. Many TFAers believe the hype about themselves as "saviors" and do not feel like they need the sufficient educational background in order to practice the teaching discipline. It's sad for our students who deserve top tier, qualified instructional professionals.

Piece by piece our public education system is being dismantled by a Democratic administration. That should make us all very angry.

Another commenter wrote:

football coach wasn't it

a master's certified teacher to teach history or a football coach to teach history, in the usa it is an easy choice, football is more important than history in the usa... in france the schools do not waste any resources on sports, all sports teams are run by the towns/regions and have fuck all to do with the schools, in school you have physical education class and that is it for sports.

          Another commenter:
          Article from Aug. .They fired the teacher of the year. 

They applied for money from Bill Gates, and it had strings attached. 

http://soetalk.com/2011/08/17/in-memphis-clashes-between-new-and-experienced-teachers/
{Ed.: SOE Talk is an outlet for students, prospective students and alumni of the Johns Hopkins School of Education.}

By Jane Roberts, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn. (MCT)

When Memphis City Schools accepted millions of dollars from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to improve teacher effectiveness, it agreed to tap new pipelines for attracting teachers.

But after at least 190 teachers with no experience were hired over 100 teachers with lots of it, school board members wanted to know Monday if jobs were earmarked for some of the new teachers—and what they are supposed to tell angry constituents.

“Out of North Memphis, I’m getting this phone call: ‘How can you let the teacher of the year last year go when you’re hiring people who don’t have experience?’” board member Sara Lewis said after the meeting. “That needs to be explained to people. People don’t understand. Our issues are (getting) accurate and adequate information.” While Supt. Kriner Cash did not say whether some positions were intentionally left open for Teach for America and other talent partners, he said the process for filling positions was “open and transparent,” and he reminded board members that he has said if any highly qualified teacher is not permanently placed, he will see to it himself that he or she will be.

When the district applied for $90 million from the Gates Foundation in 2009, its proposal said that 30-35 percent of new hires would come from talent pipelines that produce high-quality teacher applicants. In 2009, the district expected it would hire 190 teachers from those sources this year alone. Next year, the number jumps to 235.

With only 5 percent of MCS graduates ready to succeed in college, Cash said the district has to do something different.

“We are trying to change and improve that rate,” he said. “We also have some of the highest numbers of students who are not proficient. … We have to do everything we can to give principals a choice—that is what research shows—give them the latitude to hire staff they need to move the needle.”

The issue boiled over after weekend media reports that the board would be voting on a $1.4 million contract Monday to hire more teachers from an outside group, Memphis Teacher Residency.

This year, MCS signed a contract to place 100 TFA corpsmen, paying their salary plus $4,000 per person to cover training and recruiting costs.

Since 2009, MTR has placed 45 teachers in public and private schools in the area. The residents complete a one-year master’s degree in urban education through Union University and work four days a week in the city schools in supervised mentorship. They also receive a living stipend.

“MTR does not have a contract that requires MCS to hire our residents,” said director David Montague. “What I would like to think is that our teachers are attractive enough that principals hire them because they want them in the building. I would love for them all to get hired in Memphis City Schools, but they are not going to get hired because they have to be hired.”

Memphis Education Association president Keith Williams told board members that displaced teachers had been upstaged by “outsourced labor,” reminding them that new teachers have no record of their success in the classroom. Williams went further, saying they also have no relationships in the city.

Cash said MEA has been part of the discussions, saying, “We are working together on this issue.”

But he was clear that he has little power over anecdotal evidence, and board member Rev. Kenneth Whalum agreed, saying he could do nothing for teachers who say they are being mistreated but insist on anonymity.

The Current Issue: Teacher Education, Training, Evaluation, Accountability

Teacher preparation ‘front and center’

by MANDY ZATYNSKI on OCTOBER 5, 2011

in TEACHER QUALITY, Quick and Ed

LINK

Top education experts from around the country discussed teacher preparation program reform, performance-based assessments for teachers, and how to identify core capabilities that every teacher should embody during a panel convened by Education Sector last week.

The panelists gathered on the heels of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s announcement to reform teacher preparation in three key ways: more detailed reporting of program graduates’ effectiveness, including student achievement growth during their first two years; competitive scholarships that are awarded to students in their final year of education; and expanding funding for minority-serving teacher preparation programs.

Louisiana and Tennessee were lauded in Duncan’s plan, titled “Our Future, Our Teachers,” because of their statewide systems that link student achievement growth to the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs. George Noell, executive director of strategic research and analysis at the Louisiana Department of Education, sat on the panel and offered his advice based on his experiences with the state’s Value-Added Teacher Preparation Program Assessment Model since 2003.

“This is tough work. At moments it will get tense; people will start wanting to point fingers … ‘It can’t be me!’ and that is very difficult to keep struggling through,” Noell told the other four panelists and more than 100 guests at the Capital Hilton event. “The folks who train teachers did not get in the business to be bad … but it’s happening. They have never had a tool to measure their own success that was [dependent] on kids’ outcomes. Trust that they want to be great, support them and challenge them to be great, and you will find that you will have powerful allies.”

Sharon Robinson, president and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, chimed in, acknowledging the long road of reform ahead. She re-stated the importance of identifying “programs that can get it done and programs that cannot,” but went a step further than Duncan’s report when saying government should pull the funding plug on low-performing programs.

“We expect programs will be confronted with some really discomforting information that they will have to address,” she said.

Panelists also spent a sizeable chunk of the 90-minute discussion talking about performance-based reviews for teachers. Deborah Loewenberg Ball, dean of University of Michigan’s School of Education, praised Duncan’s plan for bringing assessments “front and center,” but still cautioned that there’s much to be done – namely establishing the standards or core capabilities from which to assess teachers.

“What we have right now is a system that’s entirely unaccountable for whether teachers can do the work,” Ball said. “We don’t have any other occupation or profession … in this country which does so little to name and then assess whether individuals who are asked to do the work can do it.”

Kate Walsh, president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, seconded Ball, saying the profession “absolutely needs” to establish common core competencies, which would help teacher preparation programs adequately train and sufficiently assess their students before graduation. Teaching, after all, can be taught.

