# data[].attributes.body
For this assignment I will be taking the perspective of a High School Administrator. This padlet will be used to discuss legal and ethical guidelines and policies to ensure that all campus staff members are staying in compliance with issues regarding inappropriate student / teacher relationships. I have chosen this topic because sadly it happens in our school system more often than it should, and as a future administrator I want to be prepared to handle this situation.

# data[].attributes.body
In secondary education the issue of inappropriate student . teacher relationships have been happening more often than they should be. According to an Article written by Neal Davis Law Firm, there were 347 inappropriate cases reported in 2018. The years before that, 2015-2016, nearly 1000 teachers were investigated for inappropriate relationships. This issue in our educational system has to be stopped because it is stealing the educational opportunity away from students and it is violating their rights as citizens. Students should be able to go to school and feel safe and secured on campus while earning their education. They should not have to be worried or fear a sexual predator on campus.
An emerging issue related to this topic is the issue of social media relationships between students and teachers. Social media and the way it has evolved, has connected everyone that has a capable mobile device. These social media outlets allow students and teachers to post and share personal information and all information is can be viewed by anyone. This makes students vulnerable to a possible predator who chooses to pursue an interest in their life. This is another issue that must be watched and monitored for the safety of our students.

More Texas Teachers Are Having Sex With Students [Report]. Neal Davis Blog. (2021). Retrieved 2 October 2021, from https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-crimes/texas-teacher-student-relationships.
How Schools Can Stop Inappropriate Teacher/Student Relationships - LearnSafe. LearnSafe. (2021). Retrieved 2 October 2021, from https://learnsafe.com/how-schools-can-stop-inappropriate-teacher-student-relationships/.
Lynch, M., Presentation Creation Apps, a., Preschool Art Apps, a., Preschool Apps, a., Norwegian Language Learning Apps, a., & Danish Language Learning Apps, a. et al. (2021). Social Media and the Student/Teacher Relationship: The Pros and Cons of Establishing Connections with a Grade School Student - The Edvocate. The Edvocate. Retrieved 2 October 2021, from https://www.theedadvocate.org/social-media-and-the-studentteacher-relationship-the-pros-and-cons-of-establishing-connections-with-a-grade-school-student/.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social Media and the Student/Teacher Relationship: The Pros and Cons of Establishing Connections with a Grade School Student

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveThe student/teacher relationship must always be treated with care. While being open and available as an instructor is beneficial, boundaries are just as important. So when these delicate relationships and social media collide, what is the best course of action?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Teach but Don't Touch" the NEA, National Educational Association, discusses the issue of the false accusations of inappropriately touching a student and gives solutions to possibly avoid the situation from ever occurring. This valuable article also explains ways to avoid students and how to report the information to another adult and supervisor.

# data[].attributes.body
Washington Post: DC Parents Want The School System To Do More to Prevent Sexual Misconduct.

This article by the Washington Post discusses how parents in the DC area are battling the issue of sexual misconduct in their school system. Parents in DC are concerned for their students safety after multiple teachers and security guards have been arrested due to sexual misconduct allegations. According to the article, a teacher, who was arrested in Springboard, had sexual misconduct with a student and the investigation launched internally to find the issue found that over 30% of background checks for their employees were not done properly. The article also states that the Mayor of Education, Phil Khin, stated that they are taking aggressive strides in providing training to detect and prevent sexual misconduct. Strides such as lessons on personal boundaries, mental health resources, and trainings on inappropriate student relationships. The parents of the school system want to ensure their children are safe and secure throughout an eight to nine hour school day. A Coalition of parents are ready to fight against this battle of sexual misconduct and will take all necessary steps to do so. (Lumpkin, 2021)

Lumpkin, L. (2021). DC Parents Want School System To Do More to Prevent Sexual Misconuct. Washington Post. Retrieved 3 October 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-parents-want-school-system-to-do-more-to-prevent-sexual-misconduct/2019/09/11/48a532d6-d0b1-11e9-8c1c-7c8ee785b855_story.html.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parents at Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan are railing against city officials after a student was allegedly sexually abused in May. (Jared Soares for The Washington Post)

After allegations surfaced that a student was sexually abused at Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan, D.C. Public Schools cut ties with an after-school care provider that operates in seven states. Officials told families that student safety was paramount.

But parents at the Northeast Washington campus say the school system is not doing enough to protect students from sexual harassment, assault and abuse. They blame vague communication from school officials, "hazy" protocols and a lack of preventive education for children and teens.

Parents are railing against the District's traditional public and charter school systems and demanding increased training for employees and more aggressive standards for background checks.

Sandra Moscoso-Mills, a Capitol Hill Montessori parent, said the alleged incident in May made her question what was going on at her daughter's school.

"It's a huge breach of trust," Moscoso-Mills said. "Everything that you felt comfortable with, you have to rethink."

Parents started examining the school's sexual misconduct policies after a Springboard Education employee was arrested and charged with allegedly having sexual contact with a 13-year-old student between January and May, according to a statement from D.C. police. Springboard is a private company based in Massachusetts that operates before- and after-school programs.

Parents didn't find out until a month after the allegations were reported to police. School officials announced in June that the Springboard employee, identified as Jestin Hickman of Southeast Washington, had been arrested.

An online court database did not display case information for Hickman, but Kadia Koroma, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, said the man's preliminary hearing has been scheduled for Sept. 20.

Hickman's attorney declined to comment. Attempts to reach Hickman were unsuccessful.

Following the allegations, D.C. Public Schools launched an internal review and discovered Springboard did not conduct a proper background check of its employee. Further analysis revealed more than 30 percent of school district employees have lapsed background checks.

Officials are working to whittle that number down to zero. All of the school system's before- and after-school care partners - people who work in the city's schools but are employed by outside entities - have now gone through the background-check process, said Shayne Wells, a spokesman for D.C. Public Schools.

But background checks for some school employees remain out of date, Wells said.

The district's goal is to clear all school employees by the end of September and complete updated background checks for central office staff a month later, D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Lewis D. Ferebee said in a statement.

Mark Freidberg, chief executive of Springboard, wrote in an August email that the company was updating background checks and implementing new training for current employees. Freidberg said the 13-year-old student was neither a Springboard student nor in the program's care.

Another Capitol Hill Montessori parent, Danica Petroshius, said the alleged incident catapulted her into a movement to demand greater transparency from education agencies. Petroshius wrote a letter in June outlining parents' questions and demands. More than 300 parents and community members signed on.

Paul Kihn, the city's deputy mayor for education, responded Friday and told parents that city leaders are taking "aggressive strides" to detect and prevent sexual misconduct.

Those plans include delivering lessons on personal boundaries and consent in kindergarten through eighth-grade classrooms, expanding mental-health resources, educating students and staff about inappropriate relationships and showing students how to report misconduct.

"The District government takes the safety and wellbeing of all students very seriously," Kihn said in the letter. "Additionally, DCPS has undertaken an extensive effort this summer to revamp its process for approving providers in its schools and tracking compliance with DCPS requirements that safeguard the safety and well-being of children."

Petroshius said much of the information Kihn provided did not clarify her questions. She also pointed to "misinformation" about the way school leaders communicated with parents. Kihn said the school system informed parents about the alleged misconduct at Capitol Hill Montessori on June 8. Petroshius said the message did not say the incident under investigation was sexual in nature.

"But it does provide a lot of good resources that provide further confirmation that we, as a city, have a long way to go before we can be sure that the city is doing all it can to keep our kids safe," Petroshius wrote to Kihn.

D.C. police in recent years have responded to allegations of sexual misconduct at several schools.

Joseph Smith, a security guard at Anacostia High School, was charged with sexually abusing a student in October. Smith was sentenced in May to a year in prison, but a judge suspended the term and imposed three years of probation, court records show.

A teacher at Latin American Montessori Bilingual Public Charter School was sentenced to eight years in prison for sexually assaulting six students between 2015 and 2017.

