In the past couple of days, the teacher “qualified immunity” law got a lot of press. The idea is that teachers can impose good faith discipline without worry about being sued for their efforts. I mentioned in the past that I didn’t think the bill did much of anything in terms of providing legal protection. It only protects teachers for “reasonable” discipline imposed in good faith. This strikes me as not different from a plain vanilla negligence standard. In other words, the standard hasn’t been raised for holding a teacher liable.
I think I missed the real point of the legislation. It “requires the attorney general and the state superintendent of public instruction to publicize annually to teachers that the attorney general may defend suits against teachers.” I think this is, in reality, a union busting bill. I recall back when Amy was a teacher one of the teachers union’s big selling points was that they would defend the teachers against law suits. This will blunt that selling point. And, I think the big tell is that the attorney general is required to publicize the potential for representation. The attorney general represents government employees in a variety of contexts. I am unaware of a requirement in those contexts that the fact of potential representation be publicized.
Maybe I’m just too cynical.
Doug, thank you. Little did I know that was tucked into that bill. I kept wondering why the Governor thought that was so important– made it practically his only educational selling point in the election. And the Supt of Public Inst has practically fetishized that point even when he’s confronted by questions on curriculum and finances across the state.
These two jokers have two ideas in mind — bust Unions and destroy Public Education. Look at every statement that comes out of Tony Bennett’s mouth — and the way he’s radically restructured the Dept of Ed and you’ll see that they hold public educators is the lowest regard.
Yet when Bennett had a chance to prove his theories or put things into real practice (New Albany Schools) he failed. Check out their AYPand find that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
ARGH… I love to teach and work with kids, but THIS stuff just makes life miserable.
Sometimes it would be real nice to know what the real motive behind something is in reality. Sadly, perhaps the thoughts on both the governor and Mr. Bennet are very much on target. Bennet has basically gutted the department and put in place supporters of Daniels moved from a variety of non-education departments. They have taken the point of “its just a business’ to a new level.
There is a legitimate concern as to the legal problems that educators face–interesting just recently reliving the past back as a student the persons I feared more than the principal and my teachers was my parents. Do something dumb at school and suffer twice as much at home. Now, it seem too often the teacher is always wrong–and never never touch a student (long ways from the education paddle with holes in it.)
Great insight. Esp…”I am unaware of a requirement in those contexts that the fact of potential representation be publicized.” Wow. Ugh.
It’s incredibly disconcerting that local control of schools is a thing of the past in Indiana. With the state controlling the General Fund of each school corporation, so much for the American tradition of local control of schools. Expect more dictates on everything from testing to the school calendar to teacher salaries to capital projects from on high. So much for small government conservatism from the Republican governor.