Complaint Processes.
There are several complaint and investigation processes related to public school employees and students, for example: the special education community complaint process; discrimination complaint processes; the process for making complaints related to student harassment, intimidation, and bullying; and the complaint and investigation provisions related to revocation or suspension of educator certificates, such as for sexual misconduct towards a child.
Office of the Education Ombuds.
In 2006 the Office of the Education Ombuds (OEO) was created within the Office of the Governor to provide information to parents, students, and others regarding their rights and responsibilities with respect to the state's public elementary and secondary education system and to advocate on behalf of students. All matters are treated as confidential by the OEO, except as necessary to perform the duties of the office.
The OEO has the power and duty to, among other things: (1) facilitate the resolution of complaints made by parents and students with regard to the state's public elementary and secondary education system; and (2) refer complainants and others to appropriate resources, agencies, or departments.
Code of Professional Conduct.
The Professional Educator Standards Board (PESB) is a statutorily created 12-member board whose duties include establishment and enforcement of rules determining eligibility for the certification of teachers, administrators, and educational staff associates working in elementary and secondary schools. The PESB has established a Code of Professional Conduct to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of students, to assure the citizens that education practitioners are accountable for acts of unprofessional conduct, and to define and provide notice to certificated educators of the acts of unprofessional conduct for which they are accountable.
Use of Force on Children.
The stated policy of the state is to protect children from assault and abuse and to encourage parents, teachers, and their authorized agents to use methods of correction and restraint of children that are not dangerous to the children. The criminal code specifies that the physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher, or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.
The criminal code also specifies that any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child.
The education code prohibits school staff from using restraint or isolation to control a student participating in school activities, except when reasonably necessary to control spontaneous behavior of the student that poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm. "Likelihood of serious harm" generally means there is evidence of substantial risk that the student will inflict physical harm upon themself, another, or the property of others.
When school staff use restraint or isolation on a student participating in school activities, among other things:
Administrative rules of the state Superintendent of Public Instruction prohibit school staff from using corporal punishment, including any act that willfully inflicts or willfully causes the infliction of physical pain, on a student.
Uniform Complaint Process.
By July 1, 2025, the Office of the Education Ombuds (OEO) must create a simple and uniform access point for the receipt of complaints involving the elementary and secondary education system. The purpose of the access point is to provide a single point of entry for complaints to be reported and then referred to the most appropriate individual or entity for dispute resolution at the lowest level of intercession.
Complaints may be submitted by any individual who has firsthand knowledge of a violation of federal, state, or local laws, policies and procedures, or of improper or illegal actions related to elementary and secondary education and performed by an employee or contractor, student, parent or legal guardian of a student, or member of the public. "Employee or contractor" means employees and contractors of the state education agencies, educational service districts, public schools, the State School for the Blind, and the Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Youth.
The OEO must delineate a complaint resolution and referral process for reports received through the access point. The process must:
The OEO, in collaboration with the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, must develop protocols for the receipt, resolution, and referral of complaints and must design a communications plan to inform individuals who report complaints through the access point about the steps in the complaint resolution and referral process, including when to expect a response from the individual or entity charged with resolving the complaint.
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, school districts, public schools, and educational service districts must post on their websites a prominent link to the complaint resolution and referral access point maintained by the OEO.
Code of Educator Conduct.
By September 1, 2025, the Professional Educator Standards Board and the Paraeducator Board (boards) must jointly report to the Legislature on a code of educator ethics. In this context, "educator" refers to certificated administrative staff, certificated instructional staff, and paraeducators.
The boards must engage with stakeholders across the professional educator spectrum and review the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification's model code of ethics for educators.
The report must advise the legislature on the following topics:
The report must also include a summary of the required activities, any planned activities by either board related to adopting a code of educator ethics, and any recommendations for legislative action, if necessary, related to state adoption of a code of ethics.
Use of Force on Children.
The defense for teachers that use of force on a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and inflicted for purposes of restraining or correcting a child is replaced with a defense that use of force on a child by teachers and other school staff is not unlawful if it complies with requirements for school staff use of restraint and isolation, including that use of force be used only when a student's behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm.
As compared to the original bill, the third substitute bill:
The third substitute bill also differs from the original bill by:
(In support) Parents do not expect their children to be bullied or abused when they go to school. While most children are not abused by school staff, it makes parents feel helpless and lost to send their children into unknown daily harm. The best way to achieve learning is to meet students where they are at.
It should not be legal for kids to be harmed at the hands of a teacher. Some teachers engage in harmful behavior with students, including pulling ears, twisting wrists, digging fingernails into necks, slamming heads into desks, and slapping. Teachers have been practicing these methods of student discipline for decades. While this contact may be in violation of school policy, the criminal code allows this type of treatment of students. Adults who use these practices should not be allowed to continue working with students. There should be an easily accessible and uniform reporting system to help parents to keep their children safe by tracking the bad behavior of teachers.
This bill seeks to create a uniform portal for people to file complaints then be referred to the appropriate place for dispute resolution. This bill seeks to remove the criminal defense of an educator for use of force on a student. The practice of isolation and restraint is the subject of another bill and this bill adds a cross reference to those limitations in the defense.
This bill is not trying to rewrite the disciplinary laws that govern the actions of educators or to change the processes for investigating or adjudicating disciplinary actions. The code of educator ethics is not about the actual behavior of educators, rather it is intended to be an aspirational expectation for educators and the education system. This code is currently missing from the system.
(Opposed) The state has a code of educator conduct; a code of ethics may or may not conflict with that. There is concern about who will write the code of ethics. There are some things happening in schools that maybe unethical, for example students with another gender identity must be allowed to use the restroom and locker rooms of their choice. People with either gender identity may play any sport. There is lowered attendance and injuries for females.
(Other) The current complaint processes should be strengthened rather than duplicated or confused.
The code of educator ethics has been looked into by the Professional Educator Standards Board and the Paraeducator Board. There can be a conflating with the code of ethics and the code of conduct. The code of ethics should be aspirational set of values, while the code of conduct prohibits specific actions and behaviors. The language about enforcement of the code of ethics needs to be clarified. There are questions about how a code of ethics would support the education system.
(In support) Representative Sharon Tomiko Santos, prime sponsor; Julianna Hillard, Seattle Council Parent Teacher Student Association; Laura Marie Rivera; Sebrena Burr; and Marianne Bryan.