Arizona school law review: introduction  (Page 4/4)

And these changes are just a representative sample of the changes that have been made in 2009 through 2011.

The second major challenge that school administrators face is the increasingly hostile environment in litigation including personal risk of decertification and criminal penalties for failure to comply with new laws, as well as personal and corporate responsibility for damages from civil law suits.

The power to “decertify educators” is something that has only been used in modern times. The power of the Arizona State Board of Education to grant certificates was granted to them in the State Constitution. This power has always held within it the power to withdraw or revoke certificates; however, state statutes were remarkably quiet on this issue. In addition, State Boards were reluctant to invoke this power over teachers and administrators. The first recorded instance of withholding a certificate for “unprofessional” activity occurred in 1952. Although more cases were explored in the 1970’s, the 1979 state statutes granted the power to the Arizona State Board to discipline educators through the finding of "unprofessional behavior". Statutes specifically named as unprofessional behavior "any teacher who uses sectarian or denominational books or teaches any sectarian doctrine" (ARS 15-203) and teachers who "failed to comply with any provision of the duties of teachers" (ARS 15-208). In addition, the Legislature added a new section in 1979 that made it a criminal offense for "failure to report suspected child abuse." (ARS 13-3623) In spite of these additions, less than a dozen such cases were recorded in the 1970’s.

Specific information regarding the causes for certificate suspension or revocation became clearer after the passage of requirements for fingerprinting teachers and immoral behavior by teachers. Although statutes and rules were limited in defining unprofessional behavior, the State Board of Education’s record for de-certifications in the 1980’s showed 18 decertification findings for "breach of contract", 11 for sexual misconduct with students, 3 for fraud and 4 others disciplined for various other offenses, including use of drugs for the period 1980-1989.

In 1991 the standards for morality in education in Arizona underwent a major change. The legislature passed a new law, ARS 15-514, sparked by a notorious case of a “teacher of the year” in a large urban school district, who fell in love with his 14-year-old student and took her across state lines. This statute required all teachers who were newly certified to pass a fingerprint clearance check.

In 1994, as part of a State Board initiative, legislation in the form of ARS 15-534 was passed which required all certified personnel to notify the State Board of Education if they had reason to believe that any certified person had engaged in "immoral conduct" with an underage minor. The legislature also funded a staff position to investigate these allegations. In 1997, a further codicil was added which required administrators to notify the state board of education if they had any reason to believe that a certified individual had engaged in "immoral conduct" with a minor. Administrators were also required to do a thorough background check on any certified teacher hired.

Since the mandatory reporting requirements have been implemented and an investigator hired, the State Board of Education has seen a geometric rise in the number of teachers and administrators who have been disciplined for violations of these statutes. The State Board of Education has seen a significant increase in the total number of teachers disciplined during the decade of the 1990’s. There was a 60% overall rise in the total numbers of teachers disciplined; however, certain offenses have increased dramatically within this total. The number of

individuals disciplined for sexual misconduct has risen 180% in the 1990’s over the decade of the 1980’s. In just the last 5 years of the 1990's the number of teachers disciplined for sexual contact showed a tremendous increase: 42 of the 69 educators disciplined in the last 2 years of the 1990’s had been guilty of some form of sexual contact misconduct.

It is clear that school administrators need to be educated about these problems. In addition, administrators need to be educated about the correct entity to receive the reports. Protection of the children of Arizona should be all teachers’ and administrators’ primary concern. The leadership academy is a very good mechanism for helping to protect the children of Arizona.

The second issue that has compounded the risk for school administrators has been lawsuits that bring personal and corporate damage claims for failure to protect children. The most common form of litigation comes from students suing school districts and educators because they were injured at school. These suits are intended to prove “negligence” on the part of educators or school districts. In general educators are held to a higher standard of care when they are on the job than the typical worker. Courts expect that “reasonable and prudent” care is taken with the safety of students. When it is not, when injuries result, and when negligence on the part of the school or instructor is proven, then damages and penalties may be imposed by the courts. These cases are especially difficult to defend if the student has been harmed by a sexual assault from a teacher, staff member or student. One role of the Law and Leadership this text and the law and leadership academies conducted by Northern Arizona University and the Arizona Risk Retention Trust has been to educate school personnel to understand the laws and how to prevent these incidents from happening.