Marian P. Opala on Education
From Judgepedia
2007
Justice Opala concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher who slapped and otherwise physically attacked a special-needs child deserved to have his employment terminated.
ISSUE:
In this case, the court framed the issue as whether the trial court's decision that the school district failed to prove that the teacher's actions constituted "physical or mental abuse of a child," where the teacher pushed and slapped a special-needs child, was supported by competent evidence.
HOLDING:
The court found that the trial court's decision that a teacher who slapped and pushed a special-needs child did not abuse that child was based upon competent, credible evidence.
REASONING:
In arriving at that decision, the court reasoned as follows:
- (1) "[The teacher] testified that he did not intend to injure K.H. when he slapped him, but that his intention was to try to get K.H.'s attention and find out what was wrong."
POTENTIAL FLAWS IN THE COURT'S REASONING:
For a discussion of potential flaws in the court's reasoning, see this link to the discussion page, or click the discussion tab at the top of this page.
Justice Opala concurred in the majority opinion of Justice Rudolph Hargrave. That opinion affirmed the trial judge's finding that the school district did not adequately demonstrate that a teacher deserved to have his employment terminated for instructional ineffectiveness and unsatisfactory teaching.
ISSUE:
In this case, the court framed the issue as whether the teacher was entitled to retain his tenured position despite allegations of ineffective performance by the local school board.
HOLDING:
The court found that a tenured teacher who the school board attempted to terminate for ineffective and unsatisfactory performance could not be terminated.
REASONING:
In arriving at that decision, the court reasoned as follows:
- (1) "Tenure status * * * demonstrates legislative intent to grant teachers substantive rights in their continued position * * *."
- (2) There was testimony on the teacher's behalf from a number of students and parents.
POTENTIAL FLAWS IN THE COURT'S REASONING:
For a discussion of potential flaws in the court's reasoning, see this link to the discussion page, or click the discussion tab at the top of this page.