“I don’t know why we treat teacher education as such an unknown and why we insist on placing so many young men and women in classrooms without giving them essential knowledge,” Walsh said. “There is such presumption that this is just a free-for-all and there is no real training that does help and we’ve got to just dump people in the classroom and let them get over it and let them learn their own way.”

That’s not the way it should be, she said. Anyone who wants can learn to be an effective teacher, if provided proper and sufficient education and training. But what exactly qualifies as adequate preparation? And who will determine those standards?

Noell said that, based on his experience, states do not have the resources or tools to undertake this responsibility.

“My perception is … states currently are not built or resourced to be effective partners in this,” he said. “It is not that it’s impossible, but to have substantive evaluators who are calibrated to judge rigorously, who will travel the thousands of square miles in these states and get in those classrooms and sit down and watch and provide substantive feedback, it’ll be hard.”

Walsh agreed, saying it’s not the proper role of states, and Ball added that she wasn’t proposing that states do it.

“But we have to distribute the work of building the assessments,” she said.

Which led panelists back to square one: Who?

“I agree with you,” Elena Silva, senior policy analyst at Education Sector, told Ball, “that we need to get to that granularity of teaching, but where is that conversation occurring? Who’s ultimately responsible for making sure it does anything and actually improves teacher preparation programs?”

See full video coverage of the event, including Duncan’s announcement, on ourwebsite.

A New Approach to Teacher Education Reform and Improvement

Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks at the Education Sector Forum, September 30, 2011

LINK

Thank you all for coming out today—and my special thanks to Dennis Van Roekel and Wendy Kopp for joining me here and to the remarkable group of educators and leaders in the field who are participating in our panel discussion.

Dennis has shown tremendous courage on this issue for a long time. He has said repeatedly that we can't 'fire our way to the top'. I absolutely agree with that. He has said that states should take the lead in making sure that everyone who enters the classroom is ready to be successful with those students. And I couldn't agree with that more. So, Dennis, thank you for your consistent leadership on this issue.

I don't think anyone in the country has done more over the past 15 to 20 years than Wendy Kopp to identify the talents and characteristics that lead to great teaching. This is complicated stuff—there is no easy formula. And no one has done a better job of tracking the impact that their graduates and alumni are having in the classroom. Wendy is relentless in looking at that data and honestly self-reflecting on what is working and what's not working in their program. [Teach for America] has been a great movement for our country, so thank you, Wendy, for your leadership and commitment here.

This is an auspicious day. We're here to talk about how to better support and strengthen teacher education programs. And we're here to talk about our department's plan to help school leaders, states, and teacher preparation programs meet the urgent mission of elevating teacher preparation programs throughout America.

That mission is central to the future of our children and our nation in a globally competitive, knowledge-based economy. And the importance of top-notch teacher preparation is now acknowledged the world over.

In fact, strengthening teacher preparation is going to be the focus of next year's International Summit on the Teaching Profession in New York City.

A powerful, diverse bipartisan coalition is here today supporting reform and the Department's plan. It is a coalition that includes diverse groups, like the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, and Teach for America, one of the nation's largest and strongest alternative certification programs for new teachers.

It includes state superintendents from both parties from Chiefs for Change and big-city superintendents from the Council of the Great City Schools. It includes elected officials, like my good friend, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado. It includes both longstanding skeptics and longstanding supporters of schools of education.

Deb Ball, the visionary dean of the ed school at the University of Michigan, helped inform our proposal, as did Jim Cibulka at the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. I was with Deb recently at the University of Michigan's School of Education, which is one of the best teacher education schools in the country. And Jim has been a great and courageous leader who is showing the way in this field.

To all of you, I want to express our thanks for your wisdom, guidance, and support.

Now, the starting point for this conversation and for this unusual coalition is simple: supply and demand. The math here is straightforward. In the next decade, 1.6 million teachers will retire, and 1.6 million new teachers will take their place. This reality presents a true challenge and an amazing opportunity.

My goal—our shared goal—is that every teacher should receive the high-quality preparation and support they need, so that every student can have the effective teachers they deserve. But unfortunately, we all know that the quality of teacher preparation programs is very uneven in the U.S.

In fact, a staggering 62 percent of all new teachers—almost two-thirds—report they felt unprepared for the realities of their classroom. Imagine what our country would do if 62 percent of our doctors felt unprepared to practice medicine—you would have a revolution in our medical schools.

Only half of current teacher candidates receive supervised clinical training. Less than 15 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools come from the top third of college graduates. And districts regularly report teaching shortages in high-need subjects like science, engineering, math, and special education.

The current system that prepares our nation's teachers offers no guarantees of quality for anyone—from the college students themselves who borrow thousands of dollars to attend teacher preparation programs, to the districts, schools, parents, and, mostly importantly, the children that depend on good teachers to provide a world-class education.

It is stunning to me that, for decades, teacher preparation programs have had no feedback loop to identify where their programs prepare students well for the classroom and where they need to improve. Our teacher prep programs have operated largely in the dark, without access to meaningful data that tells them how effective their graduates are in the classroom.

A good feedback loop and accountability system would reward high-performing teacher preparation programs and scale them up. It would help programs in the middle of the spectrum to self-correct and improve. And it would support states to reshape low-performing programs—or eliminate low-performers that fail to improve over time, even after receiving help.

Under our plan, teacher preparation programs will be held to a clear standard of quality that includes but is not limited to their record of preparing and placing teachers who deliver results for P-12 students. As Deb Ball says, "it's the outcomes of teacher preparation that matter most."

Now, this all sounds like common-sense. But it is not even close to how America's teacher preparation system operates today.

And let me be the first to say that the federal government has absolutely been part of the problem. For far too long, we have been a compliance machine, rather than an engine of innovation.

Our survey of teacher preparation programs, required under the Higher Education Act, has 440 fields that programs fill in. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not.

Even worse, that burdensome, bureaucratic survey focuses on inputs, not on primary outcomes—like the job placement and retention of program graduates, or their impact on student learning in the classroom.

We know, too, that the existing accountability system is weak to non-existent. The Higher Education Act requires states to identify and improve low-performing programs. But few states hold any teacher preparation program to a meaningful standard of quality.

