text:
Recommendations of the
Board of Education Focus Group
to Address the Problem of
Teacher Misconduct Toward Students
December 2000
Improving the safety of school children:
improving teacher conduct toward students
Recommendations of the
Board of Education Focus Group
to Address the Problem of
Teacher Misconduct Toward Students
A Report
Prepared for the
State of Arizona
Board of Education
December 2000
Dedicated to the children of Arizona ...
with thoughts of all children everywhere.
Fore word
The Arizona Board of Education has identified the sexual misconduct of teachers
with students as a significant threat to the safety of Arizona's school children.
Although the vast majority of teachers obviously are trustworthy, there have
been others whose licentious conduct with young students has violated the
trust and honor of their positions.
The Board's lnvestigative Unit explored the problem in enlightening detail. The
Unit's findings shocked the sensitivities and served as a catalyst for the
appointment of a Special Focus Group to examine the issue and present
recommended solutions to the Board. In its efforts, the Group
A catalyst for
convening the necessarily trudged through data replete with sordid examples
Efoci.!s group. lof repu lsive behavior. Throughout the difficult discussions,
however, there remained an unforgettable and stirring
realization that the numbers on the charts represented children - young boys
and girls who were tragic victims of the self-centered and self-indulgent excesses
of predatory teachers.
This report, with its outline of discreet improvements in current policies and
practices, can serve as a useful blueprint for initial actions designed to halt the
incipient growth of sexual misconduct cases and, coactively, reduce the number
of child victims. The initiative now resides with the Board, administrators and
teachers, and other governmental departments acting as cohorts in a continuous
and collaborative effort.
Working with the Board staff - the Office of the Executive Director and the
lnvestigative Unit - has provided a stimulating association with consummate
professionals in a governmental organization moving on its own
Profess'ona's volition with remarkable resolve, focus and commitment. Action
pursumy the
~nifiafive. 1now can make a difference for Arizona's children - a difference
in treatment by teachers and a difference in the safety and
wholesomeness of their educational experience.
fl Lanny Standridge
The issire of teacher miscor?dt~~Tth.e oppoifrmrfy fst- coi/:jDorative action.
Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................... 111
Foreword ........................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 1
The Report Proper ............................................................................................. 10
Preview. .................................................................................................... II
Introduction ............................................................................................... 12
Purposes of the Report ........................................................................... 13
Scope of the Report ................................................................................. 14
Background .......................................................................................... 14
The Problem .......................................................................................... 15
Analysis .................................................................................................... 16
Sources of the Problem ........................................................................... 25
Teacher Screening ......................................................................... 25
Teacher Training .......................................................................... 28
Teacher Accountability .................................................................. .29
Recommendations of the Focus Group .................................................... 33
Teacher Screening - Discussion .................................................... 34
Teacher Training - Discussion ....................................................... 40
Teacher Accountability - Discussion .............................................. 43
Conclusion ................................................................................................ 52
Focus Group Members .................................................................................. 53
Key Staff Directory ............................................................................................ 5 4
Organizational Chart ........................................................................................... 55
Code of Conduct (proposed) ............................................................................. 56
Environmental Scan ........................................................................................... 57
Annotated Bibliography ..................................................................................... 61
List of Charts
Chart 1: Cases Opened by The Investigative Unit .................................... 2 and 16
Chart 2: Disciplinary Actions by the Board by Type Offenses
1995 - 1999 ............................................................................... .3 and 18
Chart 3: Sex Offenders by Type Certification ..................................................... 19
Chart 4: Distribution of Sexual Offenses by Area ............................................... 20
Chart 5: Sexual Offenses: Comparison of Cases Involving Physical
Contact and Other Sexual Misconduct 1995 - 1999 ................. 4 and 22
Chart 6: Sources of Reports to the Board .......................................................... 23
Other Pertinent Facts
Types of Sexual Offenses ..................................................................................... 4
Number of Victims Per Teacher .......................................................................... 17
Incidents Occurring Away from School ............................................................... 17
Sexual Cases Involving Physical Contact .......................................................... 19
Sexual Cases Not Involving Physical Contact .................................................... 19
Most Likely Threat to Children at School ............................................................ 21
Gender of Teacher Sex Offenders .......................................................... 5 and 22
Number of New Applications for Certificates ...................................................... 26
Percentage of Teacher Sex Offenders Not Held Accountable ............................ 29
Number of Public Schools and School Sites ....................................................... 30
Case Summaries
Malcolm McKerry .............................................................................................. 7
Walter Talley .......................................................................................................... 8
Kevin Steward ...................................................................................................... 8
Richard Catt ..................................................................................................... 27
Shari Boulanger .................................................................................................. 29
Joseph Insera ...................................................................................................... 31
Recommendations of the
Board of Education Focus Group
to address the Problem of
Teacher Misconduct Toward Students
Improving the safety of school children:
Improving teacher conduct toward students
A Report on
Recommendations of the Board of Education Special Focus Group
to Address the Problem of Teacher Misconduct Toward Students
December 2000
ntroduction. Since its establishment in 1995, the Investigative Unit of the
Arizona State Board of Education has identified teacher misconduct as an
ascendant threat to the educational environment and to the safety and well-being
of Arizona's school children. To fulfill its responsibilities in this regard,
the Board convened a Special Focus Group in late October 2000 to examine
the problem and assist in efforts to improve conditions for all students in the
State. This summary focuses primarily on the sexual victimization of students,
and outlines the most significant and central recommendations the Focus Group
presented to the Board to address the problem.
A Perspective. The criminal on the street seeks to exploit a situation
and take advantage of the unwary. The teacher or staff employee
who abuses children is also exploitative and predatory. The difference
between the situation on the street and students in school is the naivete
and vulnerability of children. Further, even in prisons housing violent and
morally bankrupt inmates, the incarcerated child molester is often targeted
for reprisals by other prisoners. This reaction on the part of convicted
criminals shows a surprising rejection of those who prey upon the young.
The Board's position is unequivocal: One child victim is too many. One
predatory teacher also is too many, and like the growing
number of unwary children who have been victims, the is one child
number of predatory teachers also is increasing. The sad
but harsh reality is that there are too many children who
unsuitable for the trust and honor of their position.
have been hapless victims, and there are too many teachers who are morally
The Board has fixed its resolve to address the issues of child sexual abuse at
the hands of perverted teachers, and to raise the level of security for over
960,000 Arizona school children, K-12. The desired goal is to reach a level of
"zero" victimized children. Whether that can be achieved is open to debate,
but the philosophy and resolve of the Board is not. All children deserve a
quality of life free of sexual molestation, and not one child is to be willingly
forfeited as an unavoidable statistic.
T he Problem. The lnvestigative Unit (IU) reviewed 370 cases on file
1: with the Board in an effort to identify the scope and character of the
problem, and to ascertain trends that might suggest a priority for solutions.
The chart below reflects the total number of cases opened by the IU for
each of the last five years:
Chart 1
Cases Opened by the lnvestigative Unit
1995 - 1999
When combined with a historical note, Chart 1 presents a telling statistic.
In 1994, the year before the lnvestigative Unit was established
with one investigator, the best estimate presented to
the State Legislature predicted that by the year 2000,
there might be a total of 30 cases on file with the Board.
As the chart reflects for 1995 alone, there were already
46 cases - 53 percent more than the number originally estimated for the
entire 5-year period. Further, as the data indicate, the number of cases
increased by slightly over 240 percent during the succeeding four years.
To better glean the scope of the problem in Arizona, the Investigative Unit
conducted a special analysis of cases between
1995 and 1999 involving sexual misconduct of
teachers with students. Two results, in
particular, were startling. First, of a total of 50
cases examined, only 15 (30 percent) had been
reported to the Board. More analysis of the
unreported cases will be presented later in this
summary. Second, teachers were discovered
to have victimized at least 2.5 to four children.
On this basis, the Investigations Unit estimated conservatively that instead
of 50 victims, as the number of cases might imply, teachers had sexually
abused at least between 125 and 200 children total, a stunning and
substantially larger number than the raw data first indicated.
Seventy percent of cases
were previously
Forty-six percent of cases
away from school.
Chart 2
Disciplinary Actions by the Board
By Types of Offenses
1995 - 1999
Sexual Assault ' substance' Fraud ' Theft Breach of
(non- Abuse Contract
Cases referred to the Board reflected a variety of teacher misconduct ranging
from theft of property to sexual offenses involving children. Chart 2 (above)
indicates the record of disciplinary actions taken by the Board.
Almost two ouf of
three sexual
misconduct cases
involved physical
Although there has been a significant number of non-sexual cases of
misconduct resulting in Board action (38), the fact that
sexual misconduct represented almost two-thirds of the total
incidents is both startling and revolting. Of the 71 sexual
cases addressed through disciplinary action, there were 50
that involved some type of actual physical contact. The
remaining 21 incidents involved, for example, exchange of
explicit letters and e-mail, pornography, lewdness, sexual
harassment and other types of inappropriate or untoward conduct not
involving physical contact.
Since 1995, the number of sexual offenses involving both physical contact and
other forms of sexual misconduct has varied somewhat each year. Chart 5
displays the types of cases for each year of the 5-year review.
Chart 5
Sexual Offenses: Comparison of Cases Involving
Physical Contact and Other Sexual Misconduct
1995 - 1999
H Physical Contact H Other
Types of Touching Lewdtiess Harassment Pornography Relationships
Sexual Offenses - 50 10 5 3 3
Although there are fluctuations in the number of cases each year, the data tend
to indicate a fairly significant rise in sexual offenses during the last two years of
the period. While the Board was unable to identify a cause for the increases, it
was reasonable to assume that as the Investigative Unit, newly formed in 1995,
began to network with districts and provide information and advice, administrators
began to report allegations to the Board. There is no basis to conclude that the
growth in cases recorded for 1998 and 1999 represents an
increase in the actual number of instances involving sexual
were female. misconduct with children.
D a iscussion of the Problem. A review of cases revealed that the
most obvious problems related to the sexual misconduct of teachers
generally could be traced to shortcomings in three broad areas pertaining
to professional processes, policies or practices. They are: 1) Teacher
screening, 2) Teacher training, and 3) Teacher accountability.
Teacher Screening. Teacher screening at the time of initial hiring or
recertification represents the first step in preventing teacher misconduct. In
this regard, a distinction must be made between the determination of suitability
and the verification of qualifications. For purposes of this report, qualifications
refer to various professional credentials such as academic degrees and
disciplines, grade point averages, special training and professional certifications
and licenses, or other skills and experience that are prerequisites for the position.
Suitability, in contrast, relates to issues of character and background, and
in particular, those elements in the individual's personal and professional
record that point to honesty, morality, wholesomeness,
ethics, good judgment, ~ ~ rsuaitrab ~ilfy
is a nsust. rlper sonal responsibility, level
temperament, social skills and an ability to interact
appropriately with others of all ages and under all circumstances. The
background investigation, a deceptively important element in the screening of
applicants, offers the key to successful selection of those who would be role
models for impressionable children entrusted to their care and education.
The challenge related to adequate screening of prospective teachers resides
with the conduct of adequate background investigations. The large number of
teachers - regular, part-time, substitute and emergency substitute - and their
ease of mobility presents administrators with a special responsibility to insure
against the likelihood of professional misconduct in the future.
Since 1990, the State Board of Education has conducted limited screening
of individuals applying for State certification. The large number of applicants
and the inherent constraints to conducting thorough reference checks have
limited the depth of background investigations that have been routinely
conducted. Further, throughout the State, there are non-standard hiring
processes, background investigations, and related forms and records. Many
other states also experience the same challenges in conducting thorough
background checks and, as a result, the practice of reciprocity here in
Arizona could subject schools to the possibility of infusing another state's
unsuitable teachers into its classrooms.
