Nexus Requirement Historical Context

Key Concepts ▪ Morrison vs. State Board of Education ▪ Nexus Requirement ▪ Fitness to Teach ▪ Case Examples

Morrison vs. State Board of Education The Facts ▪ 1969 California Supreme Court Case ▪ Veteran teacher, Marc Morrison’s former male lover reported their affair to his superintendent. ▪ The superintendent asked for his resignation and Morrison’s teaching credentials were revoked on basis of immoral conduct. ▪ The court reviewed his case and took a critical look at the rights to a private life for teachers. (Shotwell, 2010, p. 55-6)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education The Findings ▪ The court found that the terms “immoral or unprofessional conduct” or “immoral turpitude” are too broad in definition and opinion. ▪ Opinions on the terms vary across economic, social, cultural, and regional boundaries. ▪ Because of this the court determined that by having these terms in Educational codes the employing institutions had too much power in teacher dismissal cases. (SCOCAL, 1969)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education The Results ▪ The case presented a major shift in the landscape of public school teachers. ▪ Since the inception of public education 200 years ago public school teachers were thought as being “owned” by the public. ▪ Thus, they had no tangible right to a private life. ▪ Morrison vs. State Board of Education took a huge step in changing this concept. (Shotwell, 2010, p.56-7)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education The Results ▪ The court acknowledged, but ultimately rejected, the ever-present Protestant idea of morality. ▪ Instead they chose to employ a Nexus Requirement that better fit into the secular ideals that have become present day society. ▪ They did this in an attempt to limit the school district’s power and willingness to delve into teacher’s private lives. (Shotwell, 2010, p. 57-8)

Nexus Requirement What is It? ▪ In teacher dismissal cases the Nexus Requirement calls for a direct connection be made between a teacher’s behavior and their ‘fitness to teach.’ ▪ It is especially important in cases where a teacher is fired for conduct outside the classroom. ▪ Normally a court will uphold a teacher’s right to privacy unless a considerable nexus is found between the behavior and classroom effectiveness.

Nexus Requirement Four Main Areas A Nexus is Found 1.The incident involved the student population or youth of a similar age. 2.The incident was widely publicized. 3.The incident occurred in a “public place” and thus the teacher forfeited his (or her) right to privacy. 4.The incident was just part of a larger, irremediable, chronic “problem” or behavior pattern. (Hooker, 1994, p. 9)

Nexus Requirement How Does it Help? ▪ The Nexus Requirement affords some protection for teachers in relation to their private lives. ▪ It helps define ambiguous terms such as “morality” and “immoral.” ▪ Provides a legitimate precedence for future court cases on similar issues. ▪ Keeps the conversation where it matters—in the schools.

Should a teacher be fired for their out of class behavior? Nexus Requirement Basic Flow Chart Was their behavior criminal and explicitly stated in the district’s code of conduct. Teacher Dismissed YesNo Does it directly affect the teacher’s performance in the classroom? Teacher Retained

Fitness To Teach What is It? ▪ Morrison vs. State Board of Education paired the Nexus Requirement with a “Fitness to Teach” policy. ▪ They did this in order to help administrators determine whether a teacher’s out of class behavior has affected their ability in the classroom. ▪ The court provided a list of 8, nonexhaustive, factors that should help school administrators in determining a teacher’s fitness to teach. (Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)

Fitness To Teach 8 Factors 1.the likelihood that the conduct may have adversely affected students and fellow teachers. 2.the degree of such adversity anticipated. 3.the proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct. 4.the type of teaching certificate held by the party involved. 5.the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, if any, surrounding the conduct. (Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)

Fitness To Teach 8 Factors Continued 6.the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of the motives resulting in the conduct. 7.the likelihood of the recurrence of the questioned conduct. 8.the extent to which disciplinary action may inflict an adverse impact or chilling effect upon the constitutional rights of the teacher involved or other teachers. (Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)

Case Example 1) Kinniry vs. Abington School District The Facts ▪ Kinniry, a tenured teacher, pled guilty to trafficking counterfeit designer watches. ▪ His school district brought charges against him stating that he was an ineffective elementary school teacher due to his conduct. ▪ The school district claimed that Kinniry “offended the morals of the community and set a bad example for students.” ▪ The court upheld Kinniry’s dismissal on moral grounds. (Miller, 1997)

Case Example 1) Kinniry vs. Abington School District Analysis ▪ The court based their decision on the federal offenses Kinniry had been charged with were federal crimes and thus they offended the morals of all communities in the nation. ▪ This was enough for the court to decide that his crimes did in fact inhibit his ability to effectively teach. (Miller, 1997)

Case Example 2) Zelno vs. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors The Facts ▪ Zelno, a tenured teacher, was found guilty of her third DUI. ▪ She was sentenced to incarceration during the weekends and summer until her sentence was completed. ▪ She taught in a program for students in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. ▪ She was fired for “immorality and intemperance” when her employee became aware of her convictions. (Haskins, 2002)

Case Example 2) Zelno vs. Lincoln Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors Analysis ▪ The Nexus Requirement is fulfilled in this case because her conduct directly relates to her teaching. ▪ Zelno taught students in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs while she, herself had three convictions for alcohol related charges. ▪ The court decision is based off of the idea that her conduct made her a bad role model for her students especially since she taught students struggling with alcohol problems. (Haskins, 2002)

References Haskins, P. (2002, July 9). Zelno v. Lincoln intermediate unit no. 12 board of directors. Retrieved from Hooker, C. P. (1994). Terminating teachers and revoking their licensure for conduct beyond the schoolhouse gate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, San Diego, California. Miller, C., & Aumiller, D. (1997, July). Kinniry v. abrington. Retrieved from SCOCAL. Morrison v. state board of education. (1969, November 20). Retrieved from Shotwell, K. D. (2010). Secretly falling in love: America's love affair with controlling the hearts and minds of public school teachers. Journal Of Law & Education, 39(1), Retrieved from AN= &site=eds-live&scope=site