About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

33 Ariz. L. Rev. 43 (1991)
The End of Insubordination

handle is hein.journals/arz33 and id is 53 raw text is: THE END OF INSUBORDINATION Donal M. Sacken* The most serious accusation that can be levied against a public school teacher in Arizona is not immorality. Nor is it grossly unprofessional conduct or incompetence. Under this state's law of teacher dismissal, an accusation of insubordination is much more serious. The school district's burden of proof is virtually nonexistent, and the accusation, if provable, is treated as an irremedi- able act. This insubordination doctrine not only skews authority relations powerfully towards school administration, but also perpetuates an anachronistic image of schools. It fosters an organizational design that frustrates effective school operations. The insubordination doctrine in Arizona is entirely a common law prod- uct, deriving primarily from four relatively recent decisions.' It emerged with no particular rationale, apart from some conclusory judicial observations, based on implicit assumptions regarding appropriate authority relationships within a school. The doctrine is not merely unjustifiable, it is mischievous. Not only can it inhibit organizational reforms viewed as essential to renovating public schools, but it also encourages managerial behaviors that are counterproductive and potentially unethical. After reviewing the origin and nature of the insubordination doctrine, I argue that it warrants either abandonment or substantial reformulation, to bring it into line with more reasoned versions extant in other states' public law.3 THE MEANINGS OF INSUBORDINATION Arizona has not produced many teacher dismissal cases, and only four reported opinions directly turn on insubordination.3 The doctrine was defined * Associate Professor of Educational Foundations and Administration, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Arizona. B.A., 1970, J.D., 1973, University of Texas; Ph.D., 1977, Georgia State University. 1. Title 15 of the Arizona Revised Statutes does not specify insubordination as a grounds for teacher dismissal. Among the jumble of provisions describing various forms of unprofessional conduct, the legislature has specified that teachers must receive descriptive state- ments of charges leading to dismissal alleging unprofessional conduct, conduct in violation of the rules, regulations or policies of the governing board or inadequacy of classroom perfor- mance .. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15-539(C) (1985). Thus, even where bases for dis- missal are enumerated, the term insubordination is not used. Insubordination is, however, specified as a cause for discipline or dismissal of state employees, but the term is not defined. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 41-770(A)(6) (1985). 2. See infra notes 63 et seq. and accompanying text. 3. A logical question raised by the small number of insubordination cases is whether such an infrequently litigated issue is consequential. Given the nature of an insubordination charge, there is little reason for a teacher to dispute an allegation. The small number of cases may be an artifact of the doctrine. If administrators overlook many acts that could sustain an

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most