Teacher Traininq. The function of training is of primary importance to the
development of a corps of professional teachers and is the cornerstone of
a system of personal accountability. For purposes of this report, training
refers to teaching or instruction designed to assure knowledge of, and
compliance with, applicable laws, policies and procedures, and the
standards of conduct for teachers. While considerable attention is given to
the education of teachers, particularly in the area of academic development,
the unfolding problem with teacher misconduct toward students signifies a
need to reinforce the importance and standards of decorum with children.
Research suggests the need to reinforce or implement instruction in ethics;
professionalism; proper conduct with, and around, students; positive image
and functions as a role model; civil rights; personal and institutional liability
issues; code of conduct; and possible sanctions for
misconduct. The cases on file with the Investigative Train to the standards.
Unit show that, in too many cases, teachers and r administrators apparently are ignorant of standards related to personal
conduct with students, and of the appropriate actions necessary in response
to an allegation of misconduct.
Teacher Accountabilitv. For some, the prospect of being held accountable
is necessary to bind the individual to a moral obligation and to encourage,
or even force, compliance with rules. For others, self-discipline combined
with a high moral code and lofty personal standards are all that are needed.
With regard to teacher conduct, a system of accountability applied equally
to all is necessary to protect the standards of the profession from becoming
ineffective and to maintain the trust and confidence not only of students but
also parents who rely on teachers to protect their children while at school.
- good or bad - is the
responsibility of the individual.
The fact is that in 70 percent of the sexual
misconduct cases examined, teachers had not
been held accountable and the question had not been resolved by school
administrators. These teachers, even though under a cloud of dark suspicion,
resigned without evidence of having been investigated and were subsequently
hired by other schools that were unaware of the allegations. Without having
been held accountable - at a minimum, to resolve the question of misconduct
- the opportunistic teachers were able to migrate to other venues where they
could resume sexual misconduct with children. This ease with which they were
able to move within the Arizona school system is frightening for it means that
statistically these 35 teachers had molested between 87 and 140 children.
s-um*mar y of Key Recommendations. All recommendations of the " Focus Group reflect an incisive grasp of the problem. They also
possess the potential to assist in reducing teacher misconduct toward
students. All are important. However, since there are practical constraints
to implementing all proposals at once, some carry particular relevance for
present or near-term applicability because of short lead-time, low cost, and
relative simplicity in implementation, or the likelihood of strong, immediate
impact on the problem. The recommendations listed below, in addition to
those that are supplementary in nature, are categorized by their applicability
to teacher screening, training or accountability.
Teacher Screening.
Safety Certificate. Issue to all public school teachers a safety certificate
based upon a limited background investigation consisting of a fingerprint
card check and a favorable report from NASDTEC.
Specialty Status for the Board's Investigative Unit (IU). Designate the
IU as a specialty law enforcement agency with limited powers of arrest
and the ability to network with other police agencies for information and
Background Investigation of All Applicants for
Certification. Conduct thorough background escorted a 15-year old
suitabilitv in terms of moral conduct and I st?epassedout. Shelater I
checks of applicants using standardized forms
and procedures.
Screen Teacher Applicants. Identify and
evaluate background elements that indicate
intoxicated girl to a
where she slept the night.
In 1998, while working at a
different he sewed
alcohol to anofhergirl until
include language to inform applicants of McKerry held an
automatic disqualifiers and to provide Emergency Substitute
Allow Applicants to Disqualify Themselves.
Modify application and background forms to
awoke to discover ihat he
was performing oral sex.
The Board fried a
aaainsf him in 1999.
information pertaining to the thoroughness of impending background
Revise Application Forms. Require full disclosure of all civil or criminal
citations or arrests, and the status of cases regardless of disposition, i.e.
dismissal, plea agreement, reduced charge, negotiated settlement or
Incorporate Full Use of NASDTEC. Complete a successful query of the
database prior to approving a request for certification.
Screen Teachers Involved with the AIA. Require each certified teacher,
coach, official, staff member or manager involved with students through the
AIA to obtain, as a minimum, a Safety Certificate.
Teacher Traininq.
Include Ethics as Part of In-Service Training. Require a minimum amount
of training periodically in ethics and the code of conduct.
Prepare a Tri-Fold Brochure for Distribution. Use the medium of print to
distribute training notices and subject-matter information.
Use Training Videos. Provide useful
applicable to the problem include code of
conduct, the trust contract with children, pornography. Taiiey
reporting responsibilities, policies and laws Education Certificate.
related to breaches of good conduct.
instructional modules in video format to assure
standardized instruction and achievement of
important training objectives.
Provide Awareness Training. Specify topics to
be included in the professional curriculum at
teacher training institutions. Subjects most
Kevin Steward, who held
an Elementary Teaching
Certificate, was convicted
of four counts of Sexual
Conducf with a Minor, one
count of Attempted Moles-tation
of a Child, and one
count of Sexual Conducf
with a Minor.
Walter Talley traveled to
two 13-year
old students. The
circumstances were
inappropriate, at a
minimum, and he was
discovered to have useda
Teacher Accountabilitv.
Expand the Scope of Mandatory Reporting Requirements. In addition to
the reportable crimes already listed in statute, require schools to report
to the board all allegations and suspicions of
misconduct as contained in an expanded list of
infractions to be developed.
Report All Allegations Based on Reasonable
Suspicion. Require the early reporting to the
Board of all allegations that meet the criteria of
"reasonable suspicion," to be defined in the
rules changes upon adoption of the
Impose Penalties for Failure to Report Misconduct. Develop sanctions
to be applied in those cases where responsible professionals fail to report
teacher misconduct toward students.
Develop a Code of Conduct. Implement a stringent code that clearly
articulates a high standard for teachers with regard to their interaction
with students.
Organize a State-Wide Inter-District Agreement to Refrain from "Passing
the Trash." Galvanize Arizona school districts to participate in a coalition
to eliminate the practice of allowing teachers, guilty or suspected of
misconduct, to resign or transfer without notifying the Board.
Adjunct Recommendations. Although the majority of the recommendations
pertained to policy or process shortcomings in the areas of teacher
screening, training or accountability, the Focus Group also proposed other
actions that either were closely related to these core issues or would enable
the Board to provide a higher level of service to Arizona schools, children
and parents. Those with the greatest potential for rapid implementation
are presented below:
Make lnformation Available to Parents On Line. Expand the current Board
web site to include a link to information resources that would be especially
useful to parents.
Develop a Public lnformation Plan. Prepare an information strategy
designed to minimize the tendency for some media to sensationalize or
exaggerate the problem of teacher misconduct and to build understanding
and support for the Board's efforts.
Review Funding Requirements. Identify requirements for immediate and
long-term resourcing of the Board's overall plan to address the problem.
ce - , losing. Obviously, inaction or inadequate action is not a viable option.
Continuing with the status quo would leave in place essentially the
same circumstances that allowed the problem to develop in the first place.
The resolve to act involves an acceptance of change -a change in policies,
procedures and practices. There will be a cost also to making necessary
changes - a cost in terms of time, effort and funding. However, without
change, there will be a higher cost than time and dollars. That cost will be
borne by children.
An issue of teacher misconduct toward children at school: A call to action.
),nprc,\/jfi,q the safety r j f scl~cttsci :d?iIdr<?ij.
l. * .
/n?pn:>vl/:fe,ga chci' z;nt;dr.ici c.?isqja?.I* ,,J$ ,,..+z* i~* ,.i rlicnl~
Recommendations of the Board of Education Special Focus
Group to Address the Problem of Teacher Misconduct
Toward Students
A repoft oil the fist f~jnc~i~tnet-srtfeapl s to adcjress teachers' sexual miscor?drrct
toward studeilts and improve the safety of Arizona children.
Report Preview
This document provides an overview of the problem associated with teacher
sexual misconduct toward students. It includes data, analysis, perspective and
professional commentary. The history of the problem is chronicled for the past
five years and includes disturbing revelations of some teachers with no moral
bearing whatsoever.
The report presents an overview of a relatively large number of cases involving
contemptible teachers who had violated their students, and the trust of parents,
not to mention the disrepute brought to the profession itself. As reflected in
these pages, there has been a steady growth in reported
incidents the last few years, a statistic that is both appalling
and alarming to the Board. As this report will connote, the
increase is alarming because the number of child-victims is nim76er of
disproportionately larger than the number of cases; it is also cases
appalling because of the moral and intellectual degradation of
children at the hands of teachers - an almost incomprehensible concept for
the moral person who views teaching as an honor and teachers as honorable.
This document frames the problem and illustrates the depth of thought already
brought to the issues. It also traces the evolution of the Board's
attempts to coalesce efforts designed to improve the safety of
Arizona's school children. The most recent and significant action involved
convening the Special Focus Group to examine the patterns of educator
misconduct and present recommendations to the State Board of Education.
This report is designed to present an accurate picture of the problem as it is
unfolding today, and to move collaborative effort from the discourse of yesterday
During the mid-1990s, the Board of Education discovered a developing problem
related to teacher misconduct with students. Although there had been relatively
few allegations reported in 1995, the Board found later that the problem had
been in its incipient stage at the time. By the year 2000, with five year's data
available to examine, it was apparent that the problem was more extensive
than originally perceived. The Board's lnvestigative Unit (IU), established in
1995 when the issue first raised concerns, recently examined reported cases
and determined that there were far more teachers involved in
sexual misconduct with students than anyone would have
anticipated. In addition, the IU's analysis also revealed that
more students had been the victims of unscrupulous and
predatory teachers than case files would indicate.
to the action of tomorrow.
The issue strikes sharply and deeply at the very heart of the
teaching profession. Such serious misconduct by one teacher
casts a dark reflection on all other honorable teachers who
represent the epitome of decency and trustworthiness. The haunting images of
students victimized by their teachers elevate the senses and raise questions
about the standing of the profession in terms of duty, honor, and, perhaps most
important, adherence to the moral obligation to safeguard the children left in a
teacher's care. For these reasons, the State Board of Education has begun an
ambitious course of action to address the problem and improve the safety of
children in Arizona schools.
Po move fr~xnd iscussion to action.
A far-reaching
urtde!tnkiug to
injprove the
safety of
ch/lCIret? by
teacher condiict
wit/) studenis.
Since the establishment of the Board's Investigative Unit in 1995, evidence of
the victimization of children has continued to mount until it is now considered a
significant threat to the school environment as well as to the safety of Arizona's
school children. In recognition of its statutory responsibilities, the Board
convened a special focus group in late October 2000 to examine the problem
and assist in efforts to improve conditions for all students in the State. The
theme established for this initiative alludes to both the purpose of the focus
group and to the specific problem under consideration. Simply, it was: lmproving
the Safety of School Children: lmproving Teacher Conduct Toward Students.
As the magnitude of the problem unfolded, the Board identified a number of
possible remedial steps. However, the data resulting from further study
suggested that the problem was more imbedded and significant
t/7f1 E ,,; than first appeared on the surface. Therefore, since several
areas of our educational system were involved, it became
obvious that steps to identify solutions must involve a coalition
of responsible and informed leaders, and include recommended
actions that represented the best thinking on the subject.
The focus group consisted of 12 distinguished and knowledgeable professionals
representing the Department of Education, academe, State government, law
enforcement and the judiciary. Members of the Board staff were available to
collaborate with the group and to discuss jointly both the problem and possible
solutions. The extraordinary work of the focus group, its intellectual reach and
its ability to grasp the problem in its deeper significance yielded a list of incisive
recommendations to the Board for consideration in its action plan to engage the
Purposes of the Report
The primary purpose of this report is to outline the recommendations of the
Special Focus Group convened by the Arizona State Board of Education to
address the problem of teacher misconduct toward students.
While there are other administrative challenges associated
with employee breaches of law and policy - for example,
theft, fraud, and breach of contract - this report will present the history and
nature of the problem, and focus on the work of the Focus Group as they pertain
to the sexual misconduct of teachers.
