By Dr. C.E.S. copyright © All rights reserved. Originally published Sept. 15, 1978; The Michigan Chronicle.
Even as a new school term eases into high gear, attentive ears are hearing strident notes of public discontent. Although not yet an overwhelming force, the hint of discord threatens to distort the cheerful sounds of school bells and disrupt the sorely needed process of teaching and learning which they heralded.
Those who have voiced that pessimistic view are not without cause for concern. Several happenings form a pattern which provides good reason to believe the tide of popular opinion has turned against American education in general, and publicly financed schools in particular.
Evidence to support that disturbing conclusion has become apparent in a newly threatening form. Although currently overshadowed by a taxpayer revolt which was prompted largely by a seemingly endless siege of inflation, there are warning signs of an even more ominous societal movement.
Appearing here and there around the country are lawsuits against teachers whose alleged failure to promote student learning has been brought into question. Unlike what is transpiring in fields once considered more highly vulnerable, such as medicine and law which already have had more than their share of days in court, malpractice lawsuits are not yet considered to be a major problem for individual teachers, or for the system as a whole.
But, given the tenor of our times, the reactionary fever is contagious. That was the major point of comments in the July-August edition of the lawyer’s magazine, “Case and Comments.” Written by R. C. Newell, an American Federation of Teachers’ official, the article pointed to parents who have already sought legal redress and punitive damages, and predicted that others are sure to follow.
As stated by Newell, who once was education reporter for the Washington Afro-American Newspaper: “In a climate of heavy criticism of schools for failure to solve social problems of our time – and educate all children with equal success, prospects of more numerous malpractice suits must be considered a real danger to American education.”
Many will recall that last week in this space mention was made of the fact that lawsuits against teachers are neither new nor undesirable when used as means of constraining or correcting unprofessional conduct. Abusive or excessive action taken in the name of control or discipline is inexcusable.
What is under scrutiny here, however, is something else again. Particularly so in its implications for both law and common logic which are generally assumed to be closely related if not inseparable. The premise that all children can be coached, coaxed or in any way counted on to learn equally well is sheer nonsense.
Bearing in mind Mr. Newell’s inclination toward bias regarding this issue, it’s not difficult to understand how he arrived at the assumption that “parents, by themselves, did not conjure up the legal argument that teachers and/or school systems were engaged in ‘malpractice’ when they failed to effectively educate the students involved.”
And he is not at all unreasonable in is conclusion that, “in the hands of some zealous legal eagles, the old maxim – you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink – has been forgotten, ignored, or distorted to allow the diametrically opposed premise that all children will learn equally as a result of court intervention.”
But, from the lawyer’s point of view, negligence is negligence whether exhibited by doctors, teachers, lawyers or even parents. And that viewpoint also must be recognized and appreciated despite disagreement with the legal profession’s bottom line position that, “in the long run, awareness of malpractice responsibility will be helpful.”
Underlying the fear of that so-called remedy is a conviction that educational malpractice suits will be more harmful than helpful. To attack teaching-learning problems in this manner inevitably will persecute many innocent practitioners in order to punish a few guilty ones. Far better to further train those teachers who would benefit – and weed out the totally incompetent or incompatible.