In 2010, states identified only 37 low-performing teacher preparation programs at over 1,400 institutions of higher education. During the last dozen years, more than half of the nation's states have failed to identify a single low-performing program. This would be laughable, if the results weren't so tragic. People rightly expect that teacher certification or licensure should be based on a demonstration of effectiveness. Unfortunately, that's not the case today.

Paper-and-pencil licensure tests for teachers are not rigorous, meaningful, or useful. More than 95 percent of applicants pass their licensure exams nationwide. And licensure tests do not reflect either the skills new teachers need, or indicate how they will perform in the classroom.

Our other teacher preparation program under the Higher Education Act—the TEACH Grant program—provides scholarships to recruit teachers to work in high-need schools.

The TEACH program is a fantastic idea. But it needs to be strengthened, so it can better serve its vital role, and support more rigorous accountability in teacher preparation programs and licensure.

Everyone here knows that maintaining the status quo in teacher education is unacceptable. As the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education has said, teacher preparation needs to be "turned upside down" in America—with much more attention paid to selectivity, accountability, and developing a stronger clinical practice. I couldn't agree more with those recommendations.

So, today we are releasing our plan for teacher education reform and improvement.

We seek to create more accountability in teacher preparation programs, better prepare teachers for the classroom, boost student learning, and foster systems of continuous improvement. Unlike today's teacher preparation system, we want to reward good programs, improve the middle, and transform or eliminate consistently low-performing programs.

Our plan has three core elements. First, it would reduce the reporting burden on states, but help them build an effective data and accountability system, driven by essential indicators of quality.

Second, it would reform financing of students who are preparing to become teachers and direct scholarship aid to higher-performing teacher preparation programs.

And third, it would provide more support for institutions that prepare high-quality teachers from diverse backgrounds.

The first of those elements, improving institutional reporting and state accountability, follows on the pioneering work of a number of states, especially Louisiana.

Both Louisiana and Tennessee now have statewide systems that track the academic growth of a teacher's students by the preparation program where the teacher trained.

For the first time, teacher preparation programs in Louisiana and Tennessee are able to identify which of their initiatives are producing effective teachers and which need to be strengthened or overhauled.

It turns that there is a big difference between a strong preparation program and a weak one. Just as teachers are not interchangeable widgets, neither are the programs that prepare them. In fact, the variation between programs is stunning.

After controlling for student differences, the most effective preparation programs in Tennessee produce graduates who are two to three times more likely to be in the top quintile of teachers in a subject area. The least effective preparation programs produce teachers who are two to three times more likely to be in the bottom quintile.

Our Department would scale down the 440 fields in surveys that we now ask teacher preparation programs and states to fill out. We want states and teacher prep programs to report far fewer input measures. We must stop wasting their time and resources.

Instead, we want them to report on at least three outcome measures that are true indicators of quality: student growth for graduates of different preparation programs; job placement and retention rates of teachers, especially in shortage areas; and surveys of program graduates and principals that look at whether preparation programs provide graduates with the skills really needed to succeed in the classroom. Again, today the vast majority of new teachers, almost two-thirds, report they were unprepared to enter their classroom.

The second element in our reform plan, reforming scholarship aid for students who are studying to be teachers, would strengthen the TEACH grant program and incorporate it into a new $185 million Presidential Teaching Fellows program.

The bulk of funds in the Presidential Teaching Fellows program would be used for scholarships of up to $10,000 for high-achieving students in their final year of study at either high-quality traditional or alternative certification programs. The remaining funds would support statewide reforms, like upgraded teacher licensure and certification standards.

The third and final part of our plan is a $40 million budget request to support teacher preparation programs at minority serving institutions.

This new program would fund Augustus Hawkins Centers of Excellence at minority serving institutions, with awards expected to average $2 million per year. Congress has previously authorized the Augustus Hawkins Centers of Excellence. But it has yet to fund them, despite the pressing need for a more diverse teaching workforce.

I have been traveling across the country, trying to encourage the next generation of great talent, so that our teacher workforce represents the great diversity of the country. There is a growing imbalance today between what our students look like and what our teachers look like. And we have not seen nearly enough creativity and urgency brought to bear on addressing that imbalance. This would be a huge step in the right direction.

We want to work with Congress to build a world-class teacher preparation system, one that provides more accountability and builds better support for students looking to teach in high-needs schools. Senator Bennet has already shown great leadership by advancing the idea of a Presidential Teacher Corps.

As many of you know, earlier this year we requested $250 million for a new Teacher and Leader Pathways program to seed and scale-up programs that prepare teachers and leaders to be effective in high-need schools, subjects, and areas.

This competitive grant program would be modeled broadly after the Invest in Innovation or i3 program, and it would complement the teacher preparation reforms presented today. It would help the nation meet the goal of preparing 100,000 new teachers in science, engineering, math, and technology over the next decade.

Soon, we will begin a negotiated rulemaking process to solicit maximum input on improving the implementation of the Higher Education Act for teacher preparation programs.

Negotiated rulemaking takes time, and we want and need the guidance and wisdom of stakeholders in the field. But I would urge us to be bold and not simply tinker around the edges of the problem.

Today's system for accountability in teacher preparation programs is largely dysfunctional. It serves no one well. And that is totally unacceptable in a competitive, global economy.

America's teachers and America's children deserve world-class preparation programs that prepare teachers for today's classrooms and students for today's information age.

The need to improve teacher preparation programs is urgent. It cannot be deferred. Children get only one shot at a quality education.

I thank everyone here today for committing to the cause of improving teacher education in the U.S. Your courage, your willingness to tackle these longstanding problems—even when it takes you outside of your comfort zone—is helping lead the nation where we need to go.

Working together, collectively, you are helping bring us closer to the day when our education system lives up to the American promise of providing every child with the education that they need to succeed.

A Measured Approach to Improving Teacher Preparation

LINK

 

ATRS = The New Rubber Roomers

The new reality is an old one.

Hundreds of tenured employees will be re-assigned, now on a weekly basis, as part of the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) group. This group includes:

(a)  those individuals who were found guilty of misconduct and/or incompetency at 3020-a but were not terminated;

(b) those who were exonerated at 3020-a but whose UFT reps and Children's First Network (CFN) leaders didn't (couldn't or wouldn't) find a job to fit their professional licenses;

(c) those who paid thousands of dollars to buy back their jobs, who sold the NYC Board of Education their rights to a hearing and to the right to sue the BOE for putting  him/her in this pool in the first place;

(d) those excessed from the schools that were "failing" and then closed or held hostage by the charter school industry;

(e) anyone else whom the BOE wanted to terminate but could not find a rational reason to re-assign somewhere.