The report examines the Group's recommendations for
improvements in current policies, procedures and practices.
It also includes the results of an examination of case files,
and dialogue with district and school administrators. These
efforts revealed shortcomings in three functional areas: 1)
Teacher screeninq - the procedures employed to determine the moral
suitability of candidates to hold a position of such great trust and confidence,
2) Teacher traininq - steps in place to acquaint certified teachers and
teachers-in-training with the responsibilities and standards applicable to the
profession in Arizona; and 3) Teacher accountability - procedures and
practices to resolve questions of propriety and to hold teachers accountable
for acts of misconduct. The recommendations of the Focus Group generally
relate to these categories.
Another purpose of this report is to serve as a catalyst for
meaningful future action by combining the history and co//aborat;ve
description of the problem with appropriate analysis. Although actions.
the misconduct of teachers has been an insidious problem for E l some time, the data developed recently indicate that abuse of school children is
surprisingly pervasive. When made aware of the nature and extent of the
problem, members of the Focus Group and the Board were understandably
moved by the impact on school children. The need now is to capitalize upon the
work accomplished so far, and build an inexorable momentum for changes in
the educational environment that will make a substantive difference in the lives
of Arizona's children. Hopefully, this report will be a stimulus for the process.
Scope of the Report
This report pertains only to the problem of teacher sexual misconduct with school
children on and off the institution's premises. It includes recommendations of a
Special Focus Group convened by the Arizona Board of Education to examine
the problem, engage in collaborative discussions, and develop recommended
actions to address the issues.
While there are other significant dangers to the safety of students
analys~s. ri in school, this document reports on the status of efforts, begun
modestly in 1995, to address what was then a relatively small
perspective. number of reports alleging teacher sexual misconduct with
students. In addition to providing a framework for mapping a course
of action for the future, this report also includes a review of the scope and nature
of the problem, and its history; various analyses; discussions of significant topics;
tentative answers to implicit questions; views from a management perspective,
and general information to promote an understanding of the issues.
In reviewing the record of reported teacher misconduct
toward students in public schools, the Investigative Unit of incidents or a
the State Board of Education discovered a sizeable and
growing number of cases involving sexual misconduct of
teachers with students. Even though there had been instances when the media
publicized individual cases, the problem apparently was not considered endemic,
nor did it remain for long in the forefront of public thinking. Except for a relatively
few individuals, exposure to the statistics presented something of a surprise
and, invariably, a question arose with regard to the underlying significance of
the data. "Did the increase in reported cases of child abuse each year indicate
actual growth in the number of victims or is the phenomenon merely a reflection
of recent records keeping?"
Whether the data relates to an actual increase in victimization of children during
the last five years or is simply a matter of uncovering a concealed and on-going
problem is indeterminate. From a practical standpoint, the question is moot.
The facts are that children have been the victims of teachers' predatory sexual
misconduct, the reporting of abuses has increased, and the Board now is acutely
aware of the problem. It would be safe to assume also that more cases will
become apparent as reporting improves and the lnvestigative Unit continues
its proactive efforts. In reality, teacher misconduct is a pernicious and pervasive
problem, and the Board has committed its resources to confront the issues
directly not only because of its statutory responsibility but also because of its
moral obligation to the children of this state.
The Problem
The Investigative Unit (I U) reviewed 370 cases on file
with the Board in an effort to identify the scope and
character of the problem, and to ascertain trends that might point to solutions.
The chart on the next page reflects the total number of cases opened by the IU
for each of the last five years.
estinlate of
30 cases to
an actuai
count of at
least 370.
History, with the hindsight that it offers, presents a perspective
that otherwise might be lost. In 1994, the year before the IU
was established with one investigator, the best estimate
presented in testimony before the State Legislature suggested
that by the year 2000, there might be a total of perhaps 30 cases
of all types referred to the Board. However, during the first year
of the IU's existence, there were 46 active cases, and as the data on the next
page indicates, the number has increased by slightly over 240 percent during
the succeeding four years.
Chart 1
Cases Opened by the Investigative Unit
1995 - 1999
The raw data presented in Chart 1, above, does not reflect
the full scope of the problem. There is a hidden element in
criminal statistics, related to many types of crimes, that
pertains essentially to a ratio between the reported number
of incidents and the actual number committed by the same occurred.
person. This will be referred to in this report as an incident
driver drove under the influence but was not arrested.)
multiplier factor (IMF). (For example, study results suggest that for each
DUI arrest, there were at least 20 other times on average when the same
There is an IMF that applies also to cases of sexual misconduct with children.
Simply stated, the existence of one act of sexual misconduct by a teacher
indicates with virtual certainty that the incident is not
isolated and that the individual has preyed upon other
children on previous occasions. Use of the IMF, therefore,
is crucial to determining the extent of the problem and
between reported
and actual victims.
preventing an underestimation of the impact on children and young students in
Arizona classrooms.
The Board sought unsuccessfully to find study data that identified an IMF
applicable to pedophilia, sexual abuse of children, or sexual misconduct
with minors. The problem is largely due to the lack of sufficient information
from victims. This can be attributed in part to the wide variance in victims'
ages (5-17 generally), different levels of maturity and judgment, and youthful
reluctance to complain or to accuse a teacher openly. There is also an
inherent disinclination for many children to report being
a victim because of embarrassment, guilt, shame or fear
in many forms to include fear of the teacher, a recognized
and sometimes imposing authority figure. What is known,
however, is that pedophiles rarely, if ever, prey upon only one victim in a
To better glean the scope of the problem in Arizona, the lnvestigative Unit
conducted a special analysis of case reports opened between 1995 and 1999
involving sexual misconduct of teachers with students. The results were startling.
Of a total of 50 cases reviewed, only 15 (30 percent)
were reported to the Board. Further, examination of all
cases revealed that teachers actually had victimized at least
2.5 to four children. (Note: The Incident Multiplier for
each case of sexual misconduct with students was
at least 2.5 to four victims.) After factoring this data into its
analysis, the Investigations Unit estimated conservatively that instead of just 15
victims, teachers actually had sexually abused at least 37 to 60 children total, a
substantially larger number than the 15 reported cases suggested on the surface.
During its examination of 50 sexual misconduct cases
in its files, the lnvestigative Unit discovered that 35 67 ici 749 ;:ictw?s
(70 percent) of the alleged sexual offenders had not
been reported but had been allowed to resign from employment at previous
school districts with at least the suspicion of either sexual misconduct or more
serious criminal acts. Using the IMF of 2.5 to four, the IU determined that these
teachers had victimized a total of between 87 and 140 children during their
employment history, a staggering toll on school children. In addition, the
blithe disregard of suspicions and the acceptance of resignations without
resolving the question of misconduct cast a dark
shadow on the professionalism and ethics in ozc:rr.ed away horn schooi.
effect at the time.
The human dimension associated with failed reporting, that is, "passing the
trash," produced painful human suffering. In counting the victims prior to
discovery of the teachers' disreputable past, the fact is there might have been
between 52 and 105 fewer children molested in Arizona if reports had been
made in each case at the first sign of suspicions. These 35 teachers collectively
had a history of alleged sexual offenses involving dozens of children, all the
while secure in their employment even though they were suspected of sexual
misconduct with students. The price paid by these children was unarguably
tragic and most likely avoidable.
between 125 and 200 child
children incurred a
tragic price.
On the surface, the numbers tarnish education's record of teacher accountability.
From a management perspective, they point to a patent lack of ethics and a
disturbing failure in responsible administration. In human terms, where the
impact clearly is most poignant, they represent lives that have been scared and
may take years to heal, if ever. This is the real impact of "passing the trash," of
allowing human rubbish to remain in the classrooms.
Chart 2, below, categorizes 109 disciplinary actions taken by the Board between
1995 and 1999.
Chart 2
Disciplinary Actions by the Board
By Types of Offenses
1995 - 1999
' Sexual ' Assault ' substance' Fraud ' Theft Breach of
(non- Abuse Contract
Over two out of three sexi~al Although there have been a significant number of
1cases involved touctling. non-sexual cas es of misconduct resulting in Board
action (38), the fact that sexual misconduct
represented almost two-thirds of the total incidents is both startling and
revolting. Of the 71 sexual cases addressed through Board disciplinary
action, there were 50 that involved some type of actual physical contact.
The remaining 21 incidents involved exchange of explicit letters, notes, e-mail,
pornography and other types of inappropriate or untoward conduct not
involving physical contact. The fact that 30 percent of the sexual cases did
not involve touching provides little relief from concern for the welfare of
students, or from the revulsion that attaches to an adult's aberrant behavior
with children.
There is no way to classify as harmless the effects of a teacher's propositions
or suggestive remarks to children. While the sexual escapades of some
pedophiles might never become more intense than letters
sexuaigfienses or comments, the exchanges with children could signify
an escalation toward more serious forms of perversion.
When noting the 21 cases of sexual misconduct not
Harnssrnenf involving touching, there is the lingering concern that the
Pornography teachers involved might be somewhere on a continuum
Relationslr;~, evolving toward more serious and harmful criminal acts.
Regardless of whether misconduct was more or less
aggressive, more or less obnoxious, or more or less perverted, all the
children nonetheless were victims as were all teachers who held the line on
a high moral code.
Chart 3
Sex Offenders
by Type Certification
H Secondary
The breakout of sexual offenders by type certification presented little surprise
to the Focus Group. Almost two out of three educators targeted older and more
physically mature students with more advanced social skills. One out of five,
however, targeted the very young, those who were least equipped to recognize
and defend against their teachers' monstrous perversity. As noted in Chart 3,
previous page, six percent of the sexual offenders, the lowest percentage group
indicated, were categorized as "other," referring to counselors and administrators.
On the surface, this relatively small statistic seems almost innocuous. However,
the true significance of this
smallest group is gleaned from the
realization that counselors and
administrators should embody the
epitome of principled conduct and function as the vanguard of protection for
students of all ages.
Adtninistrafors should be an exampie of pr/nc/pled
cor~ducta: vai-rguard ofp rotect~onf or sfudenfs.
Chart 4, below, indicates the locations of sexual offenders at the time the incident
was reported to the Investigations Unit.
Chart 4
Distribution of Sexual
Offenses by Area
The distribution of sexual offenders between urban and rural areas is generally
consistent with the population distribution and geographic areas involved. The
most significant statistic involves the third component of the chart - the category
labeled as "other." This refers to those teachers who were Arizona-certified but
were out of the State at the time the offense was reported. While there is some
uncertainty in the interpretation, there is some likelihood that the teachers
identified with this group were part of the mobile mix of sex offenders who
migrated from area to area and from school to school.
of teachers is the
most likely threat to
fhe safety of school
Although the possibility of violence involving weapons or explosives presents a
serious risk to students, it is the sexual misconduct of teachers - the insidious
predator from within - that presents the most like!y
threat to the safety and well- being of school children.
This is based on important elements of empirical
evidence; the volume and frequency of reported sexual
misconduct, in comparison with other threats that have
materialized; the fact that this type conduct with
students historically has been under-reported; and in each case of sexual
misconduct studied, there has been more than one victim. For these reasons,
the Focus Group engaged in collaborative discussions with the issue of a
teacher's sexual misconduct foremost in mind as it prepared recommendations
for the Board's consideration.
One chi!d victirn is too many. Throughout discussions of sexual misconduct with
students, there was unanimous agreement on two
points in particular: One child victim is too many, and one predatory teacher is
too many. The Focus Group was appalled at reports of victimized children
whose safety while in the presence of teachers should have been a given.
