Should sex abuser get teaching license back?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I'm sure that's the intent. But as a practical matter, as a matter of the incentives this sets for other abusers, her license is being taken away because she told the truth.

And the incentive for other abusers if she does keep her license? "Yeah, abuse is no big deal as long as you own up to it... just be sure your victims stay silent for a good long time!"

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

(This throws me back on the statute of limitations, which I didn't want to rely on -- sigh.)

I'll accept your word that there is a statute of limitations for these types of offences in the States, but I'm dismayed by it.

There is no such protection for indictable offences here.

0 Replies

Good point, soz.

I also imagine that she realized that the truth was going to come out and it served her best to admit to "youthful mistakes" than to have a full blown investigation into her past.

0 Replies

Sozobe wrote:

And the incentive for other abusers if she does keep her license? "Yeah, abuse is no big deal as long as you own up to it... just be sure your victims stay silent for a good long time!"

No, that's not the incentive if she keeps her license, because the law had already let the teacher off the hook as far as the abuse was concerned. Given that she was already off the hook for the abuse, it was her eventual honesty alone that got her back onto the hook. It was her eventual honesty alone that the state set a disincentive against. The time to set a disincentive against the abuse itself was within the first couple of years after the abuse, before the statute of limitations struck.This time has passed.

Joeblow wrote:

I'll accept your word that there is a statute of limitations for these types of offences in the States, but I'm dismayed by it.

By all means, don't take my word for it. Take the article's word.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quite right, I missed that.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Therefore, although it had good reasons for doing so, it couldn't break the teacher's constitutional right to due process of the law.

If your argument is a technical one, you should make sure it's technically correct. I am not expert here, but I strongly suspect your argument is not technically correct and that revoking her license does not constitute a technical violation of her rights.

Quote:

If the alleged reason for your suspension is that you have committed a crime, then yes.

They are under no obligation to prove anything, this teaching "license" is really more like a BS degree and this license is not required to be a teacher by law. I can make a school tomorrow and hire anyone I want to teach. I am under no obligation to hire licensed teachers or even literate people.

These are voluntary standards, and the body that certifies the individuals has the legal right to reject individuals that do not meet their standards for professional conduct.

Quote:

It's even fine with me when schools don't hire her at all. My only beef is with the state revoking the license.

Why? There's no law that requires her to have this license to teach. The license is a program aimed at certifying more teachers to deal with a shortage of them. It is, in effect, vouching for the teachers as qualified educators. The terms of the license are clear, and the license can be denied for a variety of non-criminal reasons. The commission's mission is "To establish, uphold and enforce professional standards of excellence and communicate those standards to the public and educators for the benefit of Oregon’s students."

This teacher has admitted to a gross violation of professional standards, and they have every right to revoke their endorsement of her as an "excellent professional".

Quote:

You dismiss my approach to the subject as legalistic. Let me say a few words in favor of legalistic approaches, because they respect a crucial fact that you and most of the others are too happy to forget: We live in a civilized society, in a country of laws.

But as a legal argument this falls flat on its face. There is just no legal requirement that the board provide licenses to those who are not found guilty of a crime. The board has the legal right to revoke her license.

Quote:

It's that we want to live in a society with civil rights, and crap like that is a price worth paying for it.

What civil right of hers is being violated? It's certainly not the right to a livelihood without due course, because denying her a license does not preclude her from being a teacher unless the schools voluntarily follow her recommendations. The license is not required by law to practice her profession.

So if this is a legal argument, then what on earth is the legal basis for it?

Quote:

The analogy to this case is exact: I don't want child abusers to teach children. But I do want to live in a society that respects civil rights. Sure, this means that one teacher -- out of what, a million? -- gets away with abuse. I don't like that. But just as in the case of the Nazis, murderers and drug dealers who get away, I accept it as the price of a society that respects our rights.

What rights Thomas? The right to be certified as an "excellent professional" despite admitting to gross violations of ethics? This is just not a legal right by my understanding of the law so I am confused as to why you think there's a technical or legal argument against their decision, which is both technically and legally sound. How is this a legal, technical or rights argument when no technical or legal violation of her rights are involved?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

No, that's not the incentive if she keeps her license, because the law had already let the teacher off the hook as far as the abuse was concerned. Given that she was already off the hook for the abuse, it was her eventual honesty alone that got her back onto the hook.

No, it was the fact that she sexually abused her students. Whether or not she admitted to it her license could have been revoked. If the board believes she would not be a competent teacher they can fail to license her as they see fit.

These licensing programs are alternatives to academic certifications in order to recruit teachers and just because they are run by the state doesn't mean they are not merely a professional certification body that can reject who they see fit.

Quote:

The time to set a disincentive against the abuse itself was within the first couple of years after the abuse, before the statute of limitations struck.This time has passed.

The statute of limitations has absolutely nothing to do with the moral or legal arguments in this case as the statute of limitations does not seek to influence professional certification in any way.

If this is a legal argument, what law is it based on?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I can make a school tomorrow and hire anyone I want to teach. I am under no obligation to hire licensed teachers or even literate people.

[...]

The commission's mission is "To establish, uphold and enforce professional standards of excellence and communicate those standards to the public and educators for the benefit of Oregon’s students."

This teacher has admitted to a gross violation of professional standards, and they have every right to revoke their endorsement of her as an "excellent professional".

