PHOENIX -
Each Sunday, ABC15.com debuts an Arizona issue - along with two opposing sides on the topic.
Don’t worry, you always have the opportunity to make comments at the bottom of the page. Yeah, your opinion matters, too.
This week we’re tackling the debate on whether or not House Bill 2011 gives Arizona teachers too much power.
HB 2011 could give your child's teacher, not school administrators, the ability to suspend students.
State Representative John Fillmore says when there's a problem, we should expect that the teachers could send unruly students from the classroom and allow the other children to proceed with their education.
Leann Jones Wieser, President of the Arizona Federation of Teachers, says such unilateral action could expose the teacher to unwarranted liability, while usurping the duties and responsibilities of administrations and governing boards.
Click “next page” to read the first of two positions, “Teachers could be exposed to unwarranted liability”.
“Teachers could be exposed to unwarranted liability”: By Leeann Jones Wieser, President of the Arizona Federation of Teachers
On April 10, 1997, Governor J. Fife Symington signed into law House Bill 2094. The enactment of this legislation was an important victory for students, parents and teachers. The bill revised ARS 15-841 to identify and offer a method to deal with a specific problem, disruptive students.
The legislation gave teachers the authority to remove a student from the classroom if the teacher had documented the student's repeated interference with the classroom learning environment or if unruly, disruptive or abusive behavior by the student seriously interfered with learning environment.
Upon removal of the student, the law provided that if the teacher refused to readmit the pupil, a placement review committee (PRC) would meet to determine the placement of the student. The PRC is composed of two teachers selected by the school’s faculty, and an administrator selected by the school principal. The student would not be returned to the teacher's classroom without the teacher's consent unless the PRC determined that return of the pupil to that classroom was the best or only practicable alternative.
HB 2094 is not a panacea for past discipline problems experienced at a school. It is not a substitute for effective classroom management. The law neither circumvents nor replaces discipline codes or procedures. The law simply augments a teacher's authority and ability to force a hearing on a chronically disruptive student if, after having exhausted all options available to remediate a student's conduct, the student's behavior continues to disrupt the learning environment within the teacher's classroom.
A bill introduced by Representative John Filmore, HB2011, would expand the provisions of ARS 15-841 to give teachers the authority to not only remove pupils, but to suspend them without review or appeal by any other person or entity. Representative Filmore's bill, while well intentioned, significantly expands the scope of the original legislation. There is no doubt that many classroom teachers, facing the pressure of increased scrutiny of their performance, would welcome an opportunity to remove impediments to the learning environment. However, upon review, such unilateral action could expose the teacher to unwarranted liability, while usurping the duties and responsibilities of administrations and governing boards.
Enactment of HB 2094 in 1997 utilized three concepts which have been supported as fundamental education principles - local control, site based shared decision-making, and choice. Allowing teachers to initiate action to improve the learning environment for their students, extends the concept of local control directly into the classroom. Providing for a review committee to make recommendations regarding disruptive students replaces unilateral administrative action with site-based shared decision-making. Finally, a student who continues to disrupt the educational process is employing choice. The student who chooses to disrupt, the student who chooses to interfere with the learning environment, must accept the responsibility and consequences of that choice. But, that individual choice must not be allowed to circumvent or abrogate the collective choice of classmates who desire and deserve a safe and productive learning environment.
Do you agree with this opinion? Add a comment below to sound off.
Click “next page” to read the second position, “ It gives teachers control and respect ”
“ It gives teachers control and respect ”: By State Representative John Fillmore
Most of us realize that children today are not always Saints, especially those that are not our own.
In the early years we entrust these little diversified, inquisitive, mischievous silly tykes to the greatest people on earth to help us, the Teachers. We expect our kids to be educated, free from terror, stress, and abuse, even from their classmates whom may resent being in the classroom.
When there is a problem, we should expect that the Teachers could send unruly students from the classroom and allow the other children to proceed with their education. Sometimes that does not happen. Sometimes when a Teacher sends the unruly ones out they are simply returned the next day by an Administration that fears parental outrage that their little darling, who are incapable of being bad, was sent out of a classroom. Or that money may be lost since the child is “not in the classroom” or that administration just does not want to deal with the problem that day. This hurts us all.
The poor Teacher loses control, respect and the ability to teach. The other children in the room see that the Teacher has no authority, the wayward child is the winner, and that the rules favor discord and disharmony. The violators are the classroom rulers, and the other children (now the real victims) are denied their education while the little miscreant causing the problem gains playground stardom status as he is able to flaunt his nose at the Teacher. He wins.
Now, imagine that if the Teacher had the ability to suspend and be the final voice in a 3 to 10 day suspension (not expulsion) then all of a sudden the Administration might be forced to recognize a problem, which in most cases its inaction had created. I believe administration would RUSH TO ESTABLISH a workable procedure to help the Teacher from having to use this extreme method to maintain classroom discipline and control.
Boards would force Vice-principals and Principals to DO THEIR JOB, maintain teacher credibility and allow other kids a chance to learn without outbursts or trouble. A procedure that would allow the Teacher to give fair warning that there is a problem would send shivers up an Administration spine. The warning from a Teacher Screaming DO SOMETHING, WE HAVE A PROBLEM! HELP or I will solve the problem myself.
I would wager there would be 227 school; districts scrambling to finally come to the Teachers aid. 227 school districts that would establish procedures for all that would be workable because the Teacher now has a say. And for those that say there may be a Teacher that abuses this privilege, I say, Bull chips. Our Teachers are better than that! But, if there might be just one out of the thousands of Teachers abusing this new authority it would quickly rise to the top and for the school boards this is another problem exposed as well. My HB 2011 does this and it is worth a hearing.
Do you agree with this opinion? Add a comment below to sound off.
Copyright 2012 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
PRINT
