Professional Organizations and their involvement in Ones Private affairs

[Chris Stratton]

Even if there are no direct issues in this case, there is still the general question if someone is bound by the rules of the organization employing them, or also by the rules of organizations of which they may be a member, even when working in a context where it's rules do not directly apply.

Generally, the world is a simpler and fairer place when only the rules of the subject context (competition) are applied, and organizational membership rules export only in terms of things like professional responsibility, ethical standards, etc.

In practical terms, what I'm saying is that I don't believe an organization should try to govern where or how its members may work, but it would be appropriate for it to investigate an allegation of misconduct such as bribery involving one of its members in an outside setting.

[Angel HI]

...what I'm saying is that I don't believe an organization should try to govern where or how its members may work, but it would be appropriate for it to investigate an allegation of misconduct such as bribery involving one of its members in an outside setting.

You and I are going to have to stop agreeing on things, the DF might not know what to think. :)

[Larinda McRaven]

but it would be appropriate for it to investigate an allegation of misconduct such as bribery involving one of its members in an outside setting.

Nope I don't agree. What a person does outside of the organization, they are registered within, should have no bearing. You want to investigate bribery? What about domestic violence? What about speeding tickets? What about debt? What about DWIs? Polyamorous relations? There are a LOT of behaviors that are "unbecoming of a judge" and "cast a shadow" upon the integrity of our industry by associations to such individuals.

As Brian McDonald once said to me, "We don't want to get into policing peoples business and lives outside of the competitions we run." (and that is a direct quote in response to a question I presented him with regard to a similar question that was rasied earlier on Dance-Forums several years back)

[Chris Stratton]

You want to investigate bribery? What about domestic violence? What about speeding tickets? What about debt? What about DWIs? Polyamorous relations? There are a LOT of behaviors that are "unbecoming of a judge" and "cast a shadow" upon the integrity of our industry by associations to such individuals.

Only one item on that list, the first, directly concerns their work as a dance judge.

(I assume everyone realizes that when I said bribery, I was talking about for competition marks, not for something unrelated to dancing)

At any rate, I'm glad your position is to the 'outside is outside' of mine, rather than to the 'our business no matter where' side.

[Angel HI]

There are a LOT of behaviors that are "unbecoming of a judge" and "cast a shadow" upon the integrity of our industry by associations to such individuals.

As Brian McDonald once said to me, "We don't want to get into policing peoples business and lives outside of the competitions we run." (and that is a direct quote in response to a question I presented him with regard to a similar question that was rasied earlier on Dance-Forums several years back)

I completely disagree! I believe that we all understand that CS was referring to "dancing and dance related activities". As for McDonald's quote, I would believe that the "we" he was referring to was the NDCA. And, I know that I will probably start an all out war here, but, IMO, "they" don't even police what they propose to in favor of "...the competitions [they] run..." I went to them last year with a severe problem of unprofessionalism by a member that was directly dance/studio related, and was told, despite how the Mission Statement reads, that "they" didn't police what members did outside of competitions.

My point here is, sincerely, not to bash McDonald or the NDCA, but to say that I agree that it would be appropriate for an org. to investigate an allegation of misconduct involving one of its members even in an outside setting that is dance related.

[Larinda McRaven]

Only one item on that list, the first, directly concerns their work as a dance judge.

(I assume everyone realizes that when I said bribery, I was talking about for competition marks, not for something unrelated to dancing)

At any rate, I'm glad your position is to the 'outside is outside' of mine, rather than to the 'our business no matter where' side.

Definitely outside is outside, inside is inside, two very distinct areas, for me. Rather than inside is inside, yet outside is outside only sometimes.

However what I do outside of their jurisdiction is outside regardless of what context it is. If I judge a tiny local in-house-comp, what does my governing body have to do with it. If I am an ass, what can they do? Last year I did a show in Times Square, and as a self-appointed representative to the industry I was professional. But if I decided to scream and spit on the pedestrians walking by, I might have gotten fired and sent home without pay, but still what can the NDCA do? I wasn't hired by them, it was not their event. And yet these are dance related situations.