ATR status means that you are a person without a chapter, a person without a title that is recognized under Union rules.

The good news is that you ATRs are pioneers, just like the people who spent 2-7 years in a Rubber Room, and maybe somebody someday will write your story for a series called "Lost in New York City."

This notice came out October 5, 2011:

Dear Teacher,

 

You have been identified as a current member of the Absence Teacher Reserve (ATR).  As has been communicated, teachers in the ATR may now be assigned to a different school within their district each week.  This email is to update you on the next steps for notification of these weekly ATR assignments.

 

Notification of your weekly ATR assignment

 

Information on your weekly assignment will be made available through the following mechanisms:

 

1.  Email:  On Thursdays after 2:00 p.m. you will receive an email to your DOE email account with your assignment for the following week. If you do not know or have an Outlook email, you may contact the DOE helpdesk at 718-935-5100 to obtain one.

2.  Excess Staff Selection System (ESSS):  You may view your weekly assignment for the following week by logging into ESSS after 2:00 p.m. on Thursdays. You can access ESSS athttps://www.nycenet.edu/offices/dhr/transferplane/

3.  HR Connect: If you cannot access your email or ESSS, you may contact HR Connect at 718-935-4000 after 3:00 p.m. on Thursdays for information on your assignment for the following week.

 

Please note that it is your responsibility to verify your assignment location each week and you are required to report to the weekly assignment listed in notifications above. Any conflicting information from other parties does not override your assignment.  Keep in mind that for each day you do not report to your assigned location you will be marked absent. As always, please notify your assigned school’s payroll secretary of any absences - in advance where possible - and submit all associated paperwork to the assigned school site.  

 

The above notifications will go into effect starting this Thursday, October 6 when you will receive notification regarding your new assignment beginning Tuesday, October 11 (Monday, October 10 is a holiday).  

 

Should you have any questions regarding your assignment, please contact HR Connect at 718-935-4000. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Teacher Hiring Support Unit

NYC Department of Education

www.thscnyc.org

Teacher Discipline and "Immoral" Conduct Outside of The Classroom - Where Do School Authorities Draw The Line?

Dismissing the "immoral" teacher for conduct outside the workplace--do current laws protect the interests of both school authorities and teachers?

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/laws/907556-1.html#ixzz1ZbCobBP1

I. INTRODUCTION-MORALITY: AN AGE OLD CONCEPT BEING CHALLENGED BY NEW APPROACHES TO EDUCATION

The old saying that teachers should practice what they preach is tested anew in today's classroom. Few school-related topics are hotter these days than "character education," a movement to teach students positive values! Recent polls indicated registered voters strongly support the idea that schools should share the responsibility with parents in teaching children moral principles.2 This growing demand for character education was evident in the recent 2000 presidential debates, and is now at the forefront of President George W. Bush's education agenda. "We want our schools to care about the character of our children. I am talking about communicating the values we share, in all our diversity, such as respect, responsibility, self-restraint, family commitment, civic duty, fairness, and compassion-the moral landmarks that guide a successful life."

As expectations for students to be more moral continue to rise, there may be an increasing desire to evaluate the character of those who teach it. School districts displeased with teachers' non-conventional acts or habits, such as their sexual orientation or choice of living arrangements, have dismissed them, labeling their conduct "immoral" despite the fact the behavior occurred away from school. Few would dispute a school district's right to police teacher behavior or language on school grounds,' but should schools demand teachers live their lives a certain way even while away from school.

Many questions arise when one approaches the subject of "morality," or the absence of "morality," or rather, "immorality." What is it? What conduct does it encompass? Is a teacher's sexual orientation a moral question? Should a school board be able to dictate what a teacher does in his or her spare time, or with whom he or she associates after the school house doors have closed? If the law permits inquiry into a teacher's morality, what limits, if any, should be imposed? Should the definition be different from community to community as toleration levels vary? This article will examine the competing interests of school districts in employing "moral" teachers and teachers' interests in privacy and lives detached from government control. This article will also discuss the constitutional shortcomings of current laws and new approaches being explored to address these concerns. Finally, this article will suggest that, as school districts' desire to inquire into a teacher's off-duty conduct increases, both school authorities and teachers should be aware that their power to inquire is not unlimited.

II. IDENTIFYING THE CURRENT BAR: WHAT TYPE OF CONDUCT IS PROHIBITED?

Long before the current movement towards character education, teachers were terminated for flaws in their character. While state codes vary as to the specific grounds for dismissal, teachers have been terminated, among other things, for "incompetency,"5 "insubordination,"6 "neglect of duty,"7 "sufficient cause,"8 "conduct unbecoming,"9 and "immorality."10 Typically, these words are broad and left undefined. For example, North Carolina provides that "No teacher shall be dismissed or demoted ... except ... for immorality."" Most of these broad provisions do not present a problem because of their inherent focus on conduct surrounding the teacher's job performance. "Incompetency," neglect of duty," and "insubordination," by their very terms, merely state the principle that a teacher may be terminated for deficiencies in job performance. However, it is not as clear what conduct is required in order to terminate a teacher based on "immorality." This term has given courts, as well as teachers, difficulty in ascertaining exactly what conduct is prohibited.

Few jurisdictions expound on what warrants termination for being "immoral." As one court states,

Immorality is an imprecise word which means different things to different people. In essence, it connotes conduct not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior. It is contrary to the moral code of the community; wicked; especially, not in conformity with the acceptable standards of proper sexual behavior.

Another court has written, tautologically: "Immoral conduct contemplates behavior sufficiently contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." To religious groups which draw their accepted principles from sacred texts such as the Bible, immorality conjures up behaviors such as adultery, homosexuality, and debauchery. "In the opinion of many people, laziness, gluttony, vanity, selfishness, avarice, and cowardice constitute immoral conduct." Yet, most state codes do not even have what guidance is given by these unhelpful interpretations." As a result, the imperfect human teacher holds his breath waiting to see whether other imperfect humans will determine his conduct has become "immoral."