Invariably, the question arose, "Why did schools fail to report and investigate
allegations?" The reasons no doubt varied, but there are a number of factors
that could have contributed to the lack of reporting. Some of those outlined
below are based upon indications gleaned during the IU1s review of sexual
misconduct cases. A partial list includes:
Hesitation based upon the realization that a reported allegation might
linger to tarnish the individual's reputation, even if later proven to be
Outright disbelief in the claim;
Lack of objectivity when discussing the matter with the teacher;
Ignorance of requirement to report the allegation;
Lack of evidence accompanying the claim to prove
Tendency to protect employees especially those with
otherwise exemplary records;
Lack of knowledge in conducting a thorough and objective investigation;
No perceived need to report the allegation following a perfunctory
investigation that failed to corroborate the claim;
Concern over the employee's reaction to being confronted or reported;
A presumption, based upon the scarcity of facts at the time, that the case
was of less urgency than other issues dominating the daily agenda.
Since 1995, the number of sexual offenses involving both physical contact and
other forms of sexual misconduct has varied somewhat each year. Chart 5,
below, displays the types of cases for each year of the 5-year review.
Chart 5
Sexual Offenses: Comparison of Cases Involving
Physical Contact and Other Sexual Misconduct
1995 - 1999
I Physical Contact H Other I
Although there were fluctuations in the number of cases each year, the data
indicate a fairly significant rise in sexual offenses during the last two years of
the period. While the Board was unable to identify a cause for the increases, it
seemed reasonable to assume that as the Investigative Unit, newly formed in
1995, networked with districts and provided information and advice,
administrators began to report allegations to the Board.
There was no basis to conclude that the increase in cases recorded for the
2-year period between 1998 and 1999 represented a rise in the actual number
of sexual crimes against children. Instead, the data most likely reflects increased
awareness and reporting of incidents. It should be expected, however, that as
administrators become more sensitive to the problem through increased
communication and training, and as awareness improves through the proactive
initiatives of the Board, the number of reported sexual misconduct cases -with
a disproportionately larger number of child victims - will continue to increase.
Possible rcamls fot
~ncrensedr epr?:-ti~gli l
iYC88- lYS"
Other developments in the State also could have contributed to the increased
reporting. These are: Increased educator attention to
the problem as the result of widespread publicity of
sensational cases; media discovery and reporting of
cases through its own sources; parents who apparently
were not inclined to contact districts or schools and, instead, contacted the
Board directly; growth in educators' and parents' knowledge of procedures for
notification; coincidental notifications from police who were investigating
complaints; and increased compliance with legislation passed in 1994 that
mandated the reporting of cases to the Board beginning in 1995.
Chart 6
Sources of Reports to the Board
. O Parents
46% Media
'..'.. ," Other
Chart 6, above, outlines several sources of reports to the Board that are of
particular interest and generate several key questions. First, the percentage of
reports from NASDTEC and "other" sources appeared to be reasonable and,
therefore, did not generate particular discussion. Next, although
districts accounted for the largest percentage of reports (46%), the
number was less than half the total and raised a question pertaining
to information sources bypassing local administrators. Almost one
of every five reports was made to the Board by parents. In noting
this, some Focus Group members asked rhetorically why so many
parents, relatively speaking, were reporting to the Board direct
rather than communicating first with the local schools and districts.
As a source of reports, media inquiries provided the first information to the
Board in 14 percent of the cases. The Focus Group acknowledged that highly
competitive media often operate with an intricate network of information sources
that reach deep into community, government and education. Under
these circumstances, with their incessant search for the news,
journalists can be expected occasionally to scoop a story. However,
the percentage seemed high to the Focus Group.
Even the relatively large percentage of combined reports from the
police and "other" sources (12%) raised questions as to why local
schools and districts were not the first to notify the Board with initial
information. Some Focus Group members speculated that local
administrators had not been aware of the allegations and, therefore,
were not in a position to inform the Board. However, both the police and the
media customarily begin investigations first by contacting authoritative sources
closest to the incident.
In most cases, there should seldom be an occasion for sources outside the
school system to communicate directly with the Board because of its distance
organizationally and geographically from the incident. Although law
enforcement or media sources might f a i l to
include schools and districts in the chain of first
contacts, the omission most likely would be a
rarity. The fact remains that local authorities would
almost always have the greatest knowledge of the case and, therefore, would
be in the best position to comment officially and carry the message. More
likely than not, local media and police representatives are aware of this and
generally act accordingly.
Speculative answers to specific questions aside, there is no question that
improvements are needed in district reporting to the
Board. With the noted exceptions of NASDTEC and
perhaps "other" sources, the Focus Group agreed
that open and effective lines of communication
between parents and administrators would facilitate earlier reports to the
Board. By virtue of the relationship with their children, parents are potentially
the most critical and effective conduits, directly or indirectly, in the reporting
system regardless of whether the media or police are involved. This parent-school
channel of communication should be enhanced through an active and
open two-way dialogue and a consistent school response to the legitimate needs
of both students and parents.
Sources of the Problem
An analysis of cases revealed that the most obvious problems related to the
sexual misconduct of teachers generally could be traced to shortcomings in
three broad areas pertaining to professional processes, policies or practices.
They are: 1) Teacher screening, 2) Teacher training, and 3) Teacher
Teacher Screening. Careful screening of candidates at the time of initial hiring
or, in the case of employed teachers at time of recertification,
constitutes a crucial step in forestalling teacher misconduct. With
regard to the process of evaluating applicants for a teaching
position, a distinction must be made between the determination
of suitability and the verification of qualifications. For purposes
of this report, qualifications refer to various professional credentials
such as academic degrees and disciplines, grade point averages,
special training and professional certifications and licenses, or other skills and
experience that are prerequisites for the position.
Suitability, in contrast, relates to issues of character and background, and in
particular, those elements in the individual's personal and
professional records that point to honesty, morality,
wholesomeness, ethics, good judgment, personal
responsibility, level temperament, social skills and other qualities that connote
an ability to interact appropriately with others of all ages and under all
circumstances. The background investigation, a deceptively important element
in the screening of applicants, offers the key to successful selection of those
applicants who will act appropriately and dependably as role models for
impressionable children entrusted to their care and education.
The challenge to adequate screening of prospective teachers is
in the conduct of adequate background investigations. The large
number of teachers - regular, part-time, substitute and
emergency substitute - and their ease of mobility present
administrators with a uniquely special responsibility to identify risk factors related
to character and conduct. A favorable background should be the litmus test for
suitability, and should be sufficiently thorough to uncover obvious deficiencies
that might indicate a proclivity toward misconduct.
Since 1990, the State Board of Education has conducted
limited screening of individuals applying for State certification.
The large number of applicants and the inherent constraints
to conducting thorough reference checks have limited the
depth of background investigations that have been routinely
conducted. Further, throughout the State, there are non-standard
hiring processes, background investigations, and related forms
and records. Many other states also experience the same challenges in
conducting thorough background checks and, as a result, the practice of
reciprocity here could subject Arizona schools to the possibility of infusing
another state's unsuitable teachers into its classrooms.
Records reflect that since the policy of reciprocity was implemented in July 2000,
there have been 25 teachers transferred from out of state who are now teaching
in classrooms without a local background check. Therefore, in effect, this
suggests that what we know about the suitability of these teachers, who have
been granted State certification, is limited to what another state has inferred
that it knows. This proposition is not presented to impugn the character of
these teachers, but to point to the fact that carte blanche reciprocity could raise
questions regarding the acceptance of another state's assumed standards
without independent local background checks to verify the individual's
While there are approximately 50,000 individuals teaching in Arizona's 1,607
public schools or school sites, there are an additional 134,000
teachers certified but not teaching at present. Among the
estimated 184,000 teachers from both groups combined, those
who have undergone an adequate background investigation are
unknown. While there might be a degree of discomfort with an
inability to confirm the adequacy of background checks of all
teachers currently employed, it could become an inflamed issue
with parents and the public if a child was harmed and the teacher had not been
properly screened before hiring.
From a practical point of view, it would not be realistic to expect
now, with staffing currently authorized, to verify the screening
of all 184,000 State-certified teachers. There are
approximately 10,000-20,000 new applicants applying annually for State
certification. Efforts needed to assure thorough background checks to
determine suitability of these new applicants likely would prevent current
staff from conducting checks on current certificate holders except in
emergency circumstances.
In addition to the need for positive changes in procedures and standards
related to background investigations, the Board's lnvestigative Unit
determined other specific areas where improvements are needed to identify,
or remove from classrooms, those individuals whose presence raises
concern for the safety of children. The Focus Group addressed some, but
not all, of these issues in its recommendations to the Board. They are:
Assure timely distribution of information related to known sex offenders
either employed by schools or living in nearby neighborhoods.
lmprove the means for information sharing between schools, districts
and states to alert prospective hiring officials to
questionable professional and moral conduct of
Improve access by the Board's Investigation Unit
to information, available from law enforcement
agencies, that would contribute to investigations.
Obtain reports from courts regarding disposition
of adjudicated cases involving teachers, staff and
other school employees.
Develop procedures to adequately screen
individuals undergoing emergency certifications.
Improve background investigations of foreign
Establish guidelines for the conduct of
background investigations of both in-state and
out-of-state applicants.
Require both non-teaching and contract staff to
undergo a background investigation appropriate
in J d f l ~ l RI,9~9~7
~ < / ~ ! 9 2 rct jc 2wf;3 $
,WCL~SC:~n f sexual
f t ; i ; i 7 0 f i O i ! ~ f i / ~ r f / l
Sf3Lft?i -11 ;!l!df:rtf,s
z.* . J;)SW i , t - r f i / b
*rt,a,ilt ,ri !is$ &2cli.
' ~ : f x ~ " - t i ~ : d : ~ l' :?)::
t:p-tj 1 , .r-ste21
!:r t:kl/c/
f ~ + - ~ i - ~ i ~r3~ , + ?
j !- c2 .2q,e( 1 1 1 ~ 2 r j i
:t; t r < j ,~ J2C ~ b ~ r c
FF:~~~~(Y?tct II T<3btr
/:G! i", f c <if S:?YI:R!
, " 1 1 7 i i c S ~ ; ~ f j iQl ?)c>
: { ? t i f e t ~--:s:,xlA2/
< T ~ a ; i : - i ~ ~ si,-/ ~,d->3
l,,r~l <>I
for the position, level of supervision and access to students.
Establish the lnvestigative Unit as a specialty law enforcement agency.
Staff and fund the Board at a level consistent with current and future
Develop a list of automatic disqualifiers.
Phase out reciprocity.
Conduct modified screening of teachers applying for re-certification.
Provide training as needed in the conduct of background
Teacher Training. The function of training is of primary importance to the
development of a corps of professional teachers and is the cornerstone of a
system of personal accountability. For purposes of this report,
training refers to instruction designed to assure knowledge
of, and compliance, with the standards in effect for teacher
conduct. While considerable attention is given to the
education of teachers, particularly in the area of academic development, the
unfolding problem with teacher misconduct toward students signifies a need for
effective training to define and reinforce the importance and standards of proper
decorum and conduct with children in the classrooms.
An analysis of the problem points to the need to either implement or reinforce
instruction in ethics; professional decorum and conduct with, and around,
students; positive image and functions as a role model; personal and institutional
liability issues; code of conduct; and possible sanctions for misconduct. The
cases on file with the Investigative Unit show that, in too many cases, teachers
and administrators apparently are ignorant of standards related to personal
conduct with students, and of the appropriate actions necessary in response to
an allegation of misconduct.
