Make a case study RECOMMENDATION apply the code of ethics of teachers for basis.UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCTTeaching retarded elementary school children requires skill, patience and devotion, and those who undertake this task are among the unsung heroes of our society. Their hard and challenging work rarely brings the prestige or financial rewards it deserves. Mrs Pettit was one of those dedicated teachers. Licensed to teach in California since 1957 she had been working with retarded children for over 13 years when her career came to an end in 1973. Throughout that career her competence was never questioned and the evaluations of her school principal were always positive.Teaching was not Mrs. Pettit's only interest, however. She and her husband viewed with favour various 'nonconventional sexual lifestyles' including 'wife swapping' and in 1966 they had discussed their ideas on two local television shows. Although they wore disguise at least one fellow teacher recognized them and discussed Mrs. Pettit's views with colleagues. A year later, in 1967, Pettit then 48 years old and her husband joined 'The Swingers,' a private intended to promote diverse sexual activities among its members. An undercover police officer, Sergeant Berk, Visited one of those parties at a private residence. Amid a welter of sexual activity, he observed Mrs. Pettit commit three separate acts of oral copulation with three different men in one hour period.Pettit was arrested and charged with oral copulation. After a plea bargain was arranged, she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour of outraging public decency and paid a fine. The school district renewed her teaching contract the next academic year but in February 1970, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. The State Board of education found no reason to complain about her services as a teacher and it conceded that she was unlikely to repeat her sexual misconduct. But the Board revoked her elementary school life diploma that is her licensed to teach on the ground that by engaging in immoral and unprofessional conduct at the party, she had demonstrated that she was unfit to teach.Pettit fought the loss of her licensed all the way to the California Supreme Court, which in 1973 upheld the decision of the Board of Education. In an earlier case, the court had reversed the firing of a public school teacher for unspecified homosexual conduct, concluding that a teacher's actions could not constitute 'immoral or unprofessional conduct.' Or 'moral turpitude' unless there was a clear evidence of unfitness to teach but Pettit's case was different, the court hastened to explain.The conduct in the earlier case had not been involved it had been private. Further, in the case the board had acted with insufficient evidence of unfitness to teach, while three school administrators had testified that in their opinion, Pettit's conduct proved her unfit to teach. These experts worried that she would inject her views of sexual morality into the classroom and they doubted that she could act as a moral example to the children she taught. Yet t h teachers, the court reaffirmed, are supposed to serve as examples and the Education Code makes it a statutory duty of teachers to 'endeavour to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality... and to instruct them in manners and morals.'In a vigorous dissent, Justice Tobringer rejected the opinion of the majority, arguing that no evidence had established that Pettit was not fit to teach. The three experts didn't consider her record; they couldn't point to any past misconduct with students, nor did they suggest any reason to anticipate future problems. They simply assumed that the fact of her sexual acts at the 'swinger' party itself demonstrated that she would be unable to set a proper example or to teach her pupils moral principles.Such an attitude is unrealistic, Tobringer argued, when studies shows that 5 to 85 percent of the women of Pettit's educational level and age range engage in oral copulation. The majority opinion, 'is blind to the reality of sexual behaviour' and unrealistically assumes that 'teachers in their private lives should exemplify Victorian principles of sexual morality.' Her actions were private and could not have affected her teaching ability. Had there not been clandestine surveillance of the party the whole issue would never have arisen.

Introduction: Objectives: Statement of the Problem/s: Statement of the Fact/s: Analysis: Conclusion/s: Recommendation/s