OpEd by:
Erika Sheets
Moms for Liberty
Johnson County, KS Chapter Chair
Kansas Legislative Chair
July 28, 2026
Almost two weeks ago, the Kansas State Board of Education voted to allow an “alternative” process for a teacher who violated both the Licensure Regulations (K.A.R. 91-22-1b(4) and the Kansas Educator Code of Conduct. They voted 8-0-1 to allow this teacher to keep his teaching license and continue to have access to minors. This teacher is currently employed at a Kansas K-12 high school.
The conduct was not determined to be sexually explicit, but Kansas law does not require it to be:
• Licensure Discipline KS Regulation K.A.R. 91-22-1b(a)(4) identifies:
Educator licenses can be suspended, revoked, or publicly censured for misconduct, including:
▪ Engaging in any sexual activity with a student.
▪ Any behavior that can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate and overly personal and intimate relationship with, conducts toward, or focus on a student.
▪ Commission or omission of any act that injures the health or welfare of a minor through physical or sexual abuse or exploitation.
▪ Crimes involving minors, felonies, or specific sexual offenses.
▪ Failure to report child abuse/neglect.
o These provisions directly cover grooming behaviors, which typically involve building inappropriate trust, isolating a student, or engaging in overly personal/intimate conduct with the intent (or appearance) of exploitation. Kansas does not appear to have a single statutory definition of “grooming” exclusive to educators, but the broad language in the regulations and code encompasses it as professional misconduct.
o conduct that “can reasonably be construed as involving an inappropriate and overly personal and intimate relationship with, conducts toward, or focus on a student” as explicit grounds for professional discipline.
• KS Educator Code of Conduct:
o This code outlines responsibilities to students, the district, and the profession. Key relevant provisions include:
o Maintain professional relationships with students both inside and outside the classroom.
o Refrain from soliciting, encouraging, participating in, or initiating inappropriate written, verbal, electronic, physical, sexual, or romantic relationships with students.
o Protect students from conditions detrimental to their learning, health, or safety.
o Fulfill mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse.
o Inappropriate conduct explicitly includes committing any act of child abuse, cruelty to children, child endangerment, or soliciting/unlawful sexual acts.
o The code emphasizes a professional relationship defined as one where the educator maintains teacher/student authority while expressing concern, empathy, and encouragement—explicitly distinguishing it from overly personal or intimate interactions.
Findings of Fact in this case:
• (“Licensee”) #8342631745 is currently licensed by the Kansas State Board of Education (“State Board”) with an initial teaching license. Licensee has been licensed by the State Board since 2022.
• During the 2022/2023 school year, Licensee was employed as a teacher by the Shawnee Mission School District. This was Licensee’s first year teaching.
• Licensee acknowledges that during the 2022/2023 school year, he engaged in a pattern of inappropriate and overly personal and intimate conduct toward or focus on a student.
• The inappropriate conduct includes but is not limited to:
Exchanging over 200 emails for personal, non-educational purposes with Student,
Sharing personal information with Student about his own personal relationship(s),
Sharing overly flattering messages via email and texts with Student about how much he loved talking and listening to Student,
Telling Student how excited he is to not be her teacher anymore (after she graduates) so he can “just be some dude”,
Inviting Student to meet outside of school after she stopped attending high school but before Student officially graduated
Giving Student his personal cell phone number to keep in touch after Student graduated, without “having to worry about getting in trouble” and how after doing so “everything will be easier.” and
Exchanging friendly dialogue via over 600 text messages with Student for personal, non-educational purposes starting the day after she stopped attending high school and continued between that day and the day she graduated and continued after graduation.
Licensee resigned from the Shawnee Mission School District in lieu of termination. Licensee became employed by the Rock Hill School District in 2023 and has been employed as a math teacher since that time. Licensee currently works as an Assistant Forensics coach as well.
Licensee’s current employer is now aware of Licensee’s past misconduct but feels he has learned from his past and fully supports his effort to retain his teaching license.