A. Constitutional Challenges

Teachers have challenged these statutes for being unconstitutionally vague. Although teachers have made several arguments in support of the void-for-- vagueness theory, few have been successful. The majority of courts have upheld these statutes "as applied" to the individual teacher by reading a narrowing construction, such as a "fitness to teach" requirement into the definition of "immorality."

One of the principal arguments made by teachers is that vague laws are offensive to our notions of due process, fair play, and substantial justice. "Our judicial system has always insisted that laws give persons of ordinary intelligence an opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited so as to avoid that type of conduct."" This argument seems fair in that it is difficult to subject someone to punishment when that person had no way of knowing that his conduct would bring about punishment. In Alford v. Ingram, the court, in construing a statute permitting termination for "immoral" conduct, stated that "while these words may have had certain concrete meanings in simpler times, this court has serious doubts as to whether these terms currently provide fair warning of proscribed conduct."

Perhaps this is true. The notion of immorality may have been more concrete in times past, serving fair notice of proscribed conduct. Modern issues, like HIV infection and homosexuality, were virtually unknown, or at least not discussed, in generations past. Perhaps the Ingram court was merely recognizing that times have changed, and that what was "immoral" yesterday may not be "immoral" today. Or, by its decision to uphold the statute, the court may have been suggesting that there may yet be a realm of "universal core" conduct that could be fairly defined as "immoral."

The United States Supreme Court has also recognized that the root of the vagueness problem is a rough idea of fairness, but that there are "practical difficulties in drawing... statutes both general enough to take into account a variety of human conduct and sufficiently specific to provide fair warning that certain kinds of conduct are prohibited."" Thus, the Court has tended to tip the scales in favor of those who have made the laws, as opposed to the teachers.

Teachers also point out that these termination statutes are unfair in that the definition of immorality often depends on what the school board thinks it means. This, in turn, could result in "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the statute which could be applied so broadly that every teacher in the state could be subject to discipline."" In Burton v. Cascade School District Union High School No. 5, a teacher was dismissed on the basis of "immorality" for being homosexual. The court struck down this statute because it did not define what conduct constituted "immorality." Statutes this broad make those charged with enforcement the "arbiters of morality for the entire community," and, in doing so, "subject[] the livelihood of every teacher in the state to the irrationality and irregularity of its judgments."

Although the Burton decision is not widely followed because its approach was to strike down the statute instead of applying a narrowing construction its wisdom is evident. The court recognized that broad statutes require those who enforce them to read an unstated "community standard" into the the statute. For example, two courts may interpret "immorality" as encompassing different conduct: a liberal, tolerant community conceivably might not find anything wrong with a teacher who is homosexual; yet a rural town in the Bible belt may have grave difficulty in accepting this teacher in its schools.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the current application of the "immorality" standard depends on what the community applying the statute thinks it means. In addition, according to most courts, the immoral conduct warranting dismissal must be conduct that would adversely affect the teacher's job performance.

III. MEETING THE CURRENT BAR: TERMINATION FOR CONDUCT RELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE-- CONSISTENT WITH SOCIETY'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY

A. Society's Interest: Protecting the School Community

It is difficult to disagree with the proposition that the school board has a significant interest in protecting the school community from anything that would distract it from fulfilling its purpose of educating each child that attends its schools. This interest encompasses not only employing highly qualified teachers to teach, but also fostering an environment that promotes effective learning. Since school districts are beginning to implement character-based curriculums for students, teachers naturally will have to be trained to implement these programs. Regardless of the nature of the program-whether it be one of comprehensive morality" or simpler matters such as teaching mutual respect"-the school district, both as employer and educator, has an important interest in its employees' conduct that potentially could interfere with that mission.

The law recognizes that a teacher's role is unique in our society. "Teaching is not like driving rivets. It is not merely the rote, mechanical conveyance of factual information from one mind to another. Teaching is the shaping of young minds, the cultivation of a precious resource."" Because of this unique role, "teachers are intended by parents, citizenry, and lawmakers alike to serve as good examples for their young charges."

Many people regard a teacher as an "exemplar, whose words and actions are likely to be followed by the students coming under his care and protection." A teacher dismissed for immorality seemingly has an uphill battle if the act would affect those whom he teaches. For example, many courts have found that a teacher's private bad act was not sufficient to justify dismissal based on "immorality" where there were no students involved," or where the act occurred in the privacy of the teacher's home." However, a Chicago teacher's private possession of drugs was an immoral act in light of his being assigned to teach children involved with gangs or who had otherwise been in trouble with the authorities.35 Because of the influence the teacher had on those particular students, and because he was hired to be a role model for them, an act of this sort need not have been tolerated by the school district.

It is perhaps because teachers play this important role of character model that their conduct has been subjected to greater scrutiny." "It is undisputed that a child is under a teacher's care approximately seven hours a day, five days a week. Nearly half of a child's waking existence is under that of a teacher hired by local school boards."" Thus, it seems reasonable that a teacher's character and conduct should be expected to be above that of an average citizen not working in "so sensitive a relationship as that of a teacher to pupil."

Despite the fact that teachers may be held to a higher standard due to their relationship with students, should that expectation nullify a teacher's interest in living a private life away from school? In Sullivan v. Meade County Independent School District No. 101, a teacher's act of living with her boyfriend in a trailer park was sufficiently "immoral," according to the court." The court said that the live-in arrangement would have a grave impact on her ability to be a role model for her students." But should it have? Being a role model perhaps is a valid interest during school hours, for which the teacher is paid. But should this interest extend beyond that time? When the teacher signed her contract, did she bargain for an around-the-clock role model job with only eight-to-five pay?

B. A Reasonable Expectation-Getting Fired for Something Work-Related

In our society today, it seems reasonable that employees should not be surprised to be fired for failure to perform their duties at work. The bank teller who consistently gives his window customers an extra $100 should expect to hear from the boss that his days at the bank are numbered. The CEO of a major corporation should have no doubts that his impending replacement is because of unrealized financial expectations of the company, not because he failed to make his mortgage payment last month. A teacher, as well, should realize that taking a four hour coffee break during school hours will lead to the numbering of her days as a teacher. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the average employee would not be surprised for being terminated for inadequately performing his job. However, it also seems reasonable to surmise that the bank teller, the CEO, and the teacher would be shocked if they came to work Monday morning only to find that they had been terminated for telling lies to preachers on Sunday.