While morality and ethics in individual character are the foundation of a
high standard of professional conduct, the existence of a clearly defined
code of conduct will reinforce the expectation of highly
principled day-to-day interaction with students. Policies cc!rd,ic! .;hock1
to train employees in the code and to hold them
accountable for personal misconduct toward students are
important components in improving the safety of school li-te,i l ~ ~ ( w?rtq!z
children. Once implemented, a consistent and
comprehensive training regimen should undermine a
high code of conduct for teachers.
defense of misconduct based upon ignorance of standards, and present a
clear record of the position of the Board, districts and schools regarding a
Although additional training requirements can
challenge the academic curricula or exceed
available on-the-job training hours, the function
is essential to the professionalization of teaching and the elevation of conduct
with students. It is clearly insurance against teacher ignorance of the
expectations, and a precaution against misconduct and abused children. Rather
than requiring additional hours in the classroom, training might be accomplished
effectively with innovative methods of instruction or integration into existing
instructional modules. With this in mind, the State Board of Education has
identified a number of actions to improve the training of all teachers, interns or
student teachers. Some of these were recommended by the Focus Group and
are included in the list below:
Implement a formal Code of Conduct that unequivocally outlines the
standard of conduct to which teachers will be held.
Assure that Arizona teacher training institutions include meaningful and
mandatory instruction in ethics, civil rights and case laws, personal and
institutional liability, the Code of Conduct (once adopted), and State
personnel codes pertaining to misconduct.
Conduct in-service refresher training to acquaint teachers and
administrators with policy and statutory changes, and to review obligations
regarding conduct toward students.
Include training for out-of-state applicants seeking Arizona teacher
certification prior to assuming classroom responsibilities.
Develop appropriate training for employees who might change positions
and incur responsibilities that differ significantly from
those previously fulfilled.
Standardize training records to assure completion of
required instruction and to facilitate audits or
inspections as necessary.
Initiate a dialogue with teacher training institutions to
implement standardized training objectives for core
Develop a complementary program and identify
training objectives for non-teaching staff.
Shan Bouiangcr
aiieqeoiy had n
saxiiai relatiot?sAi~?
wit/? r:, sf!~denf
i:r 1938
71:e rc>no*ts,"
m~co:?11 r voi~fed
a fnl? O L / ~of lonv
r r i / ! : f 7 c t . f ilT)Jl;f,j:>j - - & ' , &
Teacher Accountabilitv. For some, the prospect of being held accountable is
necessary to bind the individual to a moral obligation and to encourage, or even
force, compliance with rules. For others, self-discipline
combined with a high moral code and lofty personal standards
are all that are needed. With regard to teacher conduct, a
system of accountability applied equally to all is necessary to
protect the published standards from unwarranted criticism and
from becoming ineffective, and to maintain the trust and
confidence not only of students but also parents who rely on teachers to protect
their children while at school.
been held accountable and the question had not 1
resolved by school administrators. These teachers, even though under a cloud
of dark suspicion, resigned without evidence of having been investigated and
were subsequently hired by other schools that were unaware of the allegations.
Without having been held accountable - and without resolving the question of
The fact is that in 70 percent of the sexual
misconduct cases examined, teachers had not
o!ij' of :Q tpa~/,erhs3 d
iWt kit7~nj ~ l dc2 ~<;0!it?fdki/e
misconduct - the opportunistic teachers were able to migrate, sometimes
multiple times, to other venues where new freedoms existed to abuse
children, and unsurprisingly where new suspicions arose each time.
These examples call into question not only the ethics of some administrators
but also the effectiveness of policies and procedures designed to assure a
teacher's accountability. The practice of holding teachers accountable for
sexual misconduct toward students is varied and generally fixed at local
levels. While some offenses result in automatic decertification, there is a
wide range of other misconduct that is addressed at local levels, a situation
that results in a variety of sanctions applied to similar cases.
Wifh 1,607 public schools and
school sites, accountability is
a challenge.
There are 1,205 traditional public schools in
Arizona that are the responsibility of the State
Board of Education. In addition, there are 277
charter institutions (non-traditional public
schools) licensed to operate at 402 separate sites. Policies governing both
types of public institutions generally allow each school or district to address
many problems of teacher misconduct independent of State Board
involvement. At present, no information is available with regard to the
number, type and severity of disciplinary cases that have been handled at
local levels in the past.
Since 1995, with the enactment of new legislation the previous year, local
schools and districts have begun to report allegations and substantiated
cases in larger numbers. For this reason, the Board has concluded that a
previous trend to under-report cases is changing as local officials become
familiar with the law, interact with the Investigative Unit, and are able to use
on-line reporting of complaints.
The Board has identified a number of actions, some of which were included
in Focus Group Recommendations, that would improve the svstem of
The congruity of the recomn~endafions accountability within the state's public
results in mulfiple benefits. school system. Some actions, intended
to reinforce the practice of holding
teachers accountable for misconduct, also contribute to alleviating
shortcomings in other areas of policies, procedures or practices. For
example, a code of conduct that is included in pre-certification and in-service
training also can be used as a basis for holding individuals accountable for
breaches of good conduct. Some of the actions listed below, therefore,
may repeat recommendations previously intended to address shortcoming- s
in teacher screening or training.
The following actions should serve to strengthen the State's system of teacher
Investigate all allegations and complaints pertaining to alleged
Define and publish in appropriate administrative codes various terms,
such as "immoral behavior," "unfit," "unsuitable," "unprofessional,"
"inappropriate conduct," "unethical," and "grave serious offense," the
latter intended to serve as grounds for involuntary dismissal.
Require teacher-applicants to acknowledge and sign a code of conduct
with the understanding that a violation could result in grounds for
termination of employment.
Eliminate the practice of reciprocity.
Initiate steps to require courts to report disposition of cases involving
Define the level of proof needed to substantiate findings in an
investigation of alleged teacher misconduct.
Require teacher-applicants and certified teachers applying for re-certification
to declare all arrests, not just conviction~a, nd to disclose
all civil citations, reports of dismissals, plea bargaining, reduced
charges, adjudications pending, participation in diversion programs,
and other dispositions that would help determine suitability and
broaden the perspective of a background investigation.
Include with applications for employment a signed release of personal
information by the teacher-applicant granting permission for previous
employers to release file information to background investigators.
Screen teachers involved with the AIA.
For almost 18 years, Joseph lnsera was suspected of unprofessional and immoral
conduct at various schools in the State. In addition to inappropriate relationships
with girls, he was reported to have written suggestive letters. He faced two counts
of assaulting minor children. Recently, he was to be hired at one school on the
same day that his resignation from another district - the fifth in his career - was to
be effective.
Adjunct Recommendations.
Although the majority of the recommendations pertained to policy or process
shortcomings in the areas of teacher screening, training or accountability, the
Focus Group also proposed other actions that would enable the Board to provide
a higher level of service to Arizona schools, children and parents. Those with
the greatest potential for rapid implementation are presented below:
Make information available to parents online.
Develop a public information plan.
Review funding requirements and prepare necessary budgetary requests.
In addition to the specific recommendations of the Focus Group, the Board's
development of its own list of actions reflects its grasp of the problem and
the breadth of its thinking on the subject. Although the number of
recommendations contained in the two lists combined may require phasing
for implementation, or in some cases further study, the Board's intent is to
establish a priority order for actions. This will involve identifying
recommendations with the potential for immediate implementation, and
incorporating the remainder into the Strategic Plan for action later.
Improving the conduct of teachers toward children: A need for action.
Focus Group
Improving the safety of school children: Improving teacher conduct towards students
The focus group approached its purpose with particular
1The focusgroup. dedication and diligence. Comprised of a cross-section of career professionals in government, education, law enforcement and the
judiciary, members engaged in a collaborative effort with State Board staff to
develop recommendations to address the problem of teacher misconduct toward
students. As this section of the report will reflect, the results were impressive.
Steps Toward Safer Classrooms: Examination of Proposed Solutions
mThe approach. Th e Focus Group's examination of the problem of teacher
misconduct with students revealed a logical grouping of causes
related to the issue. At the risk of over-simplification, the vast majority of cases
involving victimization of children could be traced to one or more of the following
process or policy shortcomings within the educational system: Teacher
screening, teacher training or teacher accountability. Having identified the areas
of weakness, the Focus Group examined the problem in considerable detail
and then prepared recommendations for action by the Board.
The Arizona State Board of Education staff has reviewed
aStaff response. each recommendation carefully. Without exception, each
proposal offers exceptional possibilities for alleviating the problem and
improving the safety of children in Arizona schools. For this reason, the
staff already has begun action to examine each recommendation to
determine the appropriate timing and steps necessary for implementation.
Those steps that can be taken in the most expeditious manner and with the
least expenditure of resources will be incorporated into an action plan for
immediate attention. Those that require longer lead times or a coordinated
effort involving multiple departments or complex phasing will be incorporated
into the Board's Strategic Plan for action at the earliest opportunity.
Teacher Screeninu - Discussion
The large number of teachers - regular, part-time, substitute
1The problem. and emergency substitute - presents challenges to screening
personnel records and background information in an effort to reasonably insure
against the likelihood of professional misconduct.
The problem condenses succinctly into two descriptive
Su:fahtt!ty L~S
yu81/ficat/ons. contrasts: Suitability vs qualifications. The latter generally
are readily identifiable during a hiring process while the
determination of suitability in terms of character, morality and ethics - qualities
that are essential for those entrusted with the care and education of children -
requires greater effort and watchfulness.
1 Since 1990, the State Board of Education has conducted
limited screening of individuals applying for State certification.
However, the large number of applicants and the inherent
constraints to conducting an in-depth check have limited the depth of background
investigations initiated throughout the State. Further, throughout the State, there
are non-standard hiring processes, background investigations and related forms
and records.
Of 370 cases opened by the Investigations Unit during the
Dackgiounds period 1995-1999, the teachers named in each case were
discovered to have either a deficient background check, no
record of a check at all, or were granted a certificate under the rules of reciprocity.
Recommended Actions
+$ Early Fingerprinting
Require prospective teachers to submit a fingerprint card at the time of enrollment
in the professional program or at the time the prospective teacher declares an
educational major, whichever occurs first. Further, submission of a fingerprint
card should be a prerequisite for student teaching.
1Timc !p r,!eL?i:-lric~s Staff Comments. Early submission of fingerprint cards
potentially will enable hiring officials to identify disqualifiers
for a teaching certificate and forestall the applicant's ire after having invested
considerable time, effort and funds with the expectation of being qualified for a
teaching certificate.
Actions Required: Intra-staff and inter-departmental review and coordination;
dialogue with teacher training institutions; and changesladditions to Board rules
and State law.
*:* Issue a Safety Certificate
Conduct a limited examination of a teacher-applicant's background to identify obvious
deficiencies that would indicate a potential risk to the safety of children. Teacher's
Aides also would be included. A certificate would be granted following issuance
of an appropriate fingerprint card and a favorable report from the NASDTEC
database. Include all charter school teachers as a requirement, and afford the
same opportunity to private and parochial schools on a voluntary basis.
Note: NASDTEC refers to the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.
Staff Comments. As an added step in the process of
determining the suitability of applicants, the issuing of Safety
Certificates will complement the process of in-depth, standardized background
investigations that will have been initiated.
Actions Required: Intra-staff coordination and changes in Board rules and
policies governing charter schools; coordination as necessary to include private
and parochial schools volunteering for the program.
*:* Conduct Reference Checks
Implement procedures to assure adequate reference checks, and to standardize
forms used in background investigations of which reference checks are an
integral part. Effective checks should include input not only from character
references but also from former employers, and from other sources developed
by the investigator when questions arise that require clarification. (Other
contacts might include neighbors, professional associates or second-party
referrals obtained from those initially interviewed.) The operative question of
previous employers would be, "Would you rehire this individual?"
Staff Comments. Broadening the scope of reference checks
cheeks will provide a more substantial basis for hiring decisions,
will reduce the opportunity for applicants to escape discovery
of previous disqualifying conduct, and will offer greater assurance of certifying
suitable candidates.
Actions Required: Intra-staff coordination; development of standardized forms
and implementing policies; coordination with districts.