The issue has led D.C. Public Schools to recruit about two dozen people to serve on a Student Safety Task Force. The body will help school system officials implement safety procedures and health curriculums.

Meanwhile, city leaders are working to finalize policies on reporting and investigating sexual misconduct.

Parents said they hope the task force's work will have wide-reaching benefits, although some worry it will take years to see results.

Members of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission that represents some Capitol Hill Montessori families voted Tuesday to ask D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) for more information about six alleged incidents of sexual misconduct in city schools.

"If we know what the test scores are and we know how teachers are evaluated, why shouldn't we know if incidents of sexual harassment or abuse are also taking place?" said Denise Krepp, a commissioner.

Alex Nock's children do not go to Capitol Hill Montessori, but he said the alleged episode involving the Springboard employee encouraged him to investigate the sexual misconduct policies at his children's schools.

"If you're going to send your kid to school for eight or nine hours a day, you want to make sure the school system has steps to minimize as much as possible any kind of assault or sexual harassment," Nock said.

The coalition of parents is prepared to fight through the school year. They still have to gather information about incidents of abuse, draft a proposal for city leaders and figure out how they will hold officials accountable, Petroshius said. For many, the demands of this advocacy work are stacked on top of full-time jobs and family obligations.

"It shouldn't be my responsibility to do this. Some days I wake up and think, 'Why am I doing all this work?' Not just me, but tons of other parents," Petroshius said. "But could I ever wake up and not make this my responsibility? Absolutely not."

Local newsletters: Local headlines (8 a.m.) | Afternoon Buzz (4 p.m.)

Like PostLocal on Facebook | Follow @postlocal on Twitter | Latest local news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
D.C. parents want school system to do more to prevent sexual misconduct

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After allegations surfaced that a student was sexually abused at Capitol Hill Montessori School @ Logan, D.C. Public Schools cut ties with an after-school care provider that operates in seven states. Officials told families that student safety was paramount.

# data[].attributes.body
Newsweek: NYC School Teacher Lured Girls with Good Grades, Drugs, and Alcohol, maintained a 4-year Sexual Relationship with Student.

In December of 2018, Peter Mulbach, 53, was reported for his behavior when complaints of fear were filed against Mulbach for having an inappropriate relationship with a student. The complaint came after the two, Mulbach and the Student, were seen pictured together in a bar. Mulbach showered his female students with gifts such as good grades that were unmerited, gift cards, money, booze, Christmas gifts and even lending them his vehicle. Mulbach maintained a 4 year relationship with a student for 4 years and the female student, now 24, came out after the break-up between the two came in may of 2019. She stated that the break-up happened after Mulbach wanted to abruptly move to Florida after hearing his was being reported. The student left the relationship and reported everything that happened. Mulbach is on watch by the DOE (Department of Education) and is not recommended for hire. ((Haddad, 2021)

Haddad, T. (2021). NYC high school teacher lured girls with good grades, drugs and alcohol, maintained 4-year sexual relationship with student. Newsweek. Retrieved 3 October 2021, from https://www.newsweek.com/nyc-high-school-teacher-lured-girls-good-grades-drugs-alcohol-sexual-relationship-student-1473509.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A high school teacher in New York City showered underage girls with money, marijuana and alcohol while maintaining a four-year sexual relationship with one of them, an investigation has revealed.

Peter Muhlbach, 53, preyed on teenage girls at Long Island City High School for years, according to findings published by the New York City School District's Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) on Thursday.

Muhlbach, a math teacher at the school in Astoria, Queens, also sent students scores of flirty messages and gave them artificially high grades in order to curry favor with them.

In a statement detailing the teacher's abuse of power, SCI head Anastasia Coleman said: "It is substantiated that Peter Mulbach engaged-repeatedly-in significant inappropriate conduct with students and engaged in employee misconduct, specifically when he altered grades or gave unwarranted or unmerited passing grades.

"Muhlbach consistently provided female students with money or gift cards; had consistent inappropriate phone contact with female students and provided at least one student with alcohol and drugs, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her both during and after her time as a student."

The SCI became aware of Mulbach's behavior in December 2018 when they received a complaint of fears he was having an inappropriate relationship with a student after the pair were seen pictured together in a bar.

As investigations proceeded, further allegations were reported when the parents of a different 15-year-old girl discovered inappropriate text messages between Mulbach and her. Mulbach also bought the girl a sweatshirt for Christmas, according to the parents.

Investigators later discovered that Mulbach had inappropriate exchanges with at least 11 students, which included offering to take them out for drinks and commenting on their social media posts.

The most shocking discovery was made when a former student, now 24, detailed how Mulbach bought her alcohol and marijuana in order to seduce her and reported starting a sexual relationship with him in 2015-all while still a student at Long Island City High School.

She also said he provided her with a credit card and allowed him to use his car before moving in with him after her graduation. He supported her financially since.

The former student decided to come forward about her experience after her relationship with the teacher ended in May of this year.

She said the breakup was caused by Mulbach's abrupt decision to move to Florida-a move that coincided with his suspension and after a warning note was placed on his Department of Education (DOE) records.

Mulbach later resigned from the department in September of this year.

The SCI report now recommends that the DOE prohibits any future employment of Mulbach and has also passed the report to the department's legal division.

In a statement, DOE spokeswoman Danielle Filson said: "These were deeply disturbing allegations, and this teacher is no longer a DOE employee. He was removed from the classroom and away from students during the investigation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NYC high school teacher lured girls with good grades, drugs and alcohol, maintained 4-year sexual relationship with student

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A high school teacher in New York City showered underage girls with money, marijuana and alcohol while maintaining a four-year sexual relationship with one of them, an investigation has revealed. Peter Muhlbach, 53, preyed on teenage girls at Long Island City High School for years, according to findings published by the New York City School District's Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) on Thursday.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law: Section 1 of the 14th amendment ensures that all citizens under the constitution and in the United States are guaranteed equal protection under the law. This includes and extends to students who are lured into and involved in these inappropriate relationships because by the United States Constitution they are guaranteed protection. U.S Const. amend. XIV. § 1.

The Article states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" which includes protection by the states in its stated educational system.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment14/#14_S1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fourteenth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Constitution Annotated provides a legal analysis and interpretation of the United States Constitution based on a comprehensive review of Supreme Court case law.

# data[].attributes.body
State Administrative Law: In the Texas Administrative Code, educators must abide by RULE §61.1051. b. 1. which states "The policies must require that every school employee, agent, or contractor who suspects a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect submit a written or oral report to at least one of the following authorities within 48 hours or less, as determined by the board of trustees, after learning of facts giving rise to the suspicion:A) a local or state law enforcement agency;    (B) the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child Protective Services Division;    (C) a local office of Child Protective Services, where available; or    (D) the state agency that operates, licenses, certifies, or registers the facility in which the alleged child abuse or neglect occurred."

It is the responsibility of the educator to ensure that they are reporting any suspicion of neglect or abuse of a student immediately to ensure the protection of the student.

