The bullying by a teacher effectively produces a hostile climate for the student that is indefensible on academic grounds; undermining learning and the ability of a student to fulfll academic requirements. It shares at its core the same attributes of other abuses of power such as sexual harassment or hate crimes. A hate crime is simply bullying by target selection based on characteristics of race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

The bullying is non-physical but nevertheless pervasive and powerful with the student fearing shunning and humiliation as much as physical harm. The threat of humiliation is used as a weapon in this case. The students feels literaly trapped in an environment where the abuse is imposed upon them and there is no escape. Any complaint abut the abusive behavior places the student at risk of retaliation by the teacher including the use of grades as a sanction. Students are selected as targets based on some perceived difference by the teacher that is devalued. When the basis of the target selection is also based on discrminatory recognizable categories such as religion, it is called a hate crime. Regardless of selection process, bullying conduct by a teacher sends a clear message of fear that threatens the student, enhances their sense of vulnerability, and produces a loss of faith in the fairness of the schools.

A student victim feels emotionally distraught anf fearful, with no place to turn for help. When administration's do nothing to defend the student, they are confirming the teacher has a right to use professional authority and endorsing and tacitly legitimizing the abuser's mistreatment.

In the Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education the Davis Court defined that schools receiving federal funds may be held financially responsible where officials are "deliberately indifferent" to harassing behaviors including staff to student harassment that are "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive". This ruling defined four criteria in considering school liability: 1)school officials had actual knowledge of conduct, 2) schools were deliberately indifferent to conduct, 3) school had control of the abuser and where it occurred, and 4) the school's response or lack of response was unreasonable given such knowledge. The ruling also suggests that schools have in pace policies and procedures to address abusive conduct such as teacher-student harassment/abuse. In effect, if the school has allowed behavior that creates a hostile environment for student in a classroom, and school officials have been given appropriate notice but fail to act, then the school risks both compensatory and punitive damages.

This one case alone proves that teacher bullying does exist. This case holds Administrators accountable for the actions of the teachers. If your student is a victim of teacher bullying, speak up and speak out. Sometimes as parents we are the only voice that is heard. It is our responsibility as parents to hold our educators responsible for their actions and behaviors.

Page 2 of 3 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 3 | Next