The Issue: Teachers and Administrators selling photographic services and/or goods to students or their parents in the licensee’s home school district.
The Law: Iowa Code Section 282
The opening paragraph of 282-25.1 Scope of Standards states:
“This code of professional conduct and ethics constitutes mandatory minimal standards of practice for all licensed practitioners as defined in Iowa Code chapter 272. The adherence to certain professional and ethical standards is essential to maintaining the integrity of the education profession. (emphasis mine)
The specifics of the code, as it pertains to professional photographers, is found in:
282-25.3(6) Standard VI – "unethical practice toward other members of the profession, parents, students, and the community. Violation of this standard includes:"
282-25.3(6)f
“Soliciting students or parents of students to purchase equipment, supplies, or services from the practitioner for the practitioner’s personal advantage.”
The law is quite clear.
The professional interpretations of the law by Beth Meyers, Attorney for the Board of Educational Examiners, and Carol Gretta, attorney for the Iowa Department of Education indicated a similar, clear-cut interpretation.
Under 282-25.3(6)f
I have been told that teachers cannot take dances, sports, memory mates, underclass, senior or family photos of people in their teachers home school district. In fact, the home school district is a “blackout area” that the teacher cannot do business in.
Much like a lawyer is required to turn down business because for even a potential conflict of interest, a teacher is obliged to turn down business for the same reason.
They are excluded from “home district” business. They can, however, pursue business outside their home school district.
Why do some administrators allow teachers to violate 282? They are under the mistaken belief that they are allowed to “regulate” what teachers may do commercially during non-school hours. This is, however, only a statement of procedures, NOT a law.
Ask any 1st year law student, wherever a “statement” or “policy” contradicts with the law, the LAW always wins!
A common “boilerplate” statement in school board policy manuals is:
"Employees’ use of their position with the school district for financial gain shall be considered a conflict of interest with their position as employees and may subject employees to disciplinary action.
Employees have access to information and a captive audience that could award the employee personal or financial gain. No employee may solicit other employees or students for personal or financial gain without the approval of the superintendent. If approval of the superintendent is given, the employee must conduct the solicitations within the conditions set by the superintendent. Further, the superintendent may, upon 5 days notice, require the employee to cease such solicitations as a condition of continued employment…. "
While this might be useful in a small, isolated rural district where there are no other choices except for a teacher to provide the service, that falls by the wayside if there IS someone available to provide the service who is not a teacher.
What can the PPI do?
They must examine the scope of the problem, educate its members, and educate school administrators and school boards.
This weekend of Feb. 6-9th, while at this PPI Winter Convention, the PPI should;
1) Take a survey, find out how many members are affected by this in their areas.
a) The survey should include as much information as possible, including
b) Contact information of the photographer(s) and their studio(s)
c) name of the teacher,
d) years of “problems” covered,
e) list of alleged activities photographed for compensation.
2) All PPI members sign a petition to be presented to the Board of Educational Examiners, and the Iowa Department. (See attached suggested petition)
3) A PPI board member or regular member who is on their local school board should petition Beth Myers, attorney for the BOEE for a clarification of the implications of Iowa Code 282-25.3(6)f.
4) As follow-up over the next several years, continue to educate PPI members and their school districts by sending letters to the school superintendents and school board presidents about Iowa Code 282-25.3(6)f.
I will be attending the Winter Program at Des Moines and will be more than happy to work with you and the board on this. I have been working on this problem for over a year and have heard about every excuse imaginable.
Sincerely,
George Ensley
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
WHAT ISSUES NEED TO BE CLARIFIED
ReplyDeleteIowa Code Section 282-25.3(6)f prohibits teachers and/or administrators from selling goods or services for personal advantage to the district’s students or parents.
“Soliciting students or parents of students to purchase equipment, supplies, or services from the practitioner for the practitioner’s personal advantage.”
Because “This code of professional conduct and ethics constitutes mandatory minimal standards of practice for all licensed practitioners as defined in Iowa Code chapter 272. The adherence to certain professional and ethical standards is essential to maintaining the integrity of the education profession.
The following issues need to be to be clarified, explained and confirmed:
1) The teacher/administrator’s home school district is a “blackout area”, and that (s)he cannot conduct business with students and/or their parents, nor organizations whose primary clients and/or participants are students from the home school district.
2) That a clear and understandable “blackout notice” must appear on the home page of business websites, advertising, and on printed material.
3) A properly worded statement must be used to screen phone inquiries.
4) Potential clients that are students and/or parents must be declined or referred elsewhere. They do not know the law, the teacher does.
5) Clarification that “a student is a student” 12 months a year, 24/7, until they graduate, move, or drop out of the school district.
6) That where Iowa Code 282 and school district may conflict, Iowa Code 282 takes precedence.
7) That “working for a spouse” or being “the spouse of a teacher/administrator” is not a shelter from Educational Examiners 282.
8) That teachers cannot compensate students to represent and/or sell for them.