+:+ Operate as a Specialty Law Enforcement Agency
Initiate legislative action to elevate the Board's lnvestigative Unit from the role
of an administrative unit to the status of a specialty law enforcement agency.
Staff Comments. In far too many cases, information essential
Ready access to
in7potTant to an adequate background investigation or an examination
J~rtforn?ation. of allegations is highly limited except when shared among
police organizations. Designation as a specialty law
enforcement agency would enable the unit to operate with sworn peace officers
and other police agencies as an equal participant in the protection of citizens
and the enforcement of applicable laws related to the Board's authority.
As a specialty agency, the lnvestigative Unit would experience a relative ease
of access to national and locally-available criminal history information and could
operate within a responsive network of police professionals where prompt sharing
of essential information and open communications are standard. Operating
ethically and within the parameters governing handling and disposing of sensitive
information from police files, the lnvestigative Unit could greatly accelerate the
processing of background checks and clarify questions regarding an individual's
record of conduct and character.
Required Actions. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; review of Board
policies to incorporate the expanded role and increased authority into new or
existing procedures; legislation.
O Quicker Return of Fingerprint Cards
Take steps to reduce turn-around time between submission of cards and receipt
of file information.
Staff Comments. Review of fingerprint cards involves both
cons~derattor~s the FBI and Arizona Department of Public Safety and is
I I predicated upon the relative priority given to the card under
review. In practical terms, the processing of fingerprint cards related to national
security or impelling State interests, such as active criminal cases, likely would
take precedent over a files review of teacher-applicants.
F%r~odicaliy Current fingerprint clearance cards, representing a one-time
confinn si~ifniltlirty view of the individual's fingerprint record, expire after 99
years. The practical constraints to expediting State and
Federal response to fingerprint records checks can be partially offset by earlier
submission of cards, as recommended by the Focus Group. Further, periodic
re-checks, perhaps every six years to coincide with the re-certification cycle,
would enable administrators to identify individuals with records of misconduct
that occurred during the period since the last certification.
Strengthening the language used to specify those crimes for
Broaden reporting
eietnents. = which the fingerprints are screened can enhance the value
of using fingerprint data to issue a certificate. Terminology
should include not only crimes for which there is a record of a conviction but
also attempted and preparatory crimes, and a requirement for a report if the
card is identified as belonging to a registered sex offender.
Classification of the Board's lnvestigative Unit as a specialty
Assut-e PI-ompf
access to law enforcement agency would allow instant access to National
l~~format~on = and State automated criminal history information and to other
local agency sources as well. These resources would reduce
the dependency on information obtained from national and State fingerprint files
and facilitate screening teacher applicants to determine suitability for certification
and re-certification.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; Board policy change; and legislation
to grant to the lnvestigative Unit status as a specialty law enforcement agency.
*:* Require Certification of All Teachers
Require all teachers, teacher's aides and student teachers - regular, substitute
and emergency substitute -to be State Board certified before performing duties
as teachers.
Strengtf?er?th e
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-departmental coordination; changes to
State law and Board policies.
- Staff Comments. With the relatively large number of teachers
currently in the classrooms, most notably in private, parochial
and specialty schools, a sudden surge in certification
_ applications would impose an investigative burden that likely
would exceed present capabilities in terms of funding and staffing. After careful
review, the staff determined that the recommendation could be addressed in
the long term through the Strategic Plan. For the present, efforts can be
concentrated on obtaining designation of the lnvestigative Unit as a specialty
law enforcement agency, implementing use of the Safety Certificate, establishing
the requirement for periodic re-issuance of fingerprint certificates, standardizing
background investigations, and initiating other actions that likely could be
implemented more quickly and possibly might obviate, for the present, the need
for State-wide certification of teachers.
*:* Conduct Background Investigations for All Teachers
Conduct thorough, standardized background investigations of all teacher
Staff Comments. A phased implementation of this requirement, in lieu of
immediate full-scale implementation, is needed to avoid overloading existing
staff and creating a severe backlog in processing approximately 10,000-20,000
applications for teaching certificates annually.
Phased approach Considerations associated with private, parochial and other
to improving schools must be factored into the initiative to assure a smooth
backgrounds. E l transition. In the interim, steps can be taken to institute a
Safety Certificate, standardize the depth and quality of
current background checks and related records, define key terms, and classify
the Investigative Unit as a specialty law enforcement agency. To assure adequate
follow-up for implementation, the Board can include this in its Strategic Plan for
long-range, phased application.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; dialogue with districts; changes in
Board policy; development of objectives for inclusion in the Strategic Plan; and
development of a budget decision package to acquire the resources necessary
to meet the need.
*:* Screen Teacher Candidates
Assure that all applicants for a teaching certificate have been screened for the
requisite reputation and moral qualifications - suitability vs professional
qualifications - expected of those who are in a crucial position to protect and
proctor children who are vulnerable and impressionable.
Staff Comments. This recommendation is a summary focal
Suitable vs
qualified: character point for all other proposals pertaining to teacher screening
vs credentials. and reflects the Focus Group's recognition of the need to
i.. screen teacher applicants as a singularly important
preventive to the abuse of children in classrooms. The operative term that best
describes the intent of this recommendation is "suitability" for teaching children
- suitability in terms of moral standing and principled conduct - as opposed to
professional qualifications such as degree discipline, academic credentials and
performance, grades, career accomplishments and similar determinants.
Screening is a
Although screening of applicants is fundamental to an effective
continuous system of selecting only the most suitable candidates, the
1process. action is a continuous process rather than an end product.
Accordingly, the Board recognized the nature of the
requirement and will include in its Strategic Plan provisions to review the process of
screening applicants and to identify needed improvements.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; and changes
to law and policies as necessary to correct shortcomings in the system of
screening applicants.
+:* Allow Applicants to Disqualify Themselves
Enable individuals to abort the application before the process has been completed.
Staff Comments. Experience has shown that deception in a
V o l ~f a~- )r
~it,bdr;-?~,v;;,o>ff ! candidate's statements, particularly those recorded on forms
car/y .!S/j,i'eef; 'm; 1related to a background investigation, frequently will mask
previous conduct that would, or should, be a disqualifier. The
initiative to standardize the application and background investigations processes
and related forms, and to provide full information regarding character requirements,
will improve the screening of applicants.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; and changes as
necessary in Board policies and State law; development of revised, standardized
background forms.
+$ Incorporate Full Use of NASDTEC
Assure that a query of the NASDTEC database is completed prior to approving a
request for certification.
Staff Comments. There are six states and four other non-participating
member jurisdictions that have not signed the current
NASDTEC Interstate Contract, effective October 1, 2000. The
six states that have not signed the Contract are Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Other non-participating
jurisdictions are British Columbia, the Department of Defense Education
Activity, Saipan and Ontario.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; Board policy change to eliminate
reciprocal acceptance of background investigations performed by non-participating
4' Revise the Language Used to Solicit Information
Require applicants for teaching certificates to list, in addition to convictions, all
arrests regardless of ultimate disposition, diversions, plea agreements,
dismissals, juvenile arrest information, expunged records, negotiated
settlements, and all criminal or civil traffic violations. The scope of mandatory
self-reporting also should be expanded to include involuntary dismissals,
resignations in lieu of termination, and resignations that occurred after an
allegation arose or during an investigation of alleged misconduct with students.
Full access to Staff Comments. The effectiveness of these changes should
information be enhanced if standardized application forms are modified to
sources. I include an authorization by the applicant for former employers
and organizations, with which the applicant has been associated,
to release to the background investigator any records related to job performance
or personal conduct. Substitute teacher applicants also should be included.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; changes in
Board policy.
Teacher Traininq - Discussion
While current training of teachers, per se, is not considered
The problem. = a factor related directly to the problem of misconduct toward
students, little is known about the curricula at teacher training institutions
as it pertains to levels of instruction in ethics; professional decorum and
conduct with, and around, students; positive image and functions as a
teacher-role model; liability issues; code of conduct; or possible sanctions
for misconduct. Further, there is no requirement for updated in-service or
refresher training to emphasize the need for conduct above reproach, as a
matter of strict policy, and to maintain an awareness of established
professional standards.
Research shows that in too many cases, teachers and
training vs administrators apparently are ignorant of individual and
institutional standards and responsibilities related to personal
education. conduct with students. This can be traced to the lack of an 1 unequivocal and clearly articulated code of conduct, the absence
of a published policy, lax accountability, or to an ignorance of those factors that
constitute misconduct and of appropriate actions that should be taken when an
allegation arises.
Emphasis on the
Policies to train employees properly and to hold educators
accountable for personal misconduct toward students are
Iimportant components in the sch eme to improve the safety
of school children. Once instituted, a policy requiring systematic and repetitive
training should defeat any defense of misconduct based, in claim only, upon an
ignorance of standards. Further, an integrated training program that forthrightly
declares a stringent standard of personal conduct presents a clear record of the
Board's position regarding the matter.
Recommended Actions
Q Include Ethics as Part of In-Service Training
Require periodically a minimum number of hours training in ethics and a code
of conduct throughout the duration of a teacher's employment.
Reinforcing earlier
Staff Comments. Current policy requires a minimum of 180
professional hours of in-service training prior to recertification of teachers.
1training. The Focus Group recognized that contributing to improved
teacher conduct toward students through training should
involve instruction not only in ethics but also the code of conduct (once
implemented) and its practical applications; reporting requirements; duties and
responsibilities of employees to safeguard children; case law; liability issues;
civil rights; and Board policies applicable to the topic. Periodic review and
revision of in-service training requirements to meet changing needs will be
necessary and, therefore, will be included in the Strategic Plan.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination and further study to determine the
most important and effective mix of in-service training hours prior to
recertification; possible development of a training bullet~nt o transmit related
information to districts; and changes in Board policy.
+$ Prepare a Tri-fold Brochure for Distribution
Distribute training notices and items of related information to teachers through
the mail in the form of a brochure.
Strengthening the
Staff Comments. Printed notices - essentially training
training program bulletins - in unique formats offer advantages that other
plan. mediums lack. In light of the need to conserve funds, use of
whole-page notices mailed to districts for reproduction and
further distribution might be an effective substitute for the more costly format of
a brochure printed in hundreds of copies that requires postage and special
handling. As an extension of efforts to speed service and reduce operating
expenses, an electronic format could further reduce costs for production and
facilitate timely distribution.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; determine purposes and scope of
the information to be distributed; identify funding and staffing sources; publish
an addition to Board policy and include objectives in the Strategic Plan.
*:* Use Training Videos for Teachers
Provide useful instruction in popular video format to assure standardized
instruction and achievement of important training objectives for teachers
throughout the State.
Another tool in the Staff Comments. The Board staff already has begun efforts
1training arsenal. to develop a training video related directly to the topic of
proper personal conduct toward students. While producing
the first video will incur a substantial learning curve, it is expected that subsequent
releases will reflect improvements in production techniques, associated costs,
and methods of distribution, possibly in the form of CDs or on-line self-paced
training tutorials.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; collaboration
with school districts; development of continuing funding sources; implementation
of Board instructions regarding use of the medium; and recording of training
when completed.
*:* Provide Awareness Training
Specify minimum subjects to be included in the professional curriculum at teacher
training institutions. In particular, there should be emphasis on the code of
conduct and on subjects related to the moral duties of teachers as they pertain
to interaction with students; the trust contract with children; awareness of and
sensitivity toward a child's esteem; reporting responsibilities; personal and
institutional liability; Board policies; State laws; and possible sanctions for
misconduct or breaches of the code of conduct.
Staff Comments. The Board staff views this training - early
Early exposure to
standards of in the development of new teachers - as the policy foundation
of moral, ethical and professional conduct of teachers
throughout the State. It is also companion to in-service
training that is designed to reinforce requirements and function as a periodic
reminder of individual responsibilities.