Courts have generally upheld teacher termination cases based on work-related conduct. However, dismissing a teacher on the basis of "immorality" presents difficulty, both in that "immorality" is hard to define, and because "immoral" conduct can occur both inside and outside of the school setting. "Immorality" generally refers to some specific act. While there are exceptions to the rule, an "immoral" teacher will lead an "immoral" lifestyle and may not necessarily behave differently during school hours. However, the opposite can also be true. A person that society would consider "moral," as evidenced by his actions most of the time, may act in an "immoral" way on occasion. Because of this dilemma, as the cases demonstrate, school authorities generally do not focus on an immoral lifestyle but rather are concerned with a specific, unacceptable act. Thus, the conduct school authorities are concerned with most is conduct that would adversely affect a teacher's ability to perform his or her job.

C. Cases Involving Termination for Conduct Involving Students-The Easy Cases

Whether or not the conduct occurs away from school, few would contest the legitimacy of terminating a teacher for immorality based on improper conduct involving students. In fact, with respect to teachers, this might be the type of conduct which could be defined as "universal core" conduct. The many decisions finding a teacher's conduct with students to be "immoral" suggest the courts may have identified a per se standard of immorality that is applied regardless of the beliefs of the community applying the statute. However, a few illustrative examples of teachers displaying a momentary lapse of control indicate that "immorality" may simply be the most convenient category of conduct available to the authorities.

It should be no surprise that attempted sexual encounters with students have not been treated lightly by the courts. In Board of Trustees of the Compton Junior College District of Los Angeles County v. Stubblefield a court had no trouble concluding that a teacher had engaged in "immoral" conduct when the teacher was caught without his pants.' The court held the teacher was properly terminated when he was found in a "state of undress" with a female student in a parked car outside the school. The court stated, "[i]t would seem that, at a minimum, responsible conduct ... excludes meretricious relationships with a teacher's students."' Similarly, an Alaska court upheld the termination of a teacher when the school district discovered that the teacher, had engaged in a sexual relationship with a fifteen year-old student while working previously in another school district.

Aside from sexual encounters, teachers have also been terminated for dishonest acts involving students. An Ohio court, for example, held that the conduct of a teacher who instructed a student wrestler to misrepresent his status by weighing in for an older student was sufficient grounds of "immorality" warranting dismissal.

There are numerous accounts of teachers behaving inappropriately with students. An otherwise innocent school-sponsored field trip with students resulted in a Colorado teacher losing his job in Weissman v. Board of Education of Jefferson City School District No. R-J. Despite the teacher's characterization of his actions as "good natured horseplay," the court found that his touching and tickling female students was sufficiently "immoral" to justify termination." In Dickson v. Aaron, a court found that a teacher was properly dismissed for "immoral" conduct when the teacher, while chaperoning a student field trip, ordered a pitcher of beer at a restaurant and drank it in front of the students.

Even inviting students to social functions outside of school or engaging in inappropriate conversations with them while in school can constitute "immoral" conduct. In Gardner v. Commission on Professional Competence, a court upheld a teacher's termination for inviting a fifteen year-old student to lunch and an evening date and stating at least five times that one of his female students had a "nice ass."" Similarly, courts have upheld decisions to terminate a teacher where the teacher was caught smoking marijuana with students. As these cases illustrate, where society's and school authorities' interests are the highest-at school or involving students-courts will not hesitate to uphold a teacher's termination for immorality. Such conduct interferes with the school district's interest in protecting the school community.

IV. MISSING THE CURRENT BAR: TERMINATION FOR CONDUCT UNRELATED TO JOB PERFORMANCE-POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH TEACHERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

A. Teachers' Interests: Various Protections Afforded by the Constitution

While teachers recognize that a school district may have an interest in protecting the school community, most teachers do not believe this interest should extend into their private lives. Teachers are naturally reluctant to grant school authorities an unlimited license to police their private conduct that occurs away from school, does not involve students, or has nothing to do with being a school teacher. In these situations, teachers have raised claims based on guarantees afforded by the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

For example, in Lile v. Hancock Place School District, a teacher argued that his private conduct was beyond the reach or concern of authorities in determining "immoral" conduct that could be used to dismiss him." In Lile, the teacher was charged with sexual abuse of two children in the custody of the woman with whom he was living. Although the sexual abuse charges against the teacher were ultimately dropped, the court seemed to uphold the immorality-based termination because the alleged victims were the same age as the teacher's students. Also, even though the "immoral" act occurred away from school, the court said that certain acts of the teacher that had become known to the public (such as walking around the house in the nude and taking baths with the children with whom he lived) could have an adverse effect on his relationship with students." In refusing to extend a right of privacy for sexual acts that occurred in the teacher's home, the court observed that the United States Supreme Court "has not extended the right of privacy to embrace any and all activities that occur in the home, or to embrace the individual's interest in living a particular lifestyle.'

Nevertheless, school authorities should not assume they have unlimited oversight of their employee's private affairs simply because the right of privacy is not absolute. Privacy protected under the Constitution requires a balancing between the employee's interest in maintaining a sense of personal autonomy, and an employer's interest in running an effective enterprise." Generally, the courts look to see if the employee had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if so, whether the employer's intrusions were unreasonable." Private employers have been held liable for intrusions which pry into an employee's personal space and dignity. For example, a store employee accused by a customer of stealing brought successful claims of outrage and invasion of privacy against her employer, who asked her to take off her clothes in order to prove she had not taken any of the allegedly stolen items.

It seems only reasonable that a teacher's right to privacy, especially while away from school, should be similarly protected. Society is willing to protect a teacher's privacy with respect to her personnel files and is willing to pass laws which forbid authorities from monitoring personal phone calls made from the workplace"-arguably at a place where she should reasonably expect less protection of her interests. Should we not expect that society would be more protective of a teacher's privacy at home? If so, the teacher would seem to have a more reasonable expectation of privacy in conduct that occurs away from the workplace.

