DT> MS>    I'm just pointing out that the teacher-discipline process does
DT> MS>not work  as well as the student-discipline process.
DT> 
DT> Really?  Is that statement generally true or just true in the case 
DT> you 
DT> cited?  
    It's true _generally_ in North Carolina.
    There are 17 appeals-court-level cases on firing tenured teachers in this 
state.  The key one "Thompson vs. Bd. of Education" shows that even physical 
abuse that would get a parent arrested if he did it to his own kid will not 
be sufficient to fire a tenured teacher.  "Crump vs. Bd. of Education" is a 
case showing that even sexual harassment of students by a teacher, while 
sufficient to justify firing, will possibly result in the district being held 
liable for being 'biased' against the teacher in the firing process by the 
community notoriety of his actions.  All 17 cases show a pattern of 
litigation coming from union lawyers viewing the termination of a tenured 
teacher for even the most egregious conduct as probably capable of being 
successfully appealed anyway.
    Tenure-dismissal cases in this state drag on for _years_ in individual 
cases, with typical appealed cases dragging out longer than appeals in 
criminal cases and having more hearings.  (8 years of bouncing around the 
appeals courts is common.)
    The student-discipline process here, OTOH, _works_: cases are resolved 
fast even with any appeals, and conduct that would get the kid arrested gets 
him expelled.
--- Simplex BBS (v1.07.00Beta [DOS])
---------------