The state almost always turns down would-be school employees with histories of inappropriate contact with minors, but violent crime and drunken driving don’t necessarily preclude applicants from getting educational certificates in Pennsylvania.
Some texted students excessively; battered household members; rang up more than one robbery conviction; and tallied DUIs, in some cases several of them. The state Department of Education decided who among them was fit to work in schools through “good moral character” reviews.
The assessments are the first line of defense for the department to determine whether educators have “good moral character,” as state law requires. The department conducts reviews when an applicant answers a background question that indicates prior convictions or that they were the subject of an investigation, or when it receives independent information.
Critics describe the requirement – common in occupational licensing – as vague, outdated and unfair to applicants convicted of crimes who have completed their sentence.
The department has conducted more than 1,900 such reviews over the past two decades, approving at least 1,857 and denying fewer than 70. In some cases, officials threw out applications because educators failed to turn in required follow-up information within a year.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette obtained a database of reviews through an open records request. Although the department would not provide names or locations, citing privacy concerns, an analysis of the cases sheds light on a high-stakes but otherwise confidential process aimed at balancing safety with fairness toward toward applicants.
Among the findings:
• At least 195 of the reviews related to drunken driving. Nearly all were approved, including applicants with multiple DUI convictions and another involved in a hit-and-run case.
• Simple assault, a misdemeanor, and similar crimes don’t automatically rule out applicants either. At least 15 approved applications looked at cases of apparent violent crimes, including cases of assault with a deadly weapon and "false imprisonment to law enforcement.”
• Improper contact with students, however, is almost always disqualifying. Denials include cases of “inappropriate comments and touching of female students” and “excessive texts to [a] student.” An apparent exception: a 2012 application from an educator cited for “purchasing alcohol for minors” nine years earlier. That was approved.
Richard Weissbourd, a senior lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said that a teacher’s moral character “matters more than anything in school” because they serve as role models for students and create the ethos of classrooms where young people forge their own senses of right and wrong.
“I’m not referring to a particular set of moral beliefs,” he said. “I’m referring to the moral capacity to empathize, to care for people different than you, to be fair, and at times, to understand how a community functions fairly, to value honesty, and to have enough self-awareness to know when you’re being honest and not honest.”
In short, moral character is nuanced, complex and elastic – and that makes it hard to measure in a meaningful way, Mr. Weissbourd said.
“Whatever assessment you come up with, a lot of people aren’t going to like it,” he said. “It’s impossible to come up with a perfect assessment of this stuff.”
Would-be teachers in Pennsylvania apply for certification through the state’s online platform, the Teacher Information Management System. The first step poses seven background questions, including queries about past criminal convictions, misconduct investigations and sanctions by state licensing departments.
The department may then ask applicants flagged for review to provide a signed letter or statement of explanation, current resume, five reference letters and other documents.
That information goes to Noe Ortega, the Education Department’s deputy secretary for the office of postsecondary and higher education for review. Officials consider the nature of the conduct, the applicant’s attitude toward the conduct and the applicant’s efforts to rehabilitate.
Mr. Ortega said that his office – through priorities set under Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration – believes “that people who stumble along the way [should be] given an opportunity to demonstrate that they in fact have changed their behaviors.”
The department weighs a number of factors, including precedence in past reviews and the “societal and political context” of who in society is most often convicted of crimes, he said.
Explanation letters also shine a light on how an applicant has changed since their conviction, certification specialist Alicia Steinhauer said.
"They do offer a lot of information about themselves and their thought process, and where they were at that time, and where they are now, and who they surround themselves with now, and where they see themselves going, and what they want to do, and why they want to be a teacher,” she said. “All those things are included in the letters."
The incidents in the database run the gamut, including someone cited for “2009 propulsion of missiles onto highway” and another who “stole $800 from a pizza shop.” Those applications – an instructional and intern certificate, respectively – were approved.
Some of the red flags appear to go back decades. One applicant seeking a substitute teaching certificate in 2016 disclosed a bastardy and fornication conviction. That law, which barred an unmarried man and woman from conceiving a child together, was repealed in the early 1970s.
Chris Lilienthal, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania State Education Association, said his organization supports the review system because it “protects students in the classroom” and provides due process, which “underlies everything we do as a union.”
“We believe they should have that right to hear and contest charges brought against them,” he said. “In conversations with [PSEA] staff and leadership, we believe the process affords applicants that opportunity.”
The department website indicates that there is a “strong presumption that the applicant currently lacks good moral character” if they committed a crime that led to placement in an accelerated rehabilitative disposition program, which allows offenders to clear their record after completing probation or other requirements.
But that’s not always a cause for denial. At least 18 applicants received certification after participating in that type of program, records show. Those were applicants who “have gone through the criminal justice process with success” since their last conviction and were able to establish good moral character, department spokesman Eric Levis said in an email.
“In any criminal matter, the [department] looks at the nature of the crime and the time since the last occurrence of any criminal behavior,” he said.
For educators who already have their certificate, a drunken driving conviction can have steep consequences. At least 75 educators have faced certification discipline, including suspension and revocation, for drunken driving since 2005, according to the state’s database of certification actions.
Steven Fairlie, a criminal defense lawyer outside of Philadelphia, said that his clients are typically well aware of the implications a conviction may have on their career. Teachers generally come to him accused of “very minor stuff,” such as a first-offense DUI, theft or marijuana possession, he said.
“But for a very serious case, it’s sort of a foregone conclusion that clients are not going to be able to teach, end of story,” he said.
State law lists more than two dozen crimes – including criminal homicide and sex offenses – that outright ban educators from working in schools. Other felony and misdemeanor offenses allow for prohibition for prospective employees ranging between three and 10 years.
“Clients are very attuned to the fact that they could lose their job depending on the results of their criminal case,” Mr. Fairlie said.
He also reminds clients of another potential hurdle: Schools may still refuse to hire them even if they obtain certification.
Critics have taken on good moral character reviews in other areas of occupational licensing. In December, two women challenged a Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology decision to deny them licenses because of character concerns related to past criminal convictions. That case remains pending.
On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced bills in the House and Senate that would require, among other things, that licensure boards consider only convictions directly related to the area of work the applicant is seeking.
State Reps. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia, Sheryl Delozier, R-Cumberland, and state Sens. John DiSanto, R-Dauphin, and Judy Schwank, D-Berks, co-sponsored the legislation.
Mr. DiSanto said Wednesday that much of the framework behind occupational licensing standards was “developed in the ‘50s and ‘60s and needs to evolve.”
“A lot of these criminal records are meant to be used by criminal justice system and not to be used for employment characteristics,” he said. “It's not what they were specifically designed for.”
In education certification specifically, officials must vet applicants to ensure students are safe. “But within those questions they ask, a lot of the type of felonies really would have no bearing,” Mr. DiSanto.
In some cases, a teacher’s past mistakes might even make them more relatable to their students, said Mr. Weissbourd, the Harvard educator.
“It makes them more real and authentic,” he said, “and much more willing to talk about their own flaws and mistakes, and not see them as catastrophic.”
Matt McKinney: mmckinney@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1944, or on Twitter @mmckinne17.
First Published: May 28, 2019, 11:14 a.m.