Really that is like me going home to my parents house in the boondocks and speeding like a banshee up and down their private road. Yet somehow the sheriff is going to give me a citation or suspend my license when I get back in town even though my driving is exemplary (sp) on a public road.

Inthis business my fellow peers may decide that I am a nutjob and not invite me to judge or do a show. That kind of goverment from within happens quite regularly.

[Larinda McRaven]

I went to them last year with a severe problem of unprofessionalism by a member that was directly dance/studio related, and was told, despite how the Mission Statement reads, that "they" didn't police what members did outside of competitions.

Yup, that is correct. They don't. And I believe they shouldn't.

My point here is, sincerely, not to bash McDonald or the NDCA, but to say that I agree that it would be appropriate for an org. to investigate an allegation of misconduct involving one of its members even in an outside setting that is dance related. (yet outside of their jurisdiction. added by Larinda)
Just stop and think for a minute about the legal implications of what you are suggesting.

[Angel HI]

Just stop and think for a minute about the legal implications of what you are suggesting.

It's too bad that we live in a 'sue-everyone-for-breathing against my wishes-society'. But, are there really legal ramifications that could be upheld? When a member of an org is involved in ill behavior related to that org's business, the org absolutely has the right to expect the member to maintain a certain standard (especially if said standard is stated in its membership requirements). Why else do we have them? We really don't need orgs if not to expect...require members and activities to maintain a certain degree of integrity and professionalism in accordance with whatever industry the org represents.

Using the NDCA only as an example, let's say hypothetically that a teacher goes to judge a local ballet competition. It has nothing to do with BR, but the teacher is brought in as a dance professional, and is announced as a "...nationally certified instructor with the National Dance Council of Amer". Said instructor is inebriated, unprofessional, shouts vulgarities and insults at lesser accomplished dancers. Are you serious in believing that the NDCA should have nothing to say about this?

[tangotime]

Nope I don't agree. What a person does outside of the organization, they are registered within, should have no bearing.
You want to investigate bribery? What about domestic violence? What about speeding tickets? What about debt? What about DWIs? Polyamorous relations? There are a LOT of behaviors that are "unbecoming of a judge" and "cast a shadow" upon the integrity of our industry by associations to such individuals.




There is a standard that has to be maintained , and an " unwritten " code, as well as the general codes that are published, should be adhered to ..

There is a very well known case in the UK where a top line Pro was involved in a very dubious situation, and was censured for many yrs .( this was dealings outside of the profession ) .
It has generally been the case in the UK, that dance professionals are held in much higher esteem than they are in the States . The public persona has placed them on par with most prof. occupations-- that--as we know-- is NOT the case in the states .

The first paragraph is ludicrous at best-- why would ANY society endorse a member , who could bring disrepute to its member body , in such an egregious case ? .

[Larinda McRaven]

The first paragraph is ludicrous at best-- why would ANY society endorse a member , who could bring disrepute to its member body , in such an egregious case ? .

Because quite frankly what I do outside of an NDCA competition is my business, not the NDCAs. And I am not talking about sueing, I am am talking of privacy and civil liberties, which is something THIS country is founded on and we are struggleing with right now. Why add to the Big Brother Police State.

[Larinda McRaven]

Lets just assume that everyone here knows my personal history. The incident involved happened at my home. It was a private matter that was made very public. It impacted my career and his 100%. But not because the NDCA had anything to say about it. They were quite adamantly mum on the whole incident. Refusing to too address even the media that hounded them across several competitions.

Yet if that VERY same incident happened at a Dance Studio... are you saying that the NDCA (or any other professional organization I belong to) has the right to step into that mess and take action against either him or me? Who are they to be judge and jury? We both have built back our careers with only a personal backlash from individuals who saw it as their opportunity to make a staement against either of us. And that is their right to decide who to hire to coach or judge. But for the NDCA, to suspend or refuse to renew our registration... come on. They watch over competitions. They ensure that I have water to drink and a 20 minute break.