In addition to privacy interests, teachers have associational rights protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Teachers have brought freedom of association claims against school districts that have arguably overstepped the line into a teacher's private affairs. While these cases have varied with respect to their outcomes, they are consistent in the sense that the school board was concerned that the teacher was involved in a socially unacceptable relationship. Associational claims have been brought when teachers have been dismissed for living with someone other than their spouse,66 being pregnant out of wedlock,67 openly proclaiming themselves to be homosexual," and "keeping" members of the opposite sex in their home.69 IMAGE FORMULA 36

While a school district cannot require a teacher to submit affidavits listing all the people he or she associates with after hours," a school district seemingly has authority to terminate an employee whose associations compete with its interests. For example, a Department of Housing and Urban Development appraiser was disciplined when he managed his wife's slum property in direct contradiction of his employer's mandate." Also, in Shahar v. Bowers," a lesbian employee's freedom of association claim failed against her employer, the Attorney General of Georgia, where the Attorney General asserted that the employment of a lesbian in an office that enforces state law would conflict with defending a law that prohibited homosexual sodomy."

Moreover, school districts should be especially careful when evaluating a teacher's conduct that might be characterized as speech. A statute that gives state officials the authority to terminate a teacher based on "immorality" may run afoul of the First Amendment right to free speech." Could a school district terminate a teacher for marching in a Saturday afternoon gay rights parade around the local court square? A good argument exists that in doing so, the school district would no longer be regulating mere "immoral" conduct, but has crossed the line into regulating speech."

What emerges from these cases is a realization that school authorities do not have unlimited discretion to police the private lives of their teachers. While the school district has a strong interest in protecting the school community, it must recognize that its teachers also have rights that are protected by the Constitution. Because a balancing of interests is required when the government attempts discipline based on a teacher's off-duty conduct, several jurisdictions have proposed a compromise to ensure that both the school board's inquiries are warranted, and the teacher's interests are protected: This is the requirement of nexus. IMAGE FORMULA 38

V. AN APPROPRIATE BAR: FINDING THE NEXUS - A COMPROMISE THAT AFFORDS PROTECTION TO INTERESTS OF BOTH SOCIETY AND TEACHER

A. Procedural Due Process and the Need for "Nexus"

Teachers possess an important right under the Constitution - the right to procedural due process under the law. Procedural due process requires that "state action which deprives a person of life, liberty, or property, must have a rational basis-that is to say, the reason for the deprivation may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as "arbitrary or capricious."' In other words, a school district potentially could violate a teacher's procedural due process rights if its decision to terminate the teacher is "arbitrary" or "marked by whim or caprice rather than reason."

As such, before dismissing a teacher for "immorality" based on conduct occurring outside the classroom, a majority of jurisdictions will require that a 11 nexus" be shown between the conduct in question and the teacher's job. It should be noted that not all jurisdictions have chosen to adopt the "nexus" approach.

B. Not All Jurisdictions Require a "Nexus" be Shown

Not all jurisdictions demand that a "nexus" be shown in connection with dismissing a teacher for "immorality." While these jurisdictions represent the minority, the reasons courts have given in rejecting this requirement illustrate the competing interests between the school district and teacher. Some jurisdictions do not require a nexus to be shown simply because the teacher serves as a role model and is expected to behave in appropriate ways, regardless of where the conduct takes place." In Hainline v. Bond," the court found a teacher dismissed for burglary was put on adequate notice that commission of a crime was prohibited within the term "immorality."" The court may not have seen a need to adopt a nexus requirement in this case, perhaps because the offense was historically one of moral turpitude. It seems that most cases involving criminal convictions, especially felonies, are illustrative of that "universal core" body of conduct that is often labeled immoral. As the court stated, "One of the goals of education is to instill respect for the law, and teachers are expected to serve as role models for their students.""

Other jurisdictions do not require a separate showing of "nexus" because "immorality" is defined in the statute as involving an "act of moral turpitude." These jurisdictions reason that "if a teacher cannot abide by these standards [set out in the law], his or her fitness as a teacher is necessarily called into question."" Still other jurisdictions see no need to adopt a nexus requirement.

Other minority jurisdictions look to the egregiousness of the conduct in question and, if warranted, find the conduct implicitly calls into question a teacher's fitness for the job. In Barringer v. Caldwell County Board of Education, the court reasoned a reasonable public school teacher of "ordinary intelligence" utilizing "common understanding" would have known that approaching a crowded local pool hall armed with a fully loaded shotgun and sidearm, proffering violent intent, would place his job in jeopardy." The court stated a reasonable person should realize that this conduct would likely become known to the teacher's students, thus manifesting approval of violence and vigilantism, inappropriate for a teacher."

C. Requiring a "Nexus"-The Majority Position

However, a majority of jurisdictions require that a nexus exist between the off-duty conduct and a teacher's duties before allowing termination of the teacher based on immorality. A nexus requirement is important for both teacher and school district. For the school district, a showing of nexus increases the likelihood of its prevailing against a teacher's due process claim. For the teacher, the requirement of nexus ensures the teacher will only be dismissed for something truly related to his job, i.e., something for which most people would reasonably expect to be terminated.

In addition, when presented with a case involving First Amendment concerns, a showing of nexus certainly makes clearer any ambiguities that might be present in balancing both the school district and teacher's interests. For example, if a nexus is found, it at least arguably raises a rebuttable presumption that the school district had an interest worth protecting to which a teacher's interest may be required to yield. While it is clear, according to a majority of jurisdictions, that a nexus need only be shown for conduct occurring outside the classroom,89 few courts are explicit in defining nexus or providing instruction on how to establish this important element.

D. Defining Nexus

Although the specific language in the cases varies, most courts require the school district to show some connection between the conduct in question and the teacher's professional duties. "While the school board may legitimately inquire into the character and integrity of its teachers, in reviewing the character of a teacher, a nexus between the teacher's conduct and the workings of the educational system must be demonstrated."' Other courts require a "rational nexus"91 or "sufficient nexus"92 or even a "substantial nexus"93 between the conduct and duties in question. Regardless of the degree of nexus, most courts say that the outside conduct must relate to the teacher's "fitness to teach."'

