THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, January 31, 1997 TAG: 9701310018
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 51 lines
A teacher who takes an unruly student by the arm shouldn't have to worry about a lawsuit, so long as excessive force was not used.
Bills sponsored by Del. Randy Forbes of Chesapeake in the House and Sen. Ken Stolle of Virginia Beach in the Senate would strengthen the protection of teachers against frivolous lawsuits. The measures should be approved.
The bills add to the Virginia code a section stating that teachers are not liable for civil damages for actions resulting from ``supervision, care or discipline of students.'' The caveats are that the acts must stem from the teachers' jobs, be made in good faith and not involve gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Some argue that the bills are unnecessary. The language would merely codify a 1988 ruling of the Virginia Supreme Court. The court held that a public schoolteacher exercising judgment or discretion within the scope of his employment enjoys sovereign immunity.
Other protections for teachers also exist in the code. For instance, the law already specifies that the state's ban on corporal punishment does not extend to ``the use of incidental, minor or reasonable physical contact or other actions designed to maintain order and control.''
Still, many teachers say the threat of lawsuits is a worrisome cloud on the profession. Lawmakers should heed their concern. The proposed language may be largely redundant, but it is of value if it can ease teachers' minds or offer them an iota more protection.
Some observers complain that both the civil-liability bill and a proposal to have the state pick up the tab for liability insurance for teachers are products of election-year maneuvering. Both Democrats and Republicans are angling to stake a claim as ``the education party'' in fall elections.
But if the competition for votes produces better working conditions for teachers, who cares? If, for instance, the state can provide a better and cheaper liability policy than the localities that already supply such coverage, then the state should pay. If the state can do no better than the localities, then coverage might as well stay as it is.
What should not matter a whit is the fact that the Virginia Education Association also provides liability coverage to its members. Republicans have accused Democrats of opposing state coverage to protect the VEA. Democrats and the VEA counter - persuasively - that the VEA's coverage actually does no more than supplement but does not substitute for that already provided by local governments.
Teachers are far too important to be treated as pawns by either party. Both bills should be passed because it is the state's responsibility to protect those in its employ.