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2

Reference: Tex. Admin. Code. Rule §61.1051. b. 1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, have the following meanings. (1) Child abuse or neglect--The definition of child abuse or neglect includes the trafficking of a child in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §38.004. (2) Other maltreatment--This term has the meaning assigned by Human Resources Code, §42.002. (3) Trafficking of a child--This term has the meaning assigned by Texas Penal Code, §20A.02(a)(5), (6), (7), or (8). (b) The board of trustees of a school district or governing body of an open-enrollment charter school shall adopt and annually review policies for reporting child abuse and neglect. The policies shall follow the requirements outlined in Texas Family Code, Chapter 261. (1) The policies must require that every school employee, agent, or contractor who suspects a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect submit a written or oral report to at least one of the following authorities within 48 hours or less, as determined by the board of trustees, after learning of facts giving rise to the suspicion: (A) a local or state law enforcement agency; (B) the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Child Protective Services Division; (C) a local office of Child Protective Services, where available; or (D) the state agency that operates, licenses, certifies, or registers the facility in which the alleged child abuse or neglect occurred. (2) The policies must require a report to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services if the alleged abuse or neglect involves a person responsible for the care, custody, or welfare of the child and must notify school personnel of the following: (A) penalties under Texas Penal Code, §39.06; Texas Family Code, §261.109; and Chapter 249 of this title (relating to Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases) for failure to submit a required report of child abuse or neglect; (B) applicable prohibitions against interference with an investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect, including the following: (i) Texas Family Code, §261.302 and §261.303, prohibiting school officials from denying an investigator's request to interview a student at school; and (ii) Texas Family Code, §261.302, prohibiting school officials from requiring the presence of a parent or school administrator during an interview by an investigator; (C) immunity provisions applicable to a person who reports child abuse or neglect or otherwise assists an investigation in good faith; (D) confidentiality provisions relating to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect; (E) any disciplinary action that may result from noncompliance with the district's reporting policy; and (F) the prohibition under TEC, §26.0091, against using or threatening to use the refusal to consent to administration of a psychotropic drug to a child or to any other psychiatric or psychological testing or treatment of a child as the sole basis for making a report of neglect, except as authorized by TEC, §26.0091. (3) Each school district and open-enrollment charter school shall adopt and implement a policy addressing sexual abuse, trafficking, and other maltreatment of children. The policy must be included in any informational handbook provided to students and parents and must address the following: (A) methods for increasing staff, student, and parent awareness of issues regarding sexual abuse, trafficking, and other forms of maltreatment of children, including prevention techniques and knowledge of likely warning signs indicating that a child may be a victim; (B) actions a child who is a victim of sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment should take to obtain assistance and intervention; and (C) available counseling options for students affected by sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment. (4) The policies must be consistent with Texas Family Code, Chapter 261, and 40 TAC Chapter 700 (relating to Child Protective Services) regarding investigations by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, including regulations governing investigation of abuse by school personnel and volunteers. (5) The policies may not require that school personnel report suspicions of child abuse or neglect to a school administrator prior to making a report to one of the agencies identified in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (6) The policies must include the current toll-free telephone number of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (7) The policies must provide for cooperation with law enforcement child abuse investigations without the consent of the child's parent, if necessary, including investigations by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. (8) The policies must include child abuse anti-victimization programs in elementary and secondary schools consisting of age-appropriate, research-based prevention designed to promote self-protection and prevent sexual abuse and trafficking. (c) The policies required by this section and adopted by the board of trustees shall be distributed to all school personnel at the beginning of each school year. The policies shall be addressed in staff development programs at regular intervals determined by the board of trustees. (d) Training concerning prevention techniques for, and recognition of, sexual abuse, trafficking, and all other maltreatment of children, including the sexual abuse, trafficking, and other maltreatment of children with significant cognitive disabilities, must be provided as a part of new employee orientation to all new school district and open-enrollment charter school employees and to existing school district and open-enrollment charter school employees not previously trained as required by TEC, §38.0041. (1) The training must include: (A) factors indicating a child is at risk for sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment; (B) warning signs indicating a child may be a victim of sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment; (C) internal procedures for seeking assistance for a child who is at risk for sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment, including referral to a school counselor, a social worker, or another mental health professional; (D) techniques for reducing a child's risk for sexual abuse, trafficking, or other maltreatment; and (E) information on community organizations that have relevant research-based programs that are able to provide training or other education for school district or open-enrollment charter school staff, students, and parents. (2) Each school district and open-enrollment charter school must maintain records that include the name of each staff member who participated in training. (3) To the extent that resources are not yet available from the Texas Education Agency or commissioner of education, school district and open-enrollment charter schools shall implement the policies and trainings with existing or publicly available resources. The school district or open-enrollment charter school may also work in conjunction with a community organization to provide the training at no cost to the district or charter school. (e) Using a format and language that is clear, simple, and understandable to students, each public school and open-enrollment charter school shall post, in English and in Spanish: (1) the current toll-free Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Abuse Hotline telephone number; (2) instructions to call 911 for emergencies; and (3) directions for accessing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services website (www.txabusehotline.org) for more information on reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. (f) School districts and open-enrollment charter schools shall post the information specified in subsection (e) of this section at each school campus in at least one high-traffic, highly and clearly visible public area that is readily accessible to and widely used by students. The information must be on a poster (11x17 inches or larger) in large print and placed at eye-level to the student for easy viewing. Additionally, the current toll-free Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Abuse Hotline telephone number should be in bold print.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, have the following meanings. (1) Child abuse or neglect--The definition of child abuse or neglect includes the trafficking of a child in accordance with Texas Education Code (TEC), §38.004. (2) Other maltreatment--This term has the meaning assigned by Human Resources Code, §42.002.

# data[].attributes.body
State Statutory Law: Texas Penal Code Section 21.12 prohibits any and all inappropriate relationships between an educator and student. The offender can face up to 20 years in state prison. Tex. Pen. Code. §12.23 https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PENAL CODE



TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON



CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES



Sec. 21.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:


(1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means:


(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or


(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.


(2) "Sexual contact" means, except as provided by Section 21.11, any touching of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.


(3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.


(4) "Spouse" means a person to whom a person is legally married under Subtitle A, Title 1, Family Code, or a comparable law of another jurisdiction.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 373, ch. 168, Sec. 1, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 203, ch. 96, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


Amended by:


Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268 (S.B. 6), Sec. 1.124, eff. September 1, 2005.


Sec. 21.02. CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUNG CHILD OR CHILDREN. (a) In this section, "child" has the meaning assigned by Section 22.011(c).


(b) A person commits an offense if:


(1) during a period that is 30 or more days in duration, the person commits two or more acts of sexual abuse, regardless of whether the acts of sexual abuse are committed against one or more victims; and


(2) at the time of the commission of each of the acts of sexual abuse, the actor is 17 years of age or older and the victim is a child younger than 14 years of age, regardless of whether the actor knows the age of the victim at the time of the offense.


(c) For purposes of this section, "act of sexual abuse" means any act that is a violation of one or more of the following penal laws:


(1) aggravated kidnapping under Section 20.04(a)(4), if the actor committed the offense with the intent to violate or abuse the victim sexually;


(2) indecency with a child under Section 21.11(a)(1), if the actor committed the offense in a manner other than by touching, including touching through clothing, the breast of a child;


(3) sexual assault under Section 22.011;


(4) aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021;


(5) burglary under Section 30.02, if the offense is punishable under Subsection (d) of that section and the actor committed the offense with the intent to commit an offense listed in Subdivisions (1)-(4);


(6) sexual performance by a child under Section 43.25;


(7) trafficking of persons under Section 20A.02(a)(7) or (8); and


(8) compelling prostitution under Section 43.05(a)(2).


(d) If a jury is the trier of fact, members of the jury are not required to agree unanimously on which specific acts of sexual abuse were committed by the defendant or the exact date when those acts were committed. The jury must agree unanimously that the defendant, during a period that is 30 or more days in duration, committed two or more acts of sexual abuse.


(e) A defendant may not be convicted in the same criminal action of an offense listed under Subsection (c) the victim of which is the same victim as a victim of the offense alleged under Subsection (b) unless the offense listed in Subsection (c):


(1) is charged in the alternative;


(2) occurred outside the period in which the offense alleged under Subsection (b) was committed; or


(3) is considered by the trier of fact to be a lesser included offense of the offense alleged under Subsection (b).


(f) A defendant may not be charged with more than one count under Subsection (b) if all of the specific acts of sexual abuse that are alleged to have been committed are alleged to have been committed against a single victim.


(g) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:


(1) was not more than five years older than:


(A) the victim of the offense, if the offense is alleged to have been committed against only one victim; or


(B) the youngest victim of the offense, if the offense is alleged to have been committed against more than one victim;


(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against a victim at the time of the commission of any of the acts of sexual abuse alleged as an element of the offense; and


(3) at the time of the commission of any of the acts of sexual abuse alleged as an element of the offense:


(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or


(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section or an act of sexual abuse as described by Subsection (c).


