8. § 3020-a Case Studies

the teacher’s “offenses” had met “a degree of severity as to warrant her immediate discharge,” and that there was “no basis to apply progressive discipline.” His assessment that rehabilitation was impossible was key to his decision to dismiss the teacher, as he explained: “[S]uch severe discipline [dismissal] applies only when the offense is particularly egregious or, although [offenses have been] cumulative in nature, there is no hope that the offender can be rehabilitated.”43

In a third case, the Hearing Officer justified his decision to dismiss a teacher, stating: While reluctant to deprive anyone of their employment…[s]urely employees whose misconduct represents a threat to the physical and psychological welfare of students and who hold forth no promise that they can be rehabilitated cannot be returned to work.44

This example is significant for several reasons. First, the standard for dismissal described in the decision is based not on a teacher’s inadequate teaching performance, but on the proven fact that the teacher represented an actual threat to the welfare of students. Second, the threat cited only refers to students’ most basic physical and psychological wellbeing—not to their learning or academic experience. Finally, this Hearing Officer’s decision implicitly suggests that a teacher’s demonstrated threat to the most minimal wellbeing of students, in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate that dismissal is the appropriate penalty. His assessment that there was no possibility that the teacher could be rehabilitated was, once again, essential to his decision.

8. § 3020-A CASE STUDIES

The following 22 case studies exemplify the four kinds of cases relevant to teachers’ professional obligations and performance: (1) Teacher absences; (2) Verbal abuse; (3) Corporal punishment; and (4) Incompetence. Strong consistency is evident across § 3020-a decisions, and the cases presented here are representative of the 155 decisions analyzed. School districts only bring cases to § 3020-a proceedings that are believed to warrant dismissal. In the majority of cases, however, dismissal is not ordered even when the teachers is convicted of one or more of the six charges (see chart, below, and Appendix II for additional details on convictions and penalties).

43 Case no. 5051 (2005), p. 19, italics added 44 Case no. 5051 (2005), p. 20, italics added

PENALTY

CONVICTIONS Termination Suspension Fine None*

Type # # % # % # % # %

Incompetence 27 12 44% 12 44% 2 7% 1 4%

Absenteeism/Lateness 14 1 7% 8 57% 4 29% 1 7%

Corporal Punishment/ Verbal Abuse

Conduct Unbecoming the Profession 29 8 28% 12 41% 8 28% 1 3%

27 - 0% 18 67% 8 30% 1 4%

Sexual Misconduct 17 14 82% 2 12% 1 6% - 0%

Multiple Convictions (see Appendix II) 41 26 63% 11 27% 1 2% 3 7%

TOTAL 155 61 39% 63 41% 24 15% 7 5%

* Letter o f reprimand, s cho o l trans fer, o r no ne As this chart makes clear, a Hearing Officer’s determination that a teacher is “guilty” (that is, a finding that a teacher has in fact been consistently incompetent, excessively absent, verbally abusive, etc.) does not necessarily lead to dismissal. From July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2007, Hearing Officers returned 61% of such teachers to the classroom. For example, 56% of teachers found guilty of incompetent teaching were returned to the classroom. Ninety-three percent of the teachers found to be excessively absent were returned to the classroom. And 72% percent of the teachers found to have engaged in corporal punishment and/or verbal abuse were returned to the classroom. The cases presented below show how a Hearing Officer’s decision whether or not to send a teacher back to the classroom is based on a range of factors in addition to his substantive “findings of guilt.”