Ethical Dilemma Educ 2003

1. Ethical DilemmaEduc 2003 Brittney Cornelius Charolette Holloway Crystal Santos

2. DilemmaCase study: E You suspect that one of your students is smoking at school based on the way her clothes smell when she is near. Can you open her locker to check for cigarettes without strict probable cause?

3. Involved Parties SRO Officer Principal Teacher Student Parent School Counselor

4. Ethical Relevant Issues • Code of Ethics • Fourth Amendment Rights • School Policies and Regulations

5. Code of Ethics • (G) Standard 1.7. • The educator shall comply with state regulations, written local school board policies, and other state and federal laws. • (C) Standard 3.3 • The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misrepresent facts regarding a student. • (E) Standard 3.5 • The educator shall not intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engage in physical mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a student or minor. • (I) Standard 3.9 • The educator shall refrain from inappropriate communication with a student or minor including , but not limited to electronic communication such as cell phone, text messaging, email, instant messaging, blogging or other social network communication.

6. Fourth Amendment Rights • The Fourth Amendment • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

7. School Policies and Regulations • Drugs in School • 1.1 This policy covers the possession and use of alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs and the misuse of over-the-counter and prescribed medications, including the supply of restricted substances, on school premises by students. It also covers the possession and use of alcohol and tobacco on school premises by employees and visitors.

8. Supreme Court Cases • New Jersey v. T.L.O. • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school. Students have “legitimate expectations of privacy,” the court said, but that must be balanced with the school’s responsibility for “maintaining an environment in which learning can take place.” The initial search of Terry’s purse for cigarettes was reasonable, the court said, based on the teacher’s report that she’d been smoking the bathroom. The discovery of rolling papers near the cigarettes in her purse created a reasonable suspicion that she possessed marijuana, the court said, which justified further exploration.

9. Possible Courses of Action Action “A” • Take student to the principal’s office to conduct one-on-one questions to see how the student will respond to the questions. Action “B” • The teacher will go through the students locker on her own because they believe they have probable cause.

10. Possible Consequences of Action “A” Action “A” • Short-term • INNOCENT- cause educator to look bad and be reprimanded • GUILTY- student will dislike educator • On-going • INNOCENT- reputation could possibly be tarnished among students and parents • GUILTY- student will dislike educator and tell friends • Long-term • INNOCENT- tainted reputation among students and staff • GUILTY- future students will not like educator • Psychological costs • INNOCENT- embarrassment, resentment • GUILTY- students could bully teacher • Social costs • INNOCENT- embarrassment within school (colleagues and students) • GUILTY- morally correct and be appraised by higher authority • Economic costs • INNOCENT- money spent on letters of apology • GUILTY- cause educator to feel unsafe in their working environment

11. Possible Consequences of Action “B” Action “B” • Short-term • INNOCENT- educator is in trouble with higher authority • GUILTY- principal will not support educators decision on breaking and entering • On-going • INNOCENT- parent phone calls • GUILTY- student will claim her fourth amendment was violated • Long-term • INNOCENT- parent will continue to be upset and cause problems • GUILTY- educator will have to testify against student causing school to look bad • Psychological costs • INNOCENT- embarrassment, resentment • GUILTY- regret not telling principal first • Social costs • INNOCENT- embarrassment within school (colleagues and students) • GUILTY- not be trusted by higher authority • Economic costs • INNOCENT- money spent on letters of apology • GUILTY- school board decides if educator is eligible for court fee reimbursement

12. Taking Action “A” • Take the student to the principal’s office and work along with a higher authority. Allow the rules and regulations of the school to take its course.

13. Commitment Statement • I have chosen to take the following action because it follows the code of ethics and standards of Texas. As an educator I must take what I have encountered to a higher authority, my principal, so that we may work as a team on resolving this issue. Although students have rights I can not ignore what I have come across. Therefore, to make the right decision as an educator I need to keep in mind the safety and well being of every student.

14. Negative Consequences • Teacher might be disliked by students because she went forth with making sure the issue was brought to attention. • Parents might take it out on the teacher for making their child be known as “problematic.” • Also the parents will be upset that they may have to pay fines, and go out of their normal schedule for their child to maybe have to do community service.

15. Sources • http://www.tea.state.tx.us • https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/student_welfare/drug_incid/PD20020040.shtm • http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2 • http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20080915monday.html