(h) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 25 years.


Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (H.B. 8), Sec. 1.17, eff. September 1, 2007.


Amended by:


Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 24), Sec. 6.04, eff. September 1, 2011.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 31, eff. September 1, 2017.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.


Section 21.06 was declared unconstitutional by Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472.



Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.


(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 21.07. PUBLIC LEWDNESS.


(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly engages in any of the following acts in a public place or, if not in a public place, the person is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by the person's:


(1) act of sexual intercourse;


(2) act of deviate sexual intercourse; or


(3) act of sexual contact.


(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 739 (S.B. 1232), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.


(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 509, ch. 924, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 21.09. BESTIALITY. (a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly:


(1) engages in an act involving contact between:


(A) the person's mouth, anus, or genitals and the anus or genitals of an animal; or


(B) the person's anus or genitals and the mouth of the animal;


(2) fondles or touches the anus or genitals of an animal in a manner that is not a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice, including touching through clothing;


(3) causes an animal to contact the seminal fluid of the person;


(4) inserts any part of a person's body or any object into the anus or genitals of an animal in a manner that is not a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice;


(5) possesses, sells, transfers, purchases, or otherwise obtains an animal with the intent that the animal be used for conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4);


(6) organizes, promotes, conducts, or participates as an observer of conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4);


(7) causes a person to engage or aids a person in engaging in conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4);


(8) permits conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4) to occur on any premises under the person's control;


(9) engages in conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4) in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age; or


(10) advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that the animal be used in this state for conduct described by Subdivision (1), (2), (3), or (4).


(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(9) or results in serious bodily injury or death of the animal, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree.


(c) It is an exception to the application of this section that the conduct engaged in by the actor is a generally accepted and otherwise lawful animal husbandry or veterinary practice.


Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 739 (S.B. 1232), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex and regardless of whether the person knows the age of the child at the time of the offense, the person:


(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or


(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:


(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or


(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.


(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:


(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;


(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and


(3) at the time of the offense:


(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or


(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.


(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor was the spouse of the child at the time of the offense.


(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:


(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or


(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person.


(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 472, ch. 202, Sec. 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1028, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1415, Sec. 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 739, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


Amended by:


Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 260 (H.B. 549), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 685 (H.B. 29), Sec. 32, eff. September 1, 2017.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.12. IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATOR AND STUDENT. (a) An employee of a public or private primary or secondary school commits an offense if the employee:


(1) engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school at which the employee works;


(2) holds a position described by Section 21.003(a) or (b), Education Code, regardless of whether the employee holds the appropriate certificate, permit, license, or credential for the position, and engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person the employee knows is:


(A) enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school, other than a school described by Subdivision (1); or


(B) a student participant in an educational activity that is sponsored by a school district or a public or private primary or secondary school, if students enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school are the primary participants in the activity; or


(3) engages in conduct described by Section 33.021, with a person described by Subdivision (1), or a person the employee knows is a person described by Subdivision (2)(A) or (B), regardless of the age of that person.


(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:


(1) the actor was the spouse of the enrolled person at the time of the offense; or


(2) the actor was not more than three years older than the enrolled person and, at the time of the offense, the actor and the enrolled person were in a relationship that began before the actor's employment at a public or private primary or secondary school.


(c) If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.


(d) The name of a person who is enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school and involved in an improper relationship with an educator as provided by Subsection (a) may not be released to the public and is not public information under Chapter 552, Government Code.


Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 224, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Amended by:


Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 610 (H.B. 401), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.


Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 772 (H.B. 3659), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.


Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 260 (H.B. 549), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2009.


Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 761 (H.B. 1610), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 178 (S.B. 7), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.15. INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDING. (a) In this section:


(1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.


(2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person.


(3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas.


(4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.


(b) A person commits an offense if, without the other person's consent and with intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person:


(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of an intimate area of another person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the intimate area is not subject to public view;


(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another in a bathroom or changing room; or


(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).


(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.


(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.


(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.


Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.


Amended by:


Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 306 (H.B. 1804), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2007.


Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B. 1317), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2015.


Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 955 (S.B. 1317), Sec. 2, eff. June 18, 2015.


Sec. 21.16. UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE OR PROMOTION OF INTIMATE VISUAL MATERIAL. (a) In this section:


(1) "Intimate parts" means the naked genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female nipple of a person.


(2) "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise or to offer or agree to do any of the above.


(3) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse.


(4) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of sexual conduct that creates the appearance of actual sexual conduct and during which a person engaging in the conduct exhibits any uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.


(5) "Visual material" means:


(A) any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide or any photographic reproduction that contains or incorporates in any manner any film, photograph, videotape, negative, or slide; or


(B) any disk, diskette, or other physical medium that allows an image to be displayed on a computer or other video screen and any image transmitted to a computer or other video screen by telephone line, cable, satellite transmission, or other method.


(b) A person commits an offense if:


(1) without the effective consent of the depicted person and with the intent to harm that person, the person discloses visual material depicting another person with the person's intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct;


(2) at the time of the disclosure, the person knows or has reason to believe that the visual material was obtained by the person or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the visual material would remain private;


(3) the disclosure of the visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and


(4) the disclosure of the visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner, including through:


(A) any accompanying or subsequent information or material related to the visual material; or


(B) information or material provided by a third party in response to the disclosure of the visual material.


(c) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally threatens to disclose, without the consent of the depicted person, visual material depicting another person with the person's intimate parts exposed or engaged in sexual conduct and the actor makes the threat to obtain a benefit:


(1) in return for not making the disclosure; or


(2) in connection with the threatened disclosure.


(d) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character and content of the visual material, the person promotes visual material described by Subsection (b) on an Internet website or other forum for publication that is owned or operated by the person.


(e) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the depicted person:


(1) created or consented to the creation of the visual material; or


(2) voluntarily transmitted the visual material to the actor.


(f) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) or (d) that:


(1) the disclosure or promotion is made in the course of:


(A) lawful and common practices of law enforcement or medical treatment;


(B) reporting unlawful activity; or


(C) a legal proceeding, if the disclosure or promotion is permitted or required by law;


(2) the disclosure or promotion consists of visual material depicting in a public or commercial setting only a person's voluntary exposure of:


(A) the person's intimate parts; or


(B) the person engaging in sexual conduct; or


(3) the actor is an interactive computer service, as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 230, and the disclosure or promotion consists of visual material provided by another person.


(g) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.


(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.


Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 852 (S.B. 1135), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2015.


Amended by:


Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 858 (H.B. 2552), Sec. 16(b), eff. September 1, 2017.


Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1354 (H.B. 98), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2019.


Sec. 21.17. VOYEURISM. (a) A person commits an offense if the person, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of the actor, observes another person without the other person's consent while the other person is in a dwelling or structure in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.


(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c) or (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.


(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the actor has previously been convicted two or more times of an offense under this section.


(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the victim was a child younger than 14 years of age at the time of the offense.


(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.


Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 676 (H.B. 207), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.


Redesignated from Penal Code, Section 21.16 by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 324 (S.B. 1488), Sec. 24.001(35), eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.18. SEXUAL COERCION. (a) In this section:


(1) "Intimate visual material" means the visual material described by Section 21.16(b)(1) or (c).


(2) "Sexual conduct" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.25.


(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally threatens, including by coercion or extortion, to commit an offense under Chapter 43 or Section 20A.02(a)(3), (4), (7), or (8), 21.02, 21.08, 21.11, 21.12, 21.15, 21.16, 21.17, 22.011, or 22.021 to obtain, in return for not committing the threatened offense or in connection with the threatened offense, any of the following benefits:


(1) intimate visual material;


(2) an act involving sexual conduct causing arousal or gratification; or


(3) a monetary benefit or other benefit of value.


