General Strategies and Tactics

• recognize any biases or stereotypes that you may have absorbed;

• treat each student as an individual and respect each student for who he or she is;

• rectify any language patterns or case examples that exclude or demean any groups;

• be sensitive to terminology;

• get a sense of how students feel about the cultural climate in your classroom;

• become more informed about the history and culture of groups other than your own;

• convey the same level of respect and confidence in the abilities of all your students;

• don’t try to “protect” any group of students;

• be evenhanded in how you acknowledge students’ good work; and

• introduce discussions of diversity within the school faculty.

Course Content and Material

• select texts and readings whose language is free of stereotypes;

• do not assume that all students will recognize cultural, literary or historical references that are familiar to you;

• consider students’ needs when assigning evening or weekend work; and

• bring in guest lecturers to enrich the course.

Class Discussion

• emphasize the importance of considering different approaches and viewpoints;

• make it clear that you value all comments;

• encourage all students to participate in class discussions;

• monitor your own reactions in responding to students;

• speak up promptly if any student makes an inappropriate remark even if made in jest; and

• avoid singling out students as “spokespersons” for their race, culture or nationality.

Assignments and Exams

• be sensitive to students whose first language is not English;

• suggest that students form study teams that meet outside of class;

• assign collaborative learning activities; and

• give assignments and exams that recognize diversity.

The overwhelming majority of educators exercise their fiduciary responsibilities with care and conviction. The few who breach their duties, however, undermine the profession and leave a trail of devastation, particularly with student victims. A large number of cases each year involve some type of sexual misconduct, including criminal convictions for sexual offenses, boundary violations with students, and misuse of school equipment such as computers to access sexually explicit materials.

For purposes of professional discipline, we interpret the term “sexual misconduct” very broadly. Thus, in addition to criminal offenses where the victim may or may not be a student, sexual misconduct includes any act or conduct directed towards or with a child or a student of a romantic or sexual nature regardless of the age of the child or student, including any sexual, romantic or erotic contact with the child or student as well as any verbal, non-verbal, written or electronic communication or physical activity designed to establish a romantic or sexual relationship, including but not limited to:

1. sexual or romantic invitations;

2. dating or soliciting dates;

3. engaging in sexualized dialogue;

4. making suggestive comments;

5. exposure;

6. self-disclosure of a sexual or erotic nature; and

7. exchange of gifts with no educational purpose.

The conduct described above is often referred to as “grooming”. It has been our experience that when a teacher enters into an inappropriate relationship with a student, the teacher violates the recognized student-teacher boundary and thereby redefines the boundary inappropriately. While some teachers intentionally groom a student for the purpose of engaging in sexual misconduct, others fall prey to the “slippery slope” of misconduct. For example, the teacher-student relationship may initially be appropriate, but at some point the relationship shifts to serving the needs of the teacher and not the needs of the student. There may be an increase in the frequency of interaction as well as an increased level of intimacy, which ultimately may lead to a sexual relationship. In many cases, the teacher takes on a new role with a student, which causes the traditional relationship to become blurred. When teachers become confidants, friends or counselors of students, a dual relationship is created which creates an ambiguity in the student-teacher relationship where roles are less defined. This ambiguity helps to foster inappropriate actions and educator misconduct.

For new teachers, this ambiguity can sometimes be difficult to recognize. In some cases, a new teacher may be just a few years older than the students and may mistakenly view them as peers. They may share common interests, the same musical tastes, and possibly even an overlapping circle of friends. Moreover, because of the demanding nature of the first years of teaching, a new teacher may spend less time with his or her family and may begin seek students as a support system.

In addition, teachers also bring their own unique vulnerabilities to work. Teachers who are experiencing difficulties in their personal lives or are socially or emotionally immature may be particularly susceptible to the “slippery slope.” The attention, admiration and sometimes adoration bestowed by students on a teacher can be overwhelming, particularly when a teacher is emotionally vulnerable. While there is no single profile of an offender, typical vulnerabilities include viewing students as peers, suffering from adult relationship issues, immaturity, need for attention, a sense of invulnerability, absence of a developed personal moral compass and lack of personal crisis management skills. Learning to recognize one’s own vulnerabilities is the first step in avoiding misconduct with students. Every decision made by a teacher with respect to his or her students should be prefaced with the question: “Whose needs are being met by my course of action?” There can only be one acceptable answer to this question ---- the needs of the student! Betraying the trust of students, parents, the profession and the community is never acceptable.

