The number of disciplinary actions taken against Utah educators this year by the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission was more than half again as many as the previous year.
In the period from July 1, 1990, to June 30, 1991, the commission reviewed 28 complaints against teachers, administrators or other certified school workers. In the 11 months from July 1, 1991, through the end of May 1992, the commission considered 45 cases.Summaries of actions for the two years are listed in the accompanying chart.
Because of the public's interest and several highly publicized cases in recent months in which children were victimized, the Deseret News has asked the State Board of Education to make available the names of educators who are disciplined by the commission. The names will be published only at the conclusion of the administrative review, after State Board concurrence and after the 30-day appeal opportunity has expired.
From July through October of this year, the actions approved by the board include: DeMar Nilson, Jordan District, certificate suspended for sexual misconduct; Steven LaMar Corser, Jordan District, certificate suspended for sexual misconduct; Jimmie F. Crittenden, Alpine District, certificate revoked for unprofessional behavior; Tod P. Lunt, Salt Lake District, certificate revoked for a drug offense; and Gordon A. Russell, Weber District, certificate suspended for inappropriate sexual behavior.
The number of complaints brought to the commission has been growing annually over the four years Rosalie England has served, she said. She is the current commission chairwoman.
She attributes the increase to tighter legal requirements and to increased awareness, as well as an actual increase in the number of problem educators in the system.
Laws enacted in the past few legislative sessions require that law enforcement agencies report sex crimes involving teachers to the commission and prevent expungement of criminal records relating to sexual violations against children.
In addition, said England, "Districts are more aware of their responsibility to report problem cases. Teachers and the public also are more aware. But there also are more things going on."
The great majority of the complaints involve either sexual impropriety or drug abuse, said England. The commission also considers complaints brought against educators-in-training and decides if they should continue to work toward careers in education. In three instances this year, individuals were told they should not continue to seek certification in education.
The 11-member commission includes at least six teachers, along with administrators, counselors, school psychologists and others directly involved in education. School districts must have exhausted their own due-process procedures before a case is heard by the state commission.
Every UPPAC action is noted on all state records, shared with all Utah school districts and sent to other states to try to prevent the hiring of a problem educator in a new setting. Several of the cases that have received publicity in Utah during the past year involve educators who have moved from one district to another despite past records of child abuse.
"We have always expected teachers to have a higher standard of ethics. They have high-profile jobs and are entrusted with children. They should live exemplary lives for their students and other people," said England.
Although every case in thoroughly investigated and considered, those that get into the public arena are a special challenge for the commission, she said.
"We always do our best to be fair, but we keep the children's interests uppermost."
Most often, an educator has been removed from the school setting by the time the commission initiates its hearing process, "but that's up to the district," she said.
In her experience on the commission, England said, she has seldom been aware of any frivolous charges brought against an educator. One such case that proved to be groundless was dismissed without a hearing.
Any adult can generate a complaint against an educator. Each is heard by a subgroup of three or more of the commissioners. If the complaint involves a teacher, a majority of the reviewers are teachers, while an instance involving an administrator or other professional certified through the State Office of Education would be heard by the most appropriate members of the commission, she said.
Sitting in judgment on fellow professionals takes an emotional toll, England said.
"Serving on the committee is a mixed bag of things. I enjoy working with other educators, but it's disconcerting to see the problems. I come home after each hearing wondering, `How did this happen?' "
Commission members serve three-year terms, which may be renewed. Those who serve must have the endorsement of at least 10 other educators in their district.
If the number of complaints directed to the commission continues to rise, steps may have to be taken to expand the group's ability to deal with them, she said.
Eventually, too, England said, there may be need for a formal process to hear complaints against noncertified school workers such as bus drivers, food workers, secretarial personnel and others who take advantage of their relationships with students.
*****
(Chart)
Commission actions
Actions taken by the Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission against Utah educators in the past year include:
Action taken A B
Revocations 7 9
Suspensions 9 16
Reprimands 1 4
Warnings 0 3
Refused to renew 2 1
Reinstated 3 1
Refused to reinstate 0 1
Complaint withdrawn, dismissed
or no action 6 7
Educator-in-training given
permission to continue 0 3
Educator-in-training denied
permission to continue 0 3
Total 28 45
A = July 1, 1990 to June 30, 1991
B = July 1, 1991 to May 30, 1992
Note: Due to a change in reporting periods, the first set of figures is for 12 months and the second set for 11 months.
Source: Utah State Office of Education, UPPAC annual reports.