(c) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally threatens, including by coercion or extortion, to commit an offense under Chapter 19 or 20 or Section 20A.02(a)(1), (2), (5), or (6) to obtain, in return for not committing the threatened offense or in connection with the threatened offense, either of the following benefits:


(1) intimate visual material; or


(2) an act involving sexual conduct causing arousal or gratification.


(d) This section applies to a threat regardless of how that threat is communicated, including a threat transmitted through e-mail or an Internet website, social media account, or chat room and a threat made by other electronic or technological means.


(e) An offense under this section is a state jail felony, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense under this section.


Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 858 (H.B. 2552), Sec. 16(c), eff. September 1, 2017.


Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1038 (H.B. 1808), Sec. 4(b), eff. September 1, 2017.


Sec. 21.19. UNLAWFUL ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT VISUAL MATERIAL. (a) In this section, "intimate parts," "sexual conduct," and "visual material" have the meanings assigned by Section 21.16.


(b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly transmits by electronic means visual material that:


(1) depicts:


(A) any person engaging in sexual conduct or with the person's intimate parts exposed; or


(B) covered genitals of a male person that are in a discernibly turgid state; and


(2) is not sent at the request of or with the express consent of the recipient.


(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.


(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.


Added by Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 848 (H.B. 2789), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2019.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PENAL CODE TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON CHAPTER 21. SEXUAL OFFENSES Sec. 21.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means: (A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law: Gebser v. Lago Vista I.S.D (1998) this court case came about when an educator and student were found having an inappropriate relationship. The relationship was caught by a police officer who then arrested the educator. The sexual conduct was not reported by Gebser because the student did not know how to report it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1866.ZO.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALIDA STAR GEBSER and ALIDA JEAN McCUL-
LOUGH, PETITIONERS v. LAGO VISTA
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[June 22, 1998]

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case is when a school district may be held liable in damages in an implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Title IX), for the sexual harassment of a student by one of the district's teachers. We conclude that damages may not be recovered in those circumstances unless an official of the school district who at a minimum has authority to institute corrective measures on the district's behalf has actual notice of, and is deliberately indifferent to, the teacher's misconduct.

I

In the spring of 1991, when petitioner Alida Star Gebser was an eighth-grade student at a middle school in re-
spondent Lago Vista Independent School District (Lago Vista), she joined a high school book discussion group led by Frank Waldrop, a teacher at Lago Vista's high school. Lago Vista received federal funds at all pertinent times. During the book discussion sessions, Waldrop often made sexually suggestive comments to the students. Gebser entered high school in the fall and was assigned to classes taught by Waldrop in both semesters. Waldrop continued to make inappropriate remarks to the students, and he began to direct more of his suggestive comments toward Gebser, including during the substantial amount of time that the two were alone in his classroom. He initiated sexual contact with Gebser in the spring, when, while visiting her home ostensibly to give her a book, he kissed and fondled her. The two had sexual intercourse on a number of occasions during the remainder of the school year. Their relationship continued through the summer and into the following school year, and they often had intercourse during class time, although never on school property.

Gebser did not report the relationship to school officials, testifying that while she realized Waldrop's conduct was improper, she was uncertain how to react and she wanted to continue having him as a teacher. In October 1992, the parents of two other students complained to the high school principal about Waldrop's comments in class. The principal arranged a meeting, at which, according to the principal, Waldrop indicated that he did not believe he had made offensive remarks but apologized to the parents and said it would not happen again. The principal also advised Waldrop to be careful about his classroom comments and told the school guidance counselor about the meeting, but he did not report the parents' complaint to Lago Vista's superintendent, who was the district's Title IX coordinator. A couple of months later, in January 1993, a police officer discovered Waldrop and Gebser engaging in sexual intercourse and arrested Waldrop. Lago Vista terminated his employment, and subsequently, the Texas Education Agency revoked his teaching license. During this time, the district had not promulgated or distributed an official grievance procedure for lodging sexual harassment complaints; nor had it issued a formal anti-harassment policy.

Gebser and her mother filed suit against Lago Vista and Waldrop in state court in November 1993, raising claims against the school district under Title IX, Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state negligence law, and claims against Waldrop primarily under state law. They sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants. After the case was removed, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Lago Vista on all claims, and remanded the allegations against Waldrop to state court. In rejecting the Title IX claim against the school district, the court reasoned that the statute "was enacted to counter policies of discrimination ... in federally funded education programs," and that "[o]nly if school administrators have some type of notice of the gender discrimination and fail to respond in good faith can the discrimination be interpreted as a policy of the school district." App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a—7a. Here, the court determined, the parents' complaint to the principal concerning Waldrop's comments in class was the only one Lago Vista had received about Waldrop, and that evidence was inadequate to raise a genuine issue on whether the school district had actual or constructive notice that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with a student.

Petitioners appealed only on the Title IX claim. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 106 F.3d 1223 (1997), relying in large part on two of its recent decisions, Rosa H. v. San Elizario Independent School Dist., 106 F.3d 648 (CA5 1997), and Canutillo Independent School Dist. v. Leija, 101 F.3d 393 (CA5 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. ___ (1997). The court first declined to impose strict liability on school districts for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student, reiterating its conclusion in Leija that strict liability is inconsistent with "the Title IX contract." 106 F.3d, at 1225 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court then determined that Lago Vista could not be liable on the basis of constructive notice, finding that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that a school official should have known about Waldrop's relationship with Gebser. Ibid. Finally, the court refused to invoke the common law principle that holds an employer vicariously liable when an employee is "aided in accomplishing [a] tort by the existence of the agency relation," Restatement (Second) of Agency §219(2)(d) (1957) (hereinafter Restatement), explaining that application of that principle would result in school district liability in essentially every case of teacher-student harassment. 106 F.3d, at 1225—1226.

The court concluded its analysis by reaffirming its holding in Rosa H. that, "school districts are not liable in tort for teacher-student sexual harassment under Title IX unless an employee who has been invested by the school board with supervisory power over the offending employee actually knew of the abuse, had the power to end the abuse, and failed to do so," 106 F.3d, at 1226, and ruling that petitioners could not satisfy that standard. The Fifth Circuit's analysis represents one of the varying approaches adopted by the Courts of Appeals in assessing a school district's liability under Title IX for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student. See Smith v. Metropolitan School Dist. Perry Twp., 128 F.3d 1014 (CA7 1997); Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F.3d 80 (CA2 1997); Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F.3d 495, 513—515 (CA6 1996); Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist., 94 F.3d 463, 469 (CA8 1996). We granted certiorari to address the issue, 522 U.S. ___ (1997), and we now affirm.

II

Title IX provides in pertinent part that, "[n]o person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The express statutory means of enforcement is administrative: The statute directs federal agencies who distribute education funding to establish requirements to effectuate the nondiscrimination mandate, and permits the agencies to enforce those requirements through "any ... means authorized by law," including ultimately the termination of federal funding. §1682. The Court held in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), that Title IX is also enforceable through an implied private right of action, a conclusion we do not revisit here. We subsequently established in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992), that monetary damages are available in the implied private action.

In Franklin, a high school student alleged that a teacher had sexually abused her on repeated occasions and that teachers and school administrators knew about the harassment but took no action, even to the point of dissuading her from initiating charges. See id., at 63—64. The lower courts dismissed Franklin's complaint against the school district on the ground that the implied right of action under Title IX, as a categorical matter, does not encompass recovery in damages. We reversed the lower courts' blanket rule, concluding that Title IX supports a private action for damages, at least "in a case such as this, in which intentional discrimination is alleged." See id., at 74—75. Franklin thereby establishes that a school district can be held liable in damages in cases involving a teacher's sexual harassment of a student; the decision, however, does not purport to define the contours of that liability.