Licensee is willing and able to fulfill additional licensing requirements that may be necessary for him to show rehabilitation and remorse.
Despite these facts, the State Board of Education voted with tacit unanimity to allow this process to be conducted & accepted and for this teacher to continue having access to minors in Kansas schools (8 members voted “yea”, 1 member voted “present”, which is not a “no” and 1 member was not in attendance).
The Process
Former KSDE Board attorney and newly minted KASB attorney, Scott Gordon chose to pursue an alternative process utilizing a framework called “Restorative Justice”. While there are plenty of concerns about this framework even in more (potentially) appropriate settings, multiple sources of expert opinion, literature reviews, and jurisdictional recommendations document that even an adapted form of Restorative Justice is frequently regarded as inappropriate or unsuitable as a process for sexual misconduct by an adult against a minor, particularly while the victim remains a child.
Specifically, Mr. Gordon contacted Dr. Jeffrey Haverland at the University of Dubuque, who has done significant work on restorative practices, and Dr. Mischell Miller of the Kansas Education Leadership Institute. Together they developed this “informal early intervention” process, which is obviously tone-deaf to the Findings of Fact in this case:
1. The educator would meet with Dr. Miller
o The educator was a no-show for the first two virtual meetings with Dr. Miller.
2. Write a “reflective paper” acknowledging the incident
o The educator was coached by Dr. Miller through 4 revisions of his “reflective paper”
3. Reflect on its impact, identify lessons learned, and
4. Produce a plan for “repair and growth.”
The grooming behavior took place in 2023.
This formal process was paused for an entire year while this unfolded.
It took three years to get to the State Board of Education report and vote this month.
This teacher was able to be hired in another district without that district knowing about his documented grooming behaviors.
Parents have not been notified that their children are in a building with this teacher.
The Pattern
Perhaps this could just be one set of very poor mistakes by the State Board? Unfortunately, not. A detailed review of open-source data shows the following:
o 14 licensed people who have either been arrested, charge or convicted, and still have a current teaching license in the state of Kansas. All of them are a sexual charge against kids except for one who was failure to report child abuse. None of them are on the KSDE Professional Practices Commission page.
o 7 individuals who were arrested, charged or convicted, and their teaching licenses were allowed to expire after their arrest charge conviction. None of them are on the Professional Practices Commission page.
o An additional 23 that have either committed crimes against children or failed to report crimes against children and do not appear on KSDE’s Professional Practices Commission page.
o An additional 11 individuals that belong in one of the above categories, but there is not enough information to properly identify which one. However, they should appear on the Professional Practices on Commission page and do not.
o One individual who was revoked after hiding for 27 years and was only found after background check requirements were updated and then placed on the PPC page.
o Another individual who is on the PPC page, their license was revoked in 2018, but they were granted an emergency substitute teaching license, which was active until 2020. They were eventually convicted in 2024.
o One more that died before their conviction and does not appear on the PPC page.
As for the teacher the State Board voted on July 14th:
o KSDE updated his status on July 23, 2026.
o His license shows as active until 2029. It looks like he applied for recertification in May of 2024.
o He is also not listed on the PPC page for any type of disciplinary action.
o Under his application Status it shows “NONE” for disciplinary action.
The State Board of Education is an elected body of citizens charged with statutory oversight and authority of KSDE and Kansas schools. These members not only failed in their duties by allowing an unsuitable process to address the behaviors of (“Licensee”) #8342631745, allowing him to keep his teaching license and have continued access to minors, but the consistent backlog, lack of transparency and absence of school system and parent notifications is a systemic failure to protect Kansas students from predators in K-12 schools.
State Board of Education Districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 all have elections this year including the August 4th Primary elections for Districts 3, 5 and 9.
State Board member incumbents and former incumbent members who merely “rubber stamp”the recommendations of the education institution are systemically putting our students in danger. Kansas students and families need courageous citizen leaders NOW who are willing to operate within their authority to protect Kansas students from sexual predators.