Court okays novel plan to boost final grade

In what has to be one of the most bizarre decisions to come out of an appellate court, a three-judge panel in Washington state has ruled that state law does not bar teachers from having sex with 18-year-old students.

The appellate decision ordered the dismissal of a case brought against a former high school choir teacher.

The 33-year-old teacher was charged with first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor in 2006. He challenged a judge’s refusal to dismiss his case. The appeals court unanimously agreed that the state law is vague, and that the state legislature only intended to forbid sexual contact between school employees and students who are 16 or 17.

And we foolishly thought it might be the entire student body that was off limits to sexual predators.

The astonishing article in Washington Times article can be read here.

Seeing Red AZ has covered the increasingly frequent and disturbing escapades involving  Valley teachers and their students.

6 Responses to Court okays novel plan to boost final grade

  1. Sideliner says:

    Those black robes sure enhance brain power. Amazing!

  2. Virginia says:

    As a former teacher, I find this utterly and completely appalling!

    This absurd decision gives a green light to those individuals who would exploit their young students. I don’t care if the student is 14 or 18, the teacher holds a position of authority and trust, and should never be given the legal go-ahead to betray either their students or the parents who expect so much more.

    No wonder an increasing number of parents are choosing alternatives to public schools.

  3. Kent says:

    What has the National Education Association had to say about this? I haven’t heard a word decrying this insane ruling.

  4. Stanford says:

    So now the college admittance folks will be left to decide whether those superb grades the seniors got were earned the old fashioned or by the court’s newly endorsed manner. Judges need to be answerable to the people they have absolute power over. This decision is a perfect answer to give to those proponents of the status quo who say the judiciary is above the fray and should have no constituency to answer to.

    That’s obviously the problem, as evidenced with this absurd and dangerous decision.

  5. ron says:

    You have my vote on this blog. It is called a ‘dual relationship’ in professional ethical codes. Bizarre.

  6. Villanova says:

    Merit selection of judges is such a fine concept, giving us the soundest minds and best decision makers.
    With this decision as a guide (and this was a THREE-judge panel voting UNANIMOUSLY) how could anyone argue that elections are preferable?

    Just joking. Notice the sarcasm is dripping off my words? With elections this entire panel could get tossed off the bench. They need to be!

    And Kent, you asked about the NEA’s comments on this shameful decision. I’ve searched and found nada. Zip. Zero. Nothing. What hypocrites!