We face that issue squarely in this case. Petitioners, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, would invoke standards used by the Courts of Appeals in Title VII cases involving a supervisor's sexual harassment of an employee in the workplace. In support of that approach, they point to a passage in Franklin in which we stated: "Unquestionably, Title IX placed on the Gwinnett County Public Schools the duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, and 'when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate's sex, that supervisor "discriminate[s]" on the basis of sex.' Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986). We believe the same rule should apply when a teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student." Franklin, supra, at 75. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), directs courts to look to common-law agency principles when assessing an employer's liability under Title VII for sexual harassment of an employee by a supervisor. See id., at 72. Petitioners and the United States submit that, in light of Franklin 's comparison of teacher-student harassment with supervisor-employee harassment, agency principles should likewise apply in Title IX actions.

Specifically, they advance two possible standards under which Lago Vista would be liable for Waldrop's conduct. First, relying on a 1997 "Policy Guidance" issued by the Department of Education, they would hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX where a teacher is "'aided in carrying out the sexual harassment of students by his or her position of authority with the institution,'" irrespective of whether school district officials had any knowledge of the harassment and irrespective of their response upon becoming aware. Brief for Petitioners 36 (quoting Dept. of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Sexual Harassment Policy Guidance, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, 12039 (1997) (1997 Policy Guidance)); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14. That rule is an expression of respondeat superior liability, i.e., vicarious or imputed liability, see Restatement §219(2)(d), under which recovery in damages against a school district would generally follow whenever a teacher's authority over a student facilitates the harassment. Second, petitioners and the United States submit that a school district should at a minimum be liable for damages based on a theory of constructive notice, i.e., where the district knew or "should have known" about harassment but failed to uncover and eliminate it. Brief for Petitioners 28; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15—16; see Restatement §219(2)(b). Both standards would allow a damages recovery in a broader range of situations than the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals, which hinges on actual knowledge by a school official with authority to end the harassment.

Whether educational institutions can be said to violate Title IX based solely on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice was not resolved by Franklin's citation of Meritor. That reference to Meritor was made with regard to the general proposition that sexual harassment can constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX, see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. ___ (1998) (slip op., at 5—6), an issue not in dispute here. In fact, the school district's liability in Franklin did not necessarily turn on principles of imputed liability or constructive notice, as there was evidence that school officials knew about the harassment but took no action to stop it. See 503 U.S., at 63—64. Moreover, Meritor's rationale for concluding that agency principles guide the liability inquiry under Title VII rests on an aspect of that statute not found in Title IX: Title VII, in which the prohibition against employment discrimination runs against "an employer," 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), explicitly defines "employer" to include "any agent," §2000e(b). See Meritor, supra, at 72. Title IX contains no comparable reference to an educational institution's "agents," and so does not expressly call for application of agency principles.

In this case, moreover, petitioners seek not just to establish a Title IX violation but to recover damages based on theories of respondeat superior and constructive notice. It is that aspect of their action, in our view, which is most critical to resolving the case. Unlike Title IX, Title VII contains an express cause of action, §2000e-5(f), and specifically provides for relief in the form of monetary damages, §1981a. Congress therefore has directly addressed the subject of damages relief under Title VII and has set out the particular situations in which damages are available as well as the maximum amounts recoverable. §1981a(b). With respect to Title IX, however, the private right of action is judicially implied, see Cannon, 441 U.S., at 717, and there is thus no legislative expression of the scope of available remedies, including when it is appropriate to award monetary damages. In addition, although the general presumption that courts can award any appropriate relief in an established cause of action, e.g., Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946), coupled with Congress' abrogation of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title IX, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7, led us to conclude in Franklin that Title IX recognizes a damages remedy, 503 U.S., at 68—73; see id., at 78 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), we did so in response to lower court decisions holding that Title IX does not support damages relief at all. We made no effort in Franklin to delimit the circumstances in which a damages remedy should lie.

III

Because the private right of action under Title IX is judicially implied, we have a measure of latitude to shape a sensible remedial scheme that best comports with the statute. See, e.g., Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U.S. 286, 292—293 (1993); Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U.S. 1083, 1104 (1991). That endeavor inherently entails a degree of speculation, since it addresses an issue on which Congress has not specifically spoken. See, e.g., Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 359 (1991). To guide the analysis, we generally examine the relevant statute to ensure that we do not fashion the parameters of an implied right in a manner at odds with the statutory structure and purpose. See Musick, Peeler, 508 U.S., at 294—297; id., at 300 (Thomas, J., dissenting); Virginia Bankshares, supra, at 1102.

Those considerations, we think, are pertinent not only to the scope of the implied right, but also to the scope of the available remedies. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979); see also Franklin, supra, at 77—78 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). We suggested as much in Franklin, where we recognized "the general rule that all appropriate relief is available in an action brought to vindicate a federal right," but indicated that the rule must be reconciled with congressional purpose. 503 U.S., at 68. The "general rule," that is, "yields where necessary to carry out the intent of Congress or to avoid frustrating the purposes of the statute involved." Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York City, 463 U.S. 582, 595 (1983) (opinion of White, J.); cf., Cannon, 441 U. S, at 703 ("[A] private remedy should not be implied if it would frustrate the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme").

Applying those principles here, we conclude that it would "frustrate the purposes" of Title IX to permit a damages recovery against a school district for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student based on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice, i.e., without actual notice to a school district official. Because Congress did not expressly create a private right of action under Title IX, the statutory text does not shed light on Congress' intent with respect to the scope of available remedies. Franklin, 503 U.S., at 71; id., at 76 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Instead, "we attempt to infer how the [1972] Congress would have addressed the issue had the ... action been included as an express provision in the" statute. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164, 178 (1994); see Musick, Peeler, supra, at 294—295; North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 529 (1982).

As a general matter, it does not appear that Congress contemplated unlimited recovery in damages against a funding recipient where the recipient is unaware of discrimination in its programs. When Title IX was enacted in 1972, the principal civil rights statutes containing an express right of action did not provide for recovery of monetary damages at all, instead allowing only injunctive and equitable relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a) (1970 ed.); §2000e-5(e), (g) (1970 ed., Supp. II). It was not until 1991 that Congress made damages available under Title VII, and even then, Congress carefully limited the amount recoverable in any individual case, calibrating the maximum recovery to the size of the employer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). Adopting petitioners' position would amount, then, to allowing unlimited recovery of damages under Title IX where Congress has not spoken on the subject of either the right or the remedy, and in the face of evidence that when Congress expressly considered both in Title VII it restricted the amount of damages available.

Congress enacted Title IX in 1972 with two principal objectives in mind: "to avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices" and "to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices." Cannon, supra, at 704. The statute was modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 441 U.S., at 694—696; Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 566 (1984), which is parallel to Title IX except that it prohibits race discrimination, not sex discrimination, and applies in all programs receiving federal funds, not only in education programs. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. The two statutes operate in the same manner, conditioning an offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate, in what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of funds. See Guardians, 463 U.S., at 599 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 609 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); cf., Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981).

That contractual framework distinguishes Title IX from Title VII, which is framed in terms not of a condition but of an outright prohibition. Title VII applies to all employers without regard to federal funding and aims broadly to "eradicat[e] discrimination throughout the economy." Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 254 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Title VII, moreover, seeks to "make persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, whereas Title VII aims centrally to compensate victims of discrimination, Title IX focuses more on "protecting" individuals from discriminatory practices carried out by recipients of federal funds. Cannon, supra, at 704. That might explain why, when the Court first recognized the implied right under Title IX in Cannon, the opinion referred to injunctive or equitable relief in a private action, see 441 U.S., at 705, and n. 38, 710, n. 44, 711, but not to a damages remedy.

