Continued ...
During the 1960s a survey of state laws showed, not surprisingly, that the two almost universal grounds for dismissing a tenured public school teacher were "incompetence" and "immorality." I was intrigued to learn that in one western state the grounds for dismissal were "incompetence" and "gross immorality." Apparently, in that state, mere run-of-the-mill immorality was condoned. For teacher dismissal, really rock-solid immorality was requisite.
Things have changed since the 1960s when the NEA and its affiliate organizations began to press for greater teacher rights.
While none of these rights are unqualified, association activity over the past several decades has resulted in significant changes in and expansion of teachers' rights.
Courts have held in NEA/UEA-funded cases or cases supported by NEA that teachers have the constitutional rights of citizens! In one case, the local board of education was surprised to learn that teachers had the right to speak in public about matters of public concern including educational issues. In another case, the school board found that teacher can join and participate in professional associations without being fired. In other cases local school boards found that women teachers can be pregnant and keep their jobs, that teachers have rights of privacy, that teachers cannot be fired because somebody does not like what they do in their own homes, on vacation, or that they have outside employment which some member of the school board doesn't like. Principals have found that they cannot fire teachers merely because he wants somebody else teaching in his school. The Utah legislature has enacted laws requiring school districts to show teachers their files when requested by the teacher, to require districts to show "good cause" before firing a permanent teacher, and to prohibit districts from imposing residence as a condition of employment.
In one case, the court held that conviction of the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a valid driver's license did not constitute immorality, unfitness to teach, or incompetence absent a showing that the crimes significantly impaired the teacher's ability to perform his teaching duties.
A teacher's criticism of the school board is constitutionally protected as long as the speech does not result in an impairment or discipline, or materially interfere with school activities. Continue >>