Aha! This argument persuades me, unlike the arguments of the correspondents before you. I had thought that a teacher's license works more like a driver's license. That you can't legally offer your services as a teacher unless you have that license.

If the license is an endorsement of her as an excellent professional, then I agree with you and take back my earlier position. Un-endorsing someone is very different from disciplining her, and the state does have the right to do that.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

These licensing programs are alternatives to academic certifications in order to recruit teachers and just because they are run by the state doesn't mean they are not merely a professional certification body that can reject who they see fit.

Is that common in the U.S.?

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Which part of it are you referring to? The teaching certificate in lieu of a degree in education? A state-run certification board? Or the part where they they reject the certification?

I guess it doesn't really matter, because I don't really know the answer either way (except the first one, which I believe is common).

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I have never heard of such a thing as a certificate in lieu of qualification...perhaps it is an American thing?

Thomas, I am mildly offended that you should think that I did not appreciate the importance of law...but then I thought it was easy to mis-interpret my use of "legalistic" and quite probably quite hard to interpret it correctly.

I meant that you were focussing only on criminal law and ignoring the legal rights of the licensing board.

I think you were also ignoring other things, but you have acknowledged Robert's argument, sop there's no need to argue anything else, I don't think.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I was asking about the certificate in lieu of a degree. Sounded odd.

0 Replies

Generally a four-year degree in education from an accredited college or university is required in order to be certified as a teacher in most, probably all, USA states/school districts. In New Mexico a teacher must have at least a bachelors degree in education with a requisite number of hours in any specialty, must pass an accreditation test in order to be accredited to teach--all public school require such accreditation--and then must take a requisite number of post graduate classes to keep his/her accreditation current.

The accreditation test is presumably to verify the teacher's skill levels in subject matter, etc. and is not seriously different than medical boards or bar exams though a couple of folks who have done both have told me the accreditation test is much easier.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

In New Mexico a teacher must have at least a bachelors degree in education...

I didn't think that was correct so I looked it up and confirmed that it isn't.

See here: http://www.teachnm.org/become_a_teacher.html

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

# No college degree?
One way to earn a license is to complete a bachelor's degree in an approved teacher preparation program.

# Bachelor's degree or higher but no teacher prep?
If you already have a bachelor's degree or higher, you can earn your license through a post-baccalaureate licensure program or by preparing a portfolio and teach now on an intern license.

# Licensed elsewhere?
If you have a teaching license from another state or another country, you can teach apply for a NM teaching license under reciprocity and teach now.

# In a trade or vocation?
Obtain a New Mexico teaching license and find a position.

# T2T Program for Bachelor's or higher with experience
If you have your bachelors, or higher, and have experiences you believe have prepared you to be an effective teacher, you may earn your NM teaching license through the New Mexico Statewide Transistion to Teaching Program (T2T).

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

I have never heard of such a thing as a certificate in lieu of qualification...perhaps it is an American thing?'t think.

it could be a grandfathering of qualifications, in canada when my mom started teaching you left high school, took two years teachers college and then got you teaching certificate, later they decide you needed a university degree and teachers college, they granfathered everybody in, older teachers that chose to get university degrees earned more money

1 Reply

Okay, you can get your bachelor's degree in something else and then take the requisite education courses as post graduate work. Being one with relatives with careers in the system and having worked in the system myself a bit on a very temporary basis, it is almost never done that way here, but I stand corrected that it is a possibility. Nobody gets certified in New Mexico without at least a bachelor's degree however. There are some vocational schools with more relaxed requirements but even those are becoming very rare.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

In grandfathering, though, one has a qualification that was once acceptable, but is now superseded, or one has been doing the job for years.

What Robert is describing sounds more like they are desperate for teachers, and are making it very easy for people to be licensed.

The powers of the licensing board sound very narrow, though.

Here, if you are not licensed, you may not work for any organisation. Well, technically, I only have to QUALIFY for affiliation to my professional body, and they set the bench marks for that...but I don't have to actually join.

Here, legally a teacher, psychologist, doctor, social worker, OT, physio, nurse etc. may not be employed if they are not in good standing with their professional body...and legally we can be bumped with way less evidence than would be required in criminal court...though, of course, we may challenge the decision in court.

You could likely still set up a shingle in private practice, but, if you tried to advertise yourself as whatever profession you have been bumped from, you'd be prosecuted.

And quite rightly so, the bumping I mean.

You know that going in to such work, and I think the possible protection of the public is worth some infringement of normal legal rights.

Of course, no system is perfect, and I have seen innocent people be very stressed by the system when a nutty or vicious client makes false accusations, or the boards let personal agenda cloud their judgment...but I bet way more bad stuff goes down than good stuff gets unfairly judged...especially, in my experience, for doctors.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Thomas, I am mildly offended that you should think that I did not appreciate the importance of law...but then I thought it was easy to mis-interpret my use of "legalistic" and quite probably quite hard to interpret it correctly.

Well, I didn't mean to suggest you're an anarchist or a nihilist. And I most certainly didn't mean to offend you, even mildly. I guess that when I'm on a roll, the rhetoric I get into can also be hard to interpret correctly. I suggest we're even. Smile

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It was more the law versus hysteria thing, actually, rather than law vs a thought out, if badly, political/philosophical system.

2 Replies

Should sex abuser get teaching license back?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know