Title IX's contractual nature has implications for our construction of the scope of available remedies. When Congress attaches conditions to the award of federal funds under its spending power, U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, as it has in Title IX and Title VI, we examine closely the propriety of private actions holding the recipient liable in monetary damages for noncompliance with the condition. See Franklin, 463 U.S., at 74—75; Guardians, supra, at 596—603 (White, J.); see generally Pennhurst, supra, at 28—29. Our central concern in that regard is with ensuring "that the receiving entity of federal funds [has] notice that it will be liable for a monetary award." Franklin, supra, at 74. Justice White's opinion announcing the Court's judgment in Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New York City, for instance, concluded that the relief in an action under Title VI alleging unintentional discrimination should be prospective only, because where discrimination is unintentional, "it is surely not obvious that the grantee was aware that it was administering the program in violation of the [condition]." 463 U.S., at 598. We confront similar concerns here. If a school district's liability for a teacher's sexual harassment rests on principles of constructive notice or respondeat superior, it will likewise be the case that the recipient of funds was unaware of the discrimination. It is sensible to assume that Congress did not envision a recipient's liability in damages in that situation. See Rosa H., 106 F.3d, at 654 ("When the school board accepted federal funds, it agreed not to discriminate on the basis of sex. We think it unlikely that it further agreed to suffer liability whenever its employees discriminate on the basis of sex").

Most significantly, Title IX contains important clues that Congress did not intend to allow recovery in damages where liability rests solely on principles of vicarious liability or constructive notice. Title IX's express means of enforcement–by administrative agencies–operates on an assumption of actual notice to officials of the funding recipient. The statute entitles agencies who disburse education funding to enforce their rules implementing the non-discrimination mandate through proceedings to suspend or terminate funding or through "other means authorized by law." 20 U.S.C. § 1682. Significantly, however, an agency may not initiate enforcement proceedings until it "has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means." Ibid. The administrative regulations implement that obligation, requiring resolution of compliance issues "by informal means whenever possible," 34 CFR § 100.7(d) (1997), and prohibiting commencement of enforcement proceedings until the agency has determined that voluntary compliance is unobtainable and "the recipient ... has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance," §100.8(d); see §100.8(c).

In the event of a violation, a funding recipient may be required to take "such remedial action as [is] deem[ed] necessary to overcome the effects of [the] discrimination." §106.3. While agencies have conditioned continued funding on providing equitable relief to the victim, see, e.g., North Haven, 456 U.S., at 518 (reinstatement of employee), the regulations do not appear to contemplate a condition ordering payment of monetary damages, and there is no indication that payment of damages has been demanded as a condition of finding a recipient to be in compliance with the statute. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Franklin v. Gwinnett County School District, O. T. 1991, No. 918, p. 24. In Franklin, for instance, the Department of Education found a violation of Title IX but determined that the school district came into compliance by virtue of the offending teacher's resignation and the district's institution of a grievance procedure for sexual harassment complaints. 503 U.S., at 64, n. 3.

Presumably, a central purpose of requiring notice of the violation "to the appropriate person" and an opportunity for voluntary compliance before administrative enforcement proceedings can commence is to avoid diverting education funding from beneficial uses where a recipient was unaware of discrimination in its programs and is willing to institute prompt corrective measures. The scope of private damages relief proposed by petitioners is at odds with that basic objective. When a teacher's sexual harassment is imputed to a school district or when a school district is deemed to have "constructively" known of the teacher's harassment, by assumption the district had no actual knowledge of the teacher's conduct. Nor, of course, did the district have an opportunity to take action to end the harassment or to limit further harassment.

It would be unsound, we think, for a statute's express system of enforcement to require notice to the recipient and an opportunity to come into voluntary compliance while a judicially implied system of enforcement permits substantial liability without regard to the recipient's knowledge or its corrective actions upon receiving notice. Cf., Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S., at 180 ("[I]t would be 'anomalous to impute to Congress an intention to expand the plaintiff class for a judicially implied cause of action beyond the bounds it delineated for comparable express causes of action' "), quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 736 (1975). Moreover, an award of damages in a particular case might well exceed a recipient's level of federal funding. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35 (Lago Vista's federal funding for 1992—1993 was roughly $120,000). Where a statute's express enforcement scheme hinges its most severe sanction on notice and unsuccessful efforts to obtain compliance, we cannot attribute to Congress the intention to have implied an enforcement scheme that allows imposition of greater liability without comparable conditions.

IV

Because the express remedial scheme under Title IX is predicated upon notice to an "appropriate person" and an opportunity to rectify any violation, 20 U.S.C. § 1682 we conclude, in the absence of further direction from Congress, that the implied damages remedy should be fashioned along the same lines. An "appropriate person" under §1682 is, at a minimum, an official of the recipient entity with authority to take corrective action to end the discrimination. Consequently, in cases like this one that do not involve official policy of the recipient entity, we hold that a damages remedy will not lie under Title IX unless an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient's behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient's programs and fails adequately to respond.

We think, moreover, that the response must amount to deliberate indifference to discrimination. The administrative enforcement scheme presupposes that an official who is advised of a Title IX violation refuses to take action to bring the recipient into compliance. The premise, in other words, is an official decision by the recipient not to remedy the violation. That framework finds a rough parallel in the standard of deliberate indifference. Under a lower standard, there would be a risk that the recipient would be liable in damages not for its own official decision but instead for its employees' independent actions. Comparable considerations led to our adoption of a deliberate indifference standard for claims under §1983 alleging that a municipality's actions in failing to prevent a deprivation of federal rights was the cause of the violation. See Board of Comm'rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997); Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388—392 (1989); see also Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 123—124 (1992).

Applying the framework to this case is fairly straightforward, as petitioners do not contend they can prevail under an actual notice standard. The only official alleged to have had information about Waldrop's misconduct is the high school principal. That information, however, consisted of a complaint from parents of other students charging only that Waldrop had made inappropriate comments during class, which was plainly insufficient to alert the principal to the possibility that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with a student. Lago Vista, moreover, terminated Waldrop's employment upon learning of his relationship with Gebser. Justice Stevens points out in his dissenting opinion that Waldrop of course had knowledge of his own actions. See post, at 7, n. 8. Where a school district's liability rests on actual notice principles, however, the knowledge of the wrongdoer himself is not pertinent to the analysis. See Restatement §280.

Petitioners focus primarily on Lago Vista's asserted failure to promulgate and publicize an effective policy and grievance procedure for sexual harassment claims. They point to Department of Education regulations requiring each funding recipient to "adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution" of discrimination complaints, 34 CFR § 106.8(b) (1997), and to notify students and others "that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational programs or activities which it operates," §106.9(a). Lago Vista's alleged failure to comply with the regulations, however, does not establish the requisite actual notice and deliberate indifference. And in any event, the failure to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself constitute "discrimination" under Title IX. Of course, the Department of Education could enforce the requirement administratively: Agencies generally have authority to promulgate and enforce requirements that effectuate the statute's non-discrimination mandate, 20 U.S.C. § 1682 even if those requirements do not purport to represent a definition of discrimination under the statute. E.g., Grove City, 465 U.S., at 574—575 (permitting administrative enforcement of regulation requiring college to execute an "Assurance of Compliance" with Title IX). We have never held, however, that the implied private right of action under Title IX allows recovery in damages for violation of those sorts of administrative requirements.

V

The number of reported cases involving sexual harassment of students in schools confirms that harassment unfortunately is an all too common aspect of the educational experience. No one questions that a student suffers extraordinary harm when subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher, and that the teacher's conduct is reprehensible and undermines the basic purposes of the educational system. The issue in this case, however, is whether the independent misconduct of a teacher is attributable to the school district that employs him under a specific federal statute designed primarily to prevent recipients of federal financial assistance from using the funds in a discriminatory manner. Our decision does not affect any right of recovery that an individual may have against a school district as a matter of state law or against the teacher in his individual capacity under state law or under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Until Congress speaks directly on the subject, however, we will not hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student absent actual notice and deliberate indifference. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C.

# data[].attributes.body
Local Policy: Austin I.S.D sexual and romantic relationships with students are prohibited, even if consensual. All experiences must be reported to the campus principal and Title IX Coordinator. https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/hr/docs/HR-Employee-Handbook-6.24.21-Finalv2-ENG.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every day you're there for them. Every day we're here for you!

