What are Superintendant Roeske’s problems? Are some of the problems more urgent than others? The case described in Ascot School District by Richard Fossey and Katherine Merseth (Merseth 266-274) is devoted to a complicated situation that the Superintendant James Roeske has to deal with: he and a group of his colleagues have to make a decision on the case of a teacher who had sexual contact with three female students. Roeske et al have to choose between several options, each of which has its flaws, which creates the contradictoriness of this case. The key question that Roeske faces is whether the case should be reported to the Professional Teaching Practices Commission (PTPC). The first aspect of the contradictoriness is reputation of the school and of the district: if the case is disclosed, it will awake strong resonance in the community; on the other hand, if the case is not reported and way it has been “settled” becomes “public knowledge (274), it will be also met with the community’s severe critique. The second aspect is keeping confidentiality: three young women involved in the case requested to leave the information confidential, which also gives birth to certain contradictoriness and complicates decision-making. The third aspect is the material cost of solving the case; however, comparing to the first two aspects, this one seems to be of minor importance. The situation is aggravated by the fact that the confidentiality of the information is actually not under the complete control of Roeske and thus is not the matter of his choice. The situation has become known a big circle of people, and there is no guarantee that the information does not leak. Fortunately, Roeske avoided two other possible problems that could emerge in this case. One of these problems is the problem with the law; however, neither the actions of the teacher Milton Botsford contained the elements of breaking law, nor did Roeske violate law with the settlement of the case. The second possible problem could be connected with Botsford: in case the teacher did not access the proposed settlement, solving the case would be quite problematic. What role does the teachers’ association play in this case? How are the actions of the central administrators influenced by the contract and the teachers’ association? The case of Milton Botsford is to great extent controversial, as despite the evident violation of a teacher’s ethics code, the teacher’s actions turn out to be legal from the perspective of law. Thus, it is rather difficult to give them classification and ground the actions that the Superintendant et al should take against them. The observation of the possible sources of this classification revealed that there is no ground to claim that Botsford’s actions violated any code or statute. In the Ascot school district, teachers are represented by the Ascot Education Association (AEA) (Merseth 272). The organization has a collective bargaining agreement with the school district that inter alia outlines the cases that can become the ground for a teacher’s dismissal, which are: 1) “incompetence”, 2) “immorality”, 3) “insubordination” (ibid.). At first, it may seem that Botsford’s actions can be classified according to any of these poi