The staff also realizes that the degree program in education already is full and
the addition of new course requirements presents a risk of lengthening the time
needed to graduate. For this reason, requirements should be designed for
inclusion in existing courses of instruction as opposed to adding additional credit
hours to the degree program. However, the training institutions should be
required to provide written confirmation that the prescribed instruction has been
successfully completed.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; identification of current training
deficiencies and development of an in-service training program; changes to Board
Teacher Accountability - Discussion
Teacher accountability for misconduct toward students is varied
and generally fixed at local levels, with the exception of
offenses that result in criminal charges or otherwise involve the Board in an
administrative action against the teacher. Further, there is no State policy or
administrative code to mandate certain actions for conduct that would be
considered a grave offense.
There are 1,205 traditional public schools in Arizona that are the responsibility
of the State Board of Education. In addition, there are 277 charter institutions
(non-traditional public schools), licensed to operate at 402 separate sites.
Policies governing both types of public schools within the State generally allow
each school or district to address the problem of teacher misconduct independent
of State Board involvement. This, in effect, relegates the majority of conduct
cases to the status of local issues, a fact that results in a wide range of different
responses to similar cases of misconduct.
Recommended Actions
+$ Impose Penalties for Failure to Report Misconduct
Assure that a mechanism is in place to hold accountable those teachers and
administrators who fail to report teacher misconduct toward students.
Staff Comments. ARS 15-514, the operative statute for
Include both c~vil
and criminal reporting misconduct, contains no penalty for non-reporting.
penalties. In its examination of the problem, the Focus Group
determined the need to expand the reporting requirement
to include alleqations of misconduct, and to hold each employee of a public
school responsible to report all alleged or actual illegal, immoral or improper
conduct toward students.
Non-certified private and parochial should be encouraged to report voluntarily
information that would otherwise be mandatory for a certified school. Regardless
of whether public or private schools are involved, State law should grant immunity
from prosecution those individuals making a report in good faith and with belief
in its veracity.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; changes in
Board policy and State law.
+$ Report Allegations Based Upon Reasonable Suspicion
Require that districts report to the State Board of Education all allegations that
give rise to a "reasonable suspicion."
Staff Comments. In some cases, there had been an
students, teachers interminable period between receipt of an allegation and
and schools. L proof of the claim. If "reasonable suspicion" had existed,
then schools and districts would have had the duty to notify
the Board and to investigate the case expeditiously in order to protect students;
maintain the trust of children and parents; and preserve the name and reputation
of the teacher, the school and the profession. ("Reasonable suspicion" derives
from what appears on the surface to represent an intelligent, orderly and rational
account of misconduct.)
The importance of timely and adequate reporting to protect children from possible
harm is overreaching. The paramount priority of protecting children gives rise
to the necessity of reporting allegations, and possibly investigating all cases
involving a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. Further, resignations that
occurred following receipt of an allegation, or any conduct that would result in
the institution's refusal to rehire the employee, also should be reported.
Required Actions. Intra-staff coordination; changes in Board policy; inclusion in
an in-service training bulletin distributed to the field.
*:+ Expand the Scope of Mandatory Reporting Requirements
In addition to the reportable major crimes already contained
A broad base of
reportable in applicable statutes, require schools to report to the State
Board of Education all allegations related to an expanded
list of offenses to be developed.
Staff Comments. The current list of reportable offenses is too narrow. Redefining
the scope of conduct that would spoil the educational environment and jeopardize
the safety of children would clarify for districts and schools those incidents that
must be reported; remove any suspicion, or basis for a claim, of cover-up; and
enable the Board to determine the scope of the problem, identify trends, and
develop policies and procedures to meet the need.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; and changes in Board policy.
*:* Develop a Code of Conduct for Teachers
Implement a stringent Code of Conduct that clearly articulates
The code as a
contractual a high standard for teachers in the course of their personal
commitment. 1 interaction with students.
Staff Comments. A clear and unequivocal code of conduct embodied in the
employment contract with teachers, as a supplement to the National Education
Association's Code of Ethics of the Education Profession, would give focus and
force to the standards to which teachers personally should be held in their conduct
with students. Such a code would give evidence of the Board's commitment to
the safety of children and its intolerance of breaches of good conduct. A proposed
code of conduct can be found on page 56.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; a change in Board policies.
*t. All Courts Report Convictions to the Board
Expand the reporting of teacher convictions to the Board by including courts of
non-record in the requirement.
Staff Comments. Currently, only courts of record are required
Timely access to
case dispositions. by statute to forward a report of convictions to the Board. In
addition to cases that are routinely cited into municipal or
Justice Courts, plea agreements and defense motions contribute to cases being
adjudicated in courts of non record. Implementation of this recommendation
will broaden the database of teacher convictions and expose those who otherwise
might escape discovery and avoid personal accountability as a teaching
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; development
of Board procedures to assure court reports are forwarded to districts; changes
in State law to compel compliance of the courts.
O Eliminate "Passing the Trash" Statewide
Galvanize Arizona school districts to participate in an intra-State coalition to
eliminate the practice of allowing teachers, guilty or suspected of misconduct,
to resign or to transfer without notifying the Board and, in the case of a transfer,
also informing the hiring school or district of the individual's questionable record.
Staff Comments. The Board recognized the deleterious effects of a destructive
practice that undermines the foundation of trust that should exist between
educational professionals. The widespread practice of "passing the trash" raises
the question, "How can parents be expected to trust teachers with the temporary
care of their children if the teachers themselves ignore serious
stop passing the misconduct, disregard reasonable suspicion, fail to hold each
trash. " other accountable, and then with feigned innocence or
ignorance pass the trash to a colleague?"
An intra-State open-disclosure agreement among the Board, districts and schools
- to include private, parochial and specialty institutions - would protect children
and prevent a teacher with proven or suspected misconduct from avoiding
appropriate consequences and then migrating elsewhere within the State system
with renewed freedom possibly to exploit or prey on other students.
Required Actions. Intra-staff coordination; collaboration with school districts.
Adjunct Recommendations - Discussion
While the great majority of the recommendations pertained to
principal policy or process shortcomings - teacher screening,
teacher training and teacher accountability - the FOCUS-~ropruo~po sed other
actions that were either closely related to these core issues or would enable the
Board to provide a higher level of service to Arizona schools, children and parents.
Additionally, in the broadest sense, these recommendations also were pertinent
to efforts related to communications, future funding needs, areas requiring further
study, and development of a broad base of data for purposes of trends analysis.
Recommended Actions
*$ Require Interstate Reporting of Teacher Decertifications
This proposal was intended to provide a national network for reporting teacher
decertifications and sharing of information with states involved in conducting
background investigations of teacher applicants.
Ready access to Staff Comments. The importance and usefulness of this
important information would depend largely upon the accuracy and
Linformation. -tplimroemliins ees, st hoef dpartoas epnetcrtys. oWf hpirleo mthpet cpoanscseapgt eh olfd Cs ocnognsreidsesriaobnlael
legislation, especially with accompanying funding, is indeterminate. In the
interim, NASDTEC, with all but six states participating, provides the State with
information that is key to the screening of teacher applicants.
Actions Required. Correspond with NASDTEC and request that the proposal
be placed on the agenda as a topic of discussion at the first available business
meeting; include in the Strategic Plan.
+$ Train the Students
This recommendation is intended to train students to recognize teacher
misconduct and to take the appropriate actions should they perceive untoward
conduct or become a victim.
Need to study the 1 Staff Comments. The merits of arming students with
proposal further, knowledge as a means of self-defense should be balanced . .
I against the possibility of overloading the current curriculum
and the risk of miscues and erroneous interpretations on the part of students.
Further study of this proposal and its advantages is needed to explore the
possibility of developing an educational program with discreet elements tailored
to meet this special need. Accordingly, this recommendation can be included in
the Board's Strategic Plan for development as a long-term initiative.
Actions Required. Intra-staff coordination; discussion by Board members;
inclusion in the Strategic Plan for long-term development; identification of
resources for eventual implementation.
+' Make Information Available to Parents On-Line
Expand the current Board web site to include a link to information resources
that would be especially useful and helpful to parents.
A method to make Staff Comments. There is a plethora of possibilities
associated with this recommendation. Generally,
1available. cinofnortaminaetiodn ipne trhtaei npinugb tloic e rmepclooryde.e sS wpoeuclidfi cbael llyim, irteedfe troe tnhcaet
information could be made available regarding schools in general; specialty
programs available; teacher qualifications and place of employment; curriculum
descriptions; results of employee disciplinary actions, if any; school telephone
numbers and addresses; parents' rights; points of contact for information;
procedures for filing a complaint; and a host of other useful facts.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; Board study of
the proposal to outline objectives; development of the site and a plan to publicize
the information and to acquaint parents with the service.
*:* Develop a Public lnf~rmationP lan
Prepare an information strategy designed to acquaint the public with the current
initiative, and to minimize the tendency for some media to sensationalize or
exaggerate the problem of teacher misconduct and to build support for the
Board's efforts.
Staff Comments. Special steps should be taken to publicize
Proactive media specific initiatives that are already under way to address the
I-'-. " I problem. This media plan also could be directed toward
government officials, school administrators and staff, and parents. The Board
staff already has commenced efforts to inform educational organizations. For
example, the Investigative Unit has made presentations to the School
Administrators Association, the Arizona School Personnel Administrators
Association, and the Arizona Small and Rural School Association.
Required Actions. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; development
of a long-range strategy for the release of updated information.
*:* Revisit Funding Requirements
Identify requirements for immediate and long-term resourcing of the Board's
overall plan to address the problem of teacher misconduct toward students.
An urgent need
Staff Comments. Although established in 1995, the
for rewurces Investigations Unit of the Board is funded only for one
now and later. investigator. Two other investigators and one administrative
Iemployee have been assigned with temporary funding from
other sources. As the magnitude of the problem continues to grow, the need
exists for permanent funding of sufficient staff to reduce the serious backlog of
cases, to maintain pace with growing investigative requirements, to develop
and implement initiatives that are crucial to resolving the
Further study problem, and to expand work capacity as the State's
needed. population and number of school children continue to grow.
While a suggested surtax on applications for certification has been proposed,
further study of the issue might reveal other new funding sources to fulfill the
need for an effective program of prevention.
Required Actions. Intra-staff planning to identify funding for the short term and
to develop budget decision packages that are consistent with the Strategic Plan
over an initial 3-year planning period and then beyond; inter-department
coordination; Board review of the Plan.
*:* Analyze Trends in Allegations
Conduct a comparative study of allegations levied against teachers whose
certificate was granted on the basis of having met educational qualifications
while an undergraduate and those who satisfied educational criteria during
postgraduate work.
Knowing the
Staff Comments. A comprehensive analysis of trends in
is liey to allegations would be useful as a basis for plans designed to
ieffectiveplanning. addres s shortcomings in teacher screening, training or accountability, and to identify other ways to improve the
educational system as it relates to teacher conduct with students. In addition to
an examination of teachers involved in misconduct, per se, a study would be
helpful in identifying circumstances that produce the highest proportion of
Required Actions. Intra-staff coordination to develop and implement a study
plan, and to integrate the task into the overall priorities of the Board staff.
*3 Screen Teachers Affiliated with AIA
Require each teacher, coach, official, staff member or manager involved with
students through the AIA to obtain, as a minimum, a Safety Certificate. Further,
the school or organization with which the individual was involved also would be
required to report to the State Board all allegations or reasonable suspicions of
misconduct toward students.
Staff Comments. Currently, there is no requirement for AIA
affiliates to report to the Board misconduct or suspicious
Istaff. actions on the part of volunteers or paid staff. The safety
certificate, while not based on a comprehensive background
investigation similar to the type desired for all public school educators,
nevertheless would serve as a much-needed safety screen to prevent the abuse
of students.