E. Establishing Nexus-"Fitness to Teach"

After a court finds the teacher's conduct to be sufficiently immoral, those jurisdictions which require a nexus typically focus on how the conduct may affect the teacher's ability to teach. While "fitness to teach" is a broad term, most courts interpret "fitness" to refer to a teacher's ability to maintain discipline in the classroom, the effect the act will have on the teacher's students, and the attitudes of the students' parents. For example, courts have found that a teacher's fitness to teach has been adversely affected for conduct involving possessing or smoking illegal drugs, being charged with a crime such as battery" or sexual abuse, engaging in meretricious relationships,98 or even tampering with school property.'

In Board of Education of Cape Giradeau School District No. 3. v. Thomas," A Missouri court found that a teacher who intentionally shot at her estranged husband's girlfriend had exhibited immoral conduct that rendered her unfit to teach."' While the teacher went inside to talk to her estranged husband, the husband's lover scratched "bitch" on the teacher's car and then proceeded to leave."' When the teacher came out of the house and saw her car, she became enraged, pulled a gun, and fired four shots, one of which hit the lover in the leg."' Although the incident occurred in the summer, the school board convened and dismissed the teacher for immoral conduct.'" At the hearing, the board delivered twenty-seven findings of fact that the teacher was "unfit to teach."" The only testimony presented to establish the nexus was from the junior high principal and a human resources coordinator." Both testified that students and teachers were aware of the conduct and that the conduct would confuse students who are taught that "we are a gun-free, violence-free environment.""' Testimony was also presented that if the teacher were allowed to continue to teach, this would create a difficult situation for other parents and teachers because the teacher's actions contravened school policy and her role as authority figure and role model for the students."' The teacher appealed and argued that no nexus had been presented.

The appeals court upheld the trial court's findings that the teacher was properly terminated and a nexus was properly established between the conduct and her "fitness to teach.""' The court relied on two major factors in determining that the conduct affected the teacher's fitness to teach, namely the age and maturity of the teacher's students, and the likelihood and degree of an adverse effect on the students and other teachers."' The court found that the teacher's adolescent students were very impressionable, that the use of violence by the teacher to solve personal problems was likely to have an adverse effect on her students, and that the teacher's commission of a crime would adversely effect her relationship with other faculty and parents because her conduct was a breach of both policy and law, affecting her position as a role model and authority figure."' After recognizing that teachers are held to a higher standard in our society, the court upheld the lower court's decision that the teacher was properly terminated."'

There are, however, cases in which a teacher's conduct, although faulted, did not result in the teacher being terminated. In each case, the deficiencies were found to have had no effect on the teacher's "fitness to teach."I" Thus, it can be seen that the outcome is highly dependent on the specific facts of each case. Nonetheless, requiring a showing of proper nexus between the conduct and the teacher's fitness to teach makes vague statutes based on mere "immorality" fundamentally more fair.

First, the requirement of nexus brings into focus the previously unstated rule of "community standards." For example, in a liberal, more tolerant community where homosexual lifestyles would be more accepted, a teacher may have a better argument that her lifestyle would not adversely affect her ability to teach. Conversely, a homosexual teacher's ability to teach in a Christian community would more likely be hampered. Also, certain acts, such as the commission of a felony, may be labeled as per se immoral because they always affect a teacher's fitness to teach, regardless of the views of the community applying the statute.

Second, a nexus requirement may affect the balancing of interests that must take place when First Amendment rights are at issue. Whether it be free speech, association, or privacy claims, if a school district can adequately demonstrate that a teacher's conduct would affect his or her ability to teach, at least a rebuttable presumption is raised that the school's interest may be superior to any First Amendment rights claimed by the teacher. For example, a teacher who is terminated for "immorality" based on her conduct of marching in a gay rights demonstration may have a claim against the school district if she can prove that what in fact the school district is doing is attempting to regulate her off-campus speech. Accordingly, it seems the teacher should prevail, unless the school district can sufficiently demonstrate that her speech affects her overall "fitness to teach." I" However, the level of "fitness to teach" showing should be greater than the one the court accepted in Sullivan v. Meade County Independent School District No. 101. In Sullivan, the court upheld the discharge of a teacher who lived with her boyfriend in a trailer park located in a rural school district community."' The court held that the teacher's conduct affected her fitness to teach in that it occurred on school property (the mobile home was provided by the school district) and a majority of students and teachers, who also lived in the same trailer park, were aware of the conduct."' Arguably, the mere fact that students lived in the area and were aware of the conduct should not have given the school district the right to police the teacher's choice of companion.I" The fact that school authorities may not approve of every aspect of a teacher's life does not give them an unfettered right to intrude so as to correct it.

VII. CONCLUSION

Inquiries by school authorities into a teacher's conduct away from the school setting should be limited to conduct that has a sufficient connection with the school's interest. Concerns arise when school authorities rely on vague "immorality" based statutes to dismiss a teacher for conduct outside the school setting. By using these statutes, school authorities may be inviting constitutional challenges based on vagueness, as well as claims based on the right to privacy, association, and speech.

An increasingly large number of jurisdictions have adopted a nexus requirement to alleviate some of these concerns. The nexus requirement generally requires that the school district sufficiently demonstrate a connection between the conduct in question and the teacher's fitness to teach. It seems that this approach is fundamentally more fair. By requiring a sufficient showing that the teacher's fitness to teach has been hampered, both the interests of school authorities and teachers will have to be addressed. In addition, the requirement of nexus brings into focus the previously unstated rule of "community standards" and forces the district to articulate which standard is offended and how that offense relates to the education of its children.

Perhaps the solution to these issues lies with the individual school districts and boards educating their teachers as to what specific conduct is required of them. Or perhaps the solution lies with the various state legislatures, in passing laws which more clearly define the scope of prohibited conduct, or by establishing minimal levels of positive qualifications that teachers must possess before being allowed to teach. The laws that allow teachers to be dismissed for "immorality" are simply outdated, and pose significant difficulties when applied to today's more complex world. The need for well-educated, "moral" teachers, however, is not outdated and will likely always be present.

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

JASON R. FULMER*

*J.D., University of Arkansas School of Law 2001. Mr. Fulmer is an associate with the law firm of Gardere, Wynne, Sewell, LLP in Dallas, Texas.