Whether you are an experienced administrator or student teacher, AISD offers a dynamic, diverse and supportive environment tailored to your individual needs and optimal for teaching, learning and advancing careers.

We know that the integrity, knowledge, diversity and talent of our employees-our human capital-are our most valuable resources. One of our most important jobs is providing our teachers, principals, administrators and other staff members with the support they need to do their best work, because when they succeed, our students succeed. That is why AISD is committed to putting programs in place to attract, develop and retain high quality educators to serve in our diverse classrooms every day.
The Americans with Disabilities Act The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 seeks to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, transportation and public accommodations. ADA prohibits employers from excluding people from jobs, services, activities or benefits based on their disabilities. The ADA defines disability with respect to an individual as:

A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

A record of such an impairment; or

Being regarded as having such an impairment.

It also defines:

A qualified individual with a disability as one who possesses the requisite skills, education, experience and training for a position, and who can, with or without reasonable accommodations, perform the essential functions of the position the individual desires or holds.

A substantial limitation as an impairment that prevents the performance of a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or a significant restriction as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population.

A reasonable accommodation as a modification or adjustment to the job application process or the work environment that enables a qualified person with a disability to be considered for a position, or enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by similarly situated employees without disabilities.

Major life activities include: Major bodily functions:
Procedures for Requesting ADA Accommodations
Employees can initiate the accommodation process by requesting an accommodation for a disability to the Department of Employee Relations. If you believe you have a qualifying disability and are seeking accommodations in the workplace to enable you to perform your essential job functions, you should contact the District's ADA Inbox at ADAaccommodations@austinisd.org, to begin the interactive interview process as required by federal law. Please note: Having a medical condition alone is not enough to make an employee eligible for accommodations under the American with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA). The district reserves the right to obtain an independent medical opinion concerning the impairment for which an employee seeks an accommodation at district expense.
Compensation

AISD values its employees and works very hard to make sure they are appropriately compensated. AISD salaries are competitive with surrounding districts and are based on education and experience:
Click here to see our 2021-2022 Compensation Manual.
Stipends for 2021-2022 School Year

Bilingual Stipend
$6000 a year for Bilingual classroom teachers

Special Education Stipend
$2,000 a year for Special Education classroom teachers and eligible support staff
+ $500 a year if serving in Life Skills, Scores, and SBS settings.

National Board Certified Teacher Stipend
Stipends available for National Board Certified classroom teachers, counselors, and librarians

See Compensation Manual linked above for stipend eligibility.

AISD employees receive one of the best total rewards packages including competitive pay, insurance coverage and an incredible range of other perks and benefits. Total rewards go far beyond your paycheck. We are proud to include programs and services to help our employees enjoy their work and life.

Required Yearly Trainings for All Employees
Click here to see a list of the yearly required trainings for all staff.
Request Employment Forms

Current employees may now request service records through the "Employee Service Records Request" tile in the AISD cloud.

Former employees should request service records through the AISD website at https://www.austinisd.org/hr/service-records-request. Please allow 30 days for processing of service records.

If you have other service record-related questions, please submit them using Let's Talk!

In an effort to provide a more efficient system for employment or income verification, Austin ISD now uses uConfirm. This process provides instant, automated employment and income verification for Austin ISD staff. Whether it's for refinancing a mortgage, renting an apartment, buying a car, or applying for a VISA, uConfirm provides quick and accurate verification at no cost to the employee.

Employees can email their request to uConfirm at support@uConfirm.com or call (404) 382-5400 (option 2) or Toll-free (866) 312-UCON.

Employment Verifiers

Creditors who require proof of employment or income should visit the uConfirm web site at www.uconfirm.com. Verifiers may also call uConfirm directly using either of the phone numbers below:

Social Service Agencies

uConfirm fulfills these requests at no cost to the agency.

Fax: (404) 829-1336 (include employee's SSN, employer name, return fax number or address)

Email: ssrequest@uconfirm.com

If you have questions regarding the district's new process for verifying employment or income, please submit them via Let's Talk! webpage and select the "Employment Verification" button.

Absence Management Substitute System

Absence Management (Formerly Aesop) is the nation's leading automated substitute placement and absence management system, serving more than 3,000 districts nationwide. The substitute management system is used exclusively to secure and pay substitutes for teacher, classified, administrator and non-teaching professional at the campus and district level.
Login Information:

Visit Absence Management to log in.

LOGIN ID: SUBS or EMPLOYEES: "00" followed by 6 digits of Employee ID#. i.e. (00123456)

ADMINISTRATORS and CAMPUS SUB COORDINATORS: "E" followed by 6 digits of Employee ID# i.e. (E123456)

PIN: 4 or 5 digits, generated by Absence Management (user may change pin number after initial login)

Learn more about becoming a substitute, or contact the Substitutes Office.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every day you're there for them. Every day we're here for you! Whether you are an experienced administrator or student teacher, AISD offers a dynamic, diverse and supportive environment tailored to your individual needs and optimal for teaching, learning and advancing careers.

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Texas Administrative Code, a Principal as an Instructional Leader is responsible for ensuring that all staff members and students well being is ethically taken care of. When it comes to inappropriate relationships between teachers and students it will be my responsibility to promote personal boundaries and ensure that all staff members abide by the ethical standards. I will also be responsible for promoting a strong campus community that revolves are togetherness and a family bond. According to Section 251. 15.12 states that principals shall "create an atmosphere of safety that encourages the social, emotional, and physical well-being of staff and students;"
Reference: Tex. Admin. Code §241.15. 12
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) Principal as Instructional Leader Certificate Standards. The knowledge and skills identified in this section must be used by an educator preparation program (EPP) in the development of curricula and coursework and by the State Board for Educator Certification as the basis for developing the examinations required to obtain the standard Principal as Instructional Leader Certificate. The standards also serve as the foundation for the individual assessment, professional growth plan, and continuing professional education activities required by §241.30 of this title (relating to Requirements to Renew the Standard Principal as Instructional Leader Certificate).

Source Note: The provisions of this §241.15 adopted to be effective December 23, 2018, 43 TexReg 8114

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) Principal as Instructional Leader Certificate Standards. The knowledge and skills identified in this section must be used by an educator preparation program (EPP) in the development of curricula and coursework and by the State Board for Educator Certification as the basis for developing the examinations required to obtain the standard Principal as Instructional Leader Certificate.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource is great for school districts and campuses alone to teach their staff about inappropriate teacher student relationships. This article provides a Professional Development model and layout plan for administrators to follow and help their campus be a safer place for their students. This highly relates to my topic because it deals directly with how to approach the issue and how to handle the issue at hand.

Zahara, E. (2021). Addressing Appropriate and Inappropriate Teacher‐Student Relationships: A Secondary Education Professional Development Model. Clearvoz Journal. Retrieved 3 October 2021, from http://journals.sfu.ca.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #13: Best Practices for Compliance 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #13: Best Practices for Compliance 

# data[].attributes.body
1. As an Instructional Leader, communicate with staff members and educators about boundaries, expectations, ethical principles, and compliance to all educator policies regarding inappropriate relationships.
2. Staying up to date on laws and polices regarding inappropriate teacher-student relationships. Staying up to date allows to protect my students at all costs when they are on my campus.
3. Educators and Administrators need to openly communicate about the issue or even the possibility of an issue occurring. This type of behavior should never be ignored or pushed to the side for any means.
4. Professional Development Sessions and Conferences should be held and attended by all educators and staff members to ensure they are receiving the proper training to prevent and report such issues.
5. On our campus we use messaging apps that are safer to use and monitored to ensure the safety of our students. Text messaging should never be an option between students and educators.
6. The School District can also have Social Workers and Counselors come in and speak with students about the issue and how important personal boundaries are. They can also discuss the importance of reporting the issue and how to report the issue.