ROSE MINA

Learning Task No. 4

Article VII , Section 4 : No school official shall dismiss or recommend for dismissal a teacher except for
just cause ( A “just cause” refers to wrongdoings committed by the teacher on the basis of which the
aggrieved party may terminate the employer-employee relationship). Using the internet and other
sources of information , identify the just causes for terminating the services of teachers.

CAUSES FOR THE DISMISSAL OF TENURED TEACHERS Most tenure laws elaborate to a great degree on
two important aspects of tenure legislation: the causes and procedures for dismissal. A teacher may not
be removed or dismissed for any other cause when the statutes specifically enumerate the causes for
which a teacher may be discharged. Nevertheless, in some cases the legislature clearly intended that
other causes may also serve as bases for dismissal by including the provision that dismissal may be for
any other good or just cause.

Insubordination is a recognized cause for dismissal. Teachers are required to obey reasonable rules and
regulations of the board of education, whether they were in force at the time of employment or enacted
later. Reasonableness requires that the teacher be given adequate notice of such rules. Insubordination,
as defined in Black's Dictionary, is the “state of being insubordinate; disobedience to constituted
authority.” One court ruled on a case before it that the term “insubordinate” meant that the word
insubordination imports a disregard of express or implied direction or a defiant attitude which is
equivalent thereto, and words rebellious, mutinous, and disobedient are often used as definitions or
synonyms of insubordinate. One of the most obvious forms of insubordination is the action of a teacher
in absenting himself from the classroom without permission or just cause. Of course, certain absences
such as jury service, severe illness, family deaths, and military obligations are privileged and should be
honored by the school district. But case law shows that other forms of absences will result in a teacher's
discharge. Refusal to perform a teaching assignment that is reasonably related to a teacher's field of
instruction has been found by the courts to constitute an act of insubordination. A charge of
insubordination can arise when the teacher's choice of instructional materials is questionable and the
teacher is ordered to stop using those materials.

Incompetency The words “incompetency”, “inefficiency”, “gross inefficiency”, and “incapacity” are
closely related and often used interchangeably by the courts. Incompetency is defined as the “lack of
ability, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duties.” Inefficiency is defined as the
“quality of being incapable or indisposed to do things required of an officer.” Incapacity is defined as
“want of capacity; want of power, or ability to take or dispose; want of legal ability to act; inefficiency;
incompetency.” All three terms deal with one's ability to perform, and in the absence of adequate
performance one can be charged with being incompetent, inefficient, or incapacitated. One court stated
as early as 1882, when a dismissed teacher appealed his dismissal, that it was probably correct that the
word “inability”, which granted an annulment of the teacher’s contract, meant the same thing as the
word “incompetency” as used in the statute authorizing the dismissal of a school teacher. The evidence
supporting a dismissal for incompetency appears to carry greater weight if the teacher is given ample
warning and is provided sufficient opportunity to correct the ineffective performance. State statutes
frequently require a notice of deficiencies and the time period for correcting them before a teacher may
be dismissed for incompetency. Failure to adhere to the statutory requirements is most likely to
invalidate the dismissal. In cases where teachers had been given recommendations for

improvement by their superiors, and where every opportunity to correct their faults had also been
given, the courts have generally ruled in favor of the boards of education in cases of dismissal on
grounds of incompetency. Teachers with mental or physical disabilities, teachers who are habitually
tardy, teachers who use class time improperly, and those who exhibit improper conduct towards their
superiors have all, on occasion, been dismissed on the grounds of incompetency, along with those who
have physically mistreated students. The courts have ruled, however, that one isolated case of corporal
punishment would not constitute incompetency, and that some acts, while certainly physical in nature,
are not serious enough to warrant dismissal. Recent court decisions have sustained dismissal of teachers
for incompetency for the following reasons: (1) teacher, with 19 years of experience, has ineffective in
team teaching and individualized instruction which the school inaugurated; (2) teacher's performance
has unsatisfactory; (3) teacher was given a substantiated unsatisfactory rating based on failure to
conduct classes conducive to learning, failure to maintain discipline, and employing an arbitrary grading
system; (4) teacher lacked emotional self-control, i.e., had an uncontrollable temper which failed to
improve in spite of repeated conferences; lacked proper relations with the administration, students, and
parents; and the science courses suffered; (5) teacher failed to control students and maintain an orderly
classroom; and (6) teacher failed to maintain discipline, keep adequate records, develop lesson plans,
and follow suggestions of the principal.

Neglect of Duty Neglect has been defined at that which “May mean to omit, fail or forbear to do a thing
that can be done, or that is required to be done, but it may also impart an absence of care or attention
in the doing or omission of a given act.” With regard to the first part of that definition, a teacher can be
dismissed for neglect if it can be shown that a single reasonable requirement was not fulfilled or carried
out. Such was the case with a teacher who refused to attend an open house at the school. The court
ruled that this was a failure on the teacher’s part to do something that could be done, and upheld her
dismissal on the grounds of neglect of duty. The second part of the definition of the term “neglect of
duty”, that dealing with lack of care and attention is exemplified by the case of a teacher who lacked
control in her classroom to such an extent that the furniture was abused and damaged. She was charged
with neglect of duty and the court sustained the charges against her. Although “neglect of duty” is
recognized in many state codes as a legitimate ground for dismissal, the courts tend to examine the
basis for such dismissals rather closely. In most cases, a single instance of neglect is not considered to be
sufficient justification for discharge. Since charges of neglect of duty, willful neglect of duty or
negligence often overlap other charges in the dismissal of a tenured teacher, a charge of neglect will
often be cited along with accompanying charges of incompetency, insubordination, or other good and
just cause.