What you said about educator misconduct

A lot of hurrahs this week about Wednesday's column outlining legal changes regarding reporting of educator misconduct to state licensers. But a couple of you made some interesting points I'd like to share.

First, is the question of how the new law will affect teachers who are falsely accused of misconduct or abuse. False reports do happen, and some people worry that involving state licensers will make it more likely for those reports to become public, ruining an innocent teacher's reputation.

But it's important to note here that investigations by the state Board or Educational Examiners are confidential unless and until they decide to take action against an educator's license. Unfounded complaints will no more see the light of day under this law than they did before.

 Also important is that the law doesn't require districts to report every allegation of abuse or misconduct to state licensers, but only if a district investigation reveals conduct that could constitute a crime. False reports shouldn't routinely be forwarded to licensers under this new rule, but more confirmed reports will -- even if the educator resigns.

The law does require districts to place employees on administrative leave while they are being investigated for physical or sexual abuse of a child -- which could be grist for the school rumor mill. But school staff take leave for all kinds of reasons, and confidentiality rules still will apply.

Second point concerns the law's new provision that allows the BOEE to sanction school administrators who fail to report teacher misconduct as required. One reader, rightly, pointed out that there always have been administrators who forwarded misconduct cases to state licensers, just because it was the right thing to do.

In years of writing on this issue, I've tended to focus on the administrators and districts who haven't held themselves to that higher ethical standard, but who have aimed instead to meet the too-low legal requirements. I never meant to give the impression that every Iowa administrator in every misconduct case chose that cowardly way -- only that the law made it too easy for cowards to make problem teachers disappear.

In fact, I had been planning to write a column about districts that dealt with misconduct cases openly and ethically when I wandered into the Benton Community case that started my research on the whole subject. I was initially impressed that the district had gone after a teacher's license years after he'd resigned from his position. A closer look at that delay showed me the heart of the problem.

Which might not be entirely solved even with this change to the law, which everyone seems cautiously to be calling "a good step". But "good step," I'll take, and I'll keep watching.