It is incumbent on all teachers to safeguard the well-being of their students from dangers inside and outside of school. Teachers must not only zealously guard against putting their needs before their students, but must also work to ensure that their colleagues conform to the appropriate standard of ethical practice as well. The employment and certification repercussions for engaging in sexual misconduct or inappropriate relationships with students are grave. Teachers who ignore their responsibilities can be assured that their conduct will trigger discipline which in all likelihood will include the loss of employment and the suspension and/or revocation of their certification.

The primary mechanism for ensuring students with disabilities receive the right educational content and rigor at the right moment in their education is the individualized education program (IEP). 

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 marked an historic win for civil rights when the doors to public education were opened for all students. For the first time, children with disabilities had access to a public education and the hope of a productive and fulfilling future. Today, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), the most recent iteration of that law, aims to deliver on that promise; namely, that all students with disabilities have equitable access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment.

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), the recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, also aims to deliver on that promise; namely that all students, across all backgrounds and circumstances, are provided the opportunity to receive a high-quality education. However, effectively preparing students with disabilities for life after high school remains a challenge for states as evidenced by the significant educational achievement and opportunity gaps that persist between students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. 

The two most significant Supreme Court decisions to date that have informed this new landscape and how SEAs and local school districts implement the requirements of IDEA are the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley of 1982 (Rowley), and the Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 of 2017 (Endrew). The Rowley decision has been frequently interpreted to establish a basic floor of educational services for students receiving special education, while the Endrew decision set a more substantive bar for achievement and accountability. While both landmark cases provide direction to educators, the Endrew decision compels educators at all levels to examine special education policies and practices to ensure students with disabilities have access to challenging instruction and are afforded the opportunity to make progress in light of their individual circumstances. These landmark decisions are rooted in providing equal opportunities to students with disabilities and ensure they receive the maximum educational benefits possible from specifically-designed instruction  provided by effective teachers.

To deliver on that promise, students with disabilities are provided with an individualized education program (IEP). The IEP is developed to ensure that a child who has a disability identified under the law, requires special education, and is attending an elementary or secondary school receives specially-designed instruction and related services. An IEP is developed by a team of individuals generally consisting of a student’s teachers and other school personnel with knowledge of the student, a school or district administrator, the parent or guardian, and if age appropriate, the student. IEPs are legal and binding and meet the student’s learning needs, articulating the services required by the student to maximize their potential, meet agreed upon academic and behavioral goals, and thereby receive educational benefit.

In a landscape where students with IEPs are increasingly included in general education classrooms, states must ensure that all educators, teachers, leaders, and school staff, are prepared to provide these students with high quality instruction and appropriate individualized services and supports. What constitutes excellent instruction for a majority of students is not always effective for students with disabilities. However, when educators incorporate high-leverage and evidence-based practices, specialized instruction, and intensive interventions, students with disabilities can be successful and progress in the general education classroom.

Although an IEP is a vehicle for providing a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities, it will only enable a student to receive that education insofar as the people responsible for its execution are prepared to respond effectively to students’ learning needs through effective instruction, the identification and provision of appropriate services and supports, the measurement and monitoring of student progress, and a clear expectation of family engagement throughout the process.

The Endrew decision lays out and reinforces several important points:

• It rejected the “de minimis” or “trivial” educational benefit standard as interpreted by some courts under Rowley.

• It did not replace the Rowley decision, but rather, clarified its FAPE standard and emphasized “progress”.

• It provided guidance to IEP team members in developing IEPs that meet the higher Endrew standard:

• Parents should have meaningful involvement in IEP meetings and their concerns be considered in their child’s goals.

• IEP goals should be challenging, appropriately ambitious, and measurable.

• IEPs should consider present levels of performance, levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth.

• IEP teams should measure progress on annual goals and maintain data to indicate that progress has been made.

• When progress is not being made, the IEP team should reconvene to make needed instructional changes.

• avoid activities that may reasonably raise concerns as to their propriety;

• refrain from comments of a personal nature or suggestive in tone to a student;

• respect students' cultural backgrounds;

• appreciate and accommodate the similarities and differences among students' cultures;

• consider students' language skills and cultural backgrounds when developing lessons;

• do not make assumptions about an individual based on the racial, ethnic, or cultural groups to which he or she appears to belong;

• refer students to the appropriate resource if they are in need of counseling;

• develop lessons that meet students' individual learning needs; and

• create a safe classroom environment where all students can learn.