The frequent off-campus settings, sometimes without the presence of other staff
members, and the unusual times of the day or week create situations that might
make students vulnerable to abuse, and staff members exposed to fraudulent
accusations. A long-term goal is needed to broaden the background checks for
all AIA- affiliated staff personnel.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; changes in
Board policy; resourcing.
*3 Establish a Civil Penalty for "Contract Break"
Incorporate into teacher contracts a cancellation clause that prescribes
appropriate penalties in cases without reasonable cause.
Add weight to
administrators and
Staff Comments. School administrators historically
contract for full-time teaching staff for the duration of the
academic year. As a hedge against unexpected temporary
absences of regular staff, a number of substitute teachers are identified for
reserve call. However, since substitutes often are not available for extended
periods, the sudden loss of a full-time teacher creates a serious burden on
administrators and potentially affects academic continuity in the classroom.
Students, therefore, incur perhaps the most serious
"penalty." Imposition of appropriate monetary penalties
for unjustified failure to fulfill a valid contract should
convey to all teachers the importance placed on student
education and the seriousness with which the Board views a teacher's
contractual pledge.
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter-department coordination; changes in
statute, personnel policies, language of contracts.
*$ Include Employment Management lnformation in SAIS
Districts will be required to report to the Board full information regarding
misconduct or the reasonable suspicion of misconduct involving teachers or
other staff toward students.
management data.
Staff Comments. Implementation of the automated
Student Accountability lnformation System (SAIS) is
designed to improve school finance processes and
enhance the accuracy and timeliness of student counts required for Sate
and Federal funding. Operating on-line with appropriate security provisions
and immunities for legitimate inter-district and department use, SAIS also
will facilitate audits through the reporting of student
performance, school information, and teacher employment
information related to location, educational discipline,
resignations with causes, disciplinary actions with reasons,
previous resignations with explanations, negotiated settlements, allegations
involving reasonable suspicion, arrests, suspensions, pending investigations,
surrender of licenses or certifications, and other important management
information. Audits to confirm timely reporting, as required by statute, would
assure access to accurate and current system information when needed.
Key functional features will be the accessibility of important school
information by parents making educational choices for children, and the
timely availability of data to districts making employment or reemployment
Actions Required. Intra-staff and inter department coordination; review of
program to assure immunity when reporting information in good faith; change to
the law.
Improve Compliance with Reporting Requirements
Assure that districts and schools are reporting misconduct or suspected
misconduct as required and in accordance with the 72-hour period specified in
the statute.
the trash.
Staff Comments. Compliance with reporting requirements, as implied here,
relates closely to the Focus Group's proposal for action to "eliminate 'passing
the trash.' " However, there exists a number of other items of information, not
necessarily associated with resignations or transfers, that
should be reported to the Board in the interest of managing
carefully and watchfully a State-wide system of schools with
literally thousands of teacher-employees. Further study is needed to develop
an effective and economical system, in terms of cost and staff, to assure timely
compliance with all reporting requirements.
Actions Required. Further study; changes in policies and procedures; possible
program of audits/inspections; and additional in-service training for administrators
and staff.
4. Include Teacher Misconduct Under the Topic of Safe Schools
Proposition 301, passed by Arizona voters in early November 2000, included
provisions related to safe schools and would provide a mechanism to link safe
schools to the problem of teacher misconduct.
Staff Comments. This recommendation is based upon the rationale that teacher
misconduct constitutes a significant threat to students and, therefore,
conceptually should be addressed, at least partially, through
- a safe school the provisions of the referendum. At present, the most
issue. notable constraint to implementing many of the
recommendations of the FOC& Groups relates essentially
to funding. With passage of the Proposition, the Legislature is in a position to
direct funds to the Board of Education for purposes of improving the safety of
children as it relates to the issue of teacher misconduct.
Actions Required. Inter-department coordination; Board request for a budget
supplement to fund selected actions in the near- and mid-terms.
The Board's timely discovery of an incipient problem of misconduct toward
students at school and its proactive approach to solutions reflects its
dedication to education and its commitment to the children of this state. An
interpretation of each proposal and the actions required for implementation
revealed that the effort will require a coalition of responsible professionals
and a collaborative and cooperative effort on the part of administrators,
teachers and staff throughout the State's educational system.
Obviously, inaction is not an option. Continuing with the status quo would
leave in place essentially the identical circumstances that allowed the
problem to develop initially. The resolve to act involves a whole-hearted
acceptance of change - necessary and effective changes in policies,
procedures and practices - and a whole-hearted commitment to the process.
There will be a cost of this commitment and these changes - a cost in terms
of time, staffing, efforts and funding. However, there also will be a cost of
inadequate or ineffective actions. That cost will be borne by children.
The issue of teacher misconduct toward children at school: A time for action.
Ms. Christy Anderson
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Honorable Lisa Graham Keegan
Arizona Department of Education
1535 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Lt Ernie Anderson
Scottsdale Police Department
9065 East Via Linda
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
Senator Ken Bennett
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington
Senate Wing
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dr. Gary Emanuel
Northern Arizona University
Center for Excellence in
P.O. Box 5774
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Dr. Janet Johnson
Rio Salado College
2323 West 14th Street
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Mr. Jay Kaprosy
Arizona Department of Education
1535 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Ms. Janet Martin
522 East Gemini
Tempe, Arizona 85283
Ms. Carol McFadden
Maricopa County Attorney's
301 West Jefferson
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Mr. Dean Pickett
P.O. Box 10
Flagstaff, Arizona 86002
Ms Judy Selberg
281 5 Country Club Drive
Bullhead City, Arizona 86442
Ms. Kimberly Yee
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Arizona State Board of Education
1535 West Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Executive Director
(602) 542-5075
Director, Teacher Testing
(602) 542-2746
Administrative Assistant Ill
(602) 542-5057
Chief of Investigations
(602) 542-2972
Administrative Assistant
(602) 542-2972
Vincient Yanez
(602) 542-2972
Jolene Whelpley
(602) 542-2972
Arizona State Board of Education Staff Organization
Executive Director
Corinne Velasquez t
Chief 1 1 Vincient Yanez I
Jolene Whelpley
Administrative Assistant
Blanca Uvari
Teacher Testing
Charles Wiiey
Janet Thompson
i Director
Charter Schools
Bonnie Barclay
Charter Schods Auditing
Matt Fisher
I I Director I H of
Educator Assessment
Bryan Palmer
Administrative Assistant
Keri Madrid
Katy Yanez
Kathy Ornelas
Assistant Director
Heather Kelley
Administrative Assistant
Kathy Martinez
Danuta Kalisz
Jack Ripley
Rachel Cabrales
Frene lgnacio
Brenda Morgan
L-inda Cole
Norma Flekins
Vanessa Turner
Eleanor Lorazo
Arizona State
Board of Education
reacher's Code of Conduct
As a teacher and professional educator in the State of Arizona, my fundamental
duty is to serve the students of this state; to strive in every way to assure that each
student receives the best possible learning experience; to be a personal example
in word and in deed; to safeguard each student entrusted to me and to the institution
I represent; and to assure that each individual is treated with complete dignity and
respect at all times.
In recognition of my solemn responsibilities as an educator, I pledge to keep my
actions, words and relationships untainted; I will be constantly mindful of the
influence that I exert over those who inherently look to me in confidence as an
example of consistently principled conduct; I will strive to earn and maintain the
trust that is essential to the student's growth and learning, and to the building of
healthy and universally-accepted teacher-student relationships; I will always exhibit
a high moral code in every interaction with students; and I will never betray the
trust of a student or a parent by an act that is dishonest, unethical or immoral.
I recognize that the support and confidence of students, parents, guardians, peers
and administrators is essential to my worth and effectiveness as an educator. I
realize also that my demeanor, my words and actions, and my conduct toward
everyone - especially students - is of fundamental importance and can never be
compromised except at the risk of destroying the faith and trust vested in me by
virtue of my position. Therefore, I will never act untowardly, unethically,
disrespectfully, discourteously or dishonestly toward students; and I will not allow
my treatment of, or relationships with, students to exceed the boundaries of propriety,
decency, wholesomeness or good judgment.
I recognize my role as a professional educator as a symbol of public faith, and I
accept it as a public trust to be maintained through personal conduct that is always
above reproach.
Signature Date
Partial Environmental Scan of Arizona Demographics
Affecting the Number of School-Age Children Attending State Schools
This environmental scan addresses various data related to Arizona demographics that impact
the State school system grades K-12. Information contained in this summary was derived
from the U.S Census Bureau, the Arizona Department of Commerce, and the Arizona
Department of Economic Security.
Although the research for this scan revealed some differences in statistics, this was attributed
to the fact that there were three sources used, the data represent estimates rather than fact,
and there may have been some differences in the methodology used to develop the estimates.
In either case, the more conservative numbers were used to avoid skewing the data.
Nevertheless, all data regardless of source or degree of difference pointed consistently to
similar general conclusions - there has been pronounced growth in the State's economy and
population during the past years and all projections point to continued increases in school-age
children attending Arizona schools for the foreseeable future.
Current Estimates
Arizona population has grown from approximately 3.7 million people in 1990 to
4.9 million in December 1999. This represents a growth rate of slightly over 30
percent, second to Nevada as the largest percentage increase in the Nation. In
addition, during the same period, Arizona ranked third nationally in net domestic
migration. Only Florida and Georgia exceeded Arizona's rate of net in-migration.
Since 1990, all but three of Arizona's incorporated places have increased in
population. Estimates for two of those places - Gila Bend and Guadalupe -
reflect a slight decline of Ill 0th of one percent and 1.2 percent, respectively.
Figures for Winkelman, Arizona indicate a population loss of 34.9 percent;
however, the percentage drop is distorted somewhat by the relatively small
population in 1990 of just 676 people compared with only 440 in 1999.
For information, of the 87 incorporated places in Arizona, nine currently have
estimated populations in excess of 100,000 people. In order, they are Phoenix,
Tucson, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Chandler, Tempe, Peoria, and Gilbert. At
the other end of the spectrum, five incorporated places - Patagonia, Hayden,
Duncan, Jerome, and Winkleman - have populations of less that 1000 each.
Of all the incorporated places in Arizona with populations in excess of 100,000,
growth over the last nine years has ranged from 14.1 percent (Tempe) to 246
percent (Gilbert). The population of Phoenix, the State's largest city, expanded
by 26 percent.
Other incorporated places, with a population of less than 100,000 people also
experienced notable growth. However, because of a smaller population base, the
rates of growth appear distorted. On a relative scale, these places also have been
challenged by population growth and the need to accommodate additional school-age
children as part of that growth. For example, the population of Goodyear grew
by 10,827 people during the last nine years, reflecting a growth rate of 173 percent.
In comparison, the population of Marana - 2,187 in 1990 - expanded by almost
465 percent during the same period and is now at an estimated 12,350 people.
Oro Valley, which now is estimated to be 2.2 times the size of Marana, grew by 31 0
percent since 1990. Other towns such as Prescott Valley, San Luis, and Surprise
show surprising surges in population growth ranging from approximately 257 percent
to slightly over 267 percent. This data suggest that with a smaller overall population
base from which to recruit teachers, these cities faced special challenges to meeting
the need for educators with the requisite character and qualifications to teach.
Except for a very slight and insignificant decline during 1993, the number ofArizona
births has increased steadily each year since 1990. In terms of total births since
the start of the last decade, Arizona has added approximately 670,000 to its
population. In 1990, there were an estimated 686,000 children between the ages
of five and 12 years. That number has increased to almost 965,000 children in
With a population of 4.2 million people in 1995, Arizona was ranked as the 23rd
most populated state in the Nation while over the next three decades, seven states
- of which Arizona is one - will account for 58 percent of the net population
change in the Un
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.