(yes Chris I understand your point that this type of incident is not dance related... but it was all I could think up easily on the fly)

[tangotime]

I do understand you point-- but there are times when things should be called into Q-- I,m not suggesting nit picking , but flagrant cases of immorality , as upheld by general standards of conduct . Nothing more than that .

[Chris Stratton]

Yet if that VERY same incident happened at a Dance Studio... are you saying that the NDCA (or any other professional organization I belong to) has the right to step into that mess and take action

Unless I am severely mistaken, that incident was not directly dancing related, though dancing could have contributed to overall stress. Even if it happened at a studio, it would not have direct demands-attention impact on anyone's trustworthiness to be a dancer, teacher, or judge. That doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it should be handled by the general mechanisms of society, not by dancing organizations.

In contrast, serious misconduct directly related to fulfilling a job - such as a judge accepting a bribe while officiating anywhere - would need attention from dance organizations.

The more debatable case would be if a personal incident had occurred between a teacher and their student. Without really looking at specifics of that hypothetical case, I think it would be hard to make a blanket categorization - was it a personal incident between dancers, or was it teacher misconduct of a personal sort.

(yes Chris I understand your point that this type of incident is not dance related... but it was all I could think up easily on the fly)

Well, yes, that makes all the difference.

I'm advocating a deserves attention test along the lines of:

1) Was it directly related to action in official capacity as a dance professional?

2) Did it display the kind contempt for the rules applicable to the situation in which it occurred that makes it difficult to trust the persons integrity in similar situations?

This pretty much wipes out the kind of chilling personal expression complaints - someone's raunchy show at an after party or club is not of interest, because it suggests nothing about their trustworthiness in an obviously different situation.

[cornutt]

I do understand you point-- but there are times when things should be called into Q-- I,m not suggesting nit picking , but flagrant cases of immorality , as upheld by general standards of conduct . Nothing more than that .

I don't know; I'm mostly with Larinda and Chris on this. In Angel Hi's theoretical example, the only thing that justifies the NDCA taking action is that the person in question presented himself as being a representative of the NDCA. Had he not done that, I don't think the NDCA would have any standing to get involved.

Having said that: I don't know all of the details of the agreements that professionals sign with the NDCA. For my current job, I signed agreements that places certain restrictions on my non-job-related activities. For example, I can be fired if I run up my credit cards and get heavily into debt. I can be fired if I have an affair with with a foreign national. I cannot travel outside the USA, even for personal reasons, without giving [someone] advance notice. I was made fully aware of all of these restrictions before I signed up, and I made a conscious decision that it was worth it to get the job. Having done so, my employer has the right to expect me to abide by these agreements, and if I don't, I have no one to blame but myself.

[tunape]

Even if there are no direct issues in this case, there is still the general question if someone is bound by the rules of the organization employing them, or also by the rules of organizations of which they may be a member, even when working in a context where it's rules do not directly apply.

Generally, the world is a simpler and fairer place when only the rules of the subject context (competition) are applied, and organizational membership rules export only in terms of things like professional responsibility, ethical standards, etc.

In practical terms, what I'm saying is that I don't believe an organization should try to govern where or how its members may work, but it would be appropriate for it to investigate an allegation of misconduct such as bribery involving one of its members in an outside setting.

Sounds like Government and Business theory, corporate governance, contract theory, etc... This stuff drives me insane!

[Me]

The key point I am interested in is as follows:

If the public actions (not private, not personal) of an individual acting in his capacity as a professional have a negative impact upon business and others involved in a business (other professionals and clients) and if this professional is registered with and claims an important affiliation with an organization, should that organization take action, particularly if that organization claims to be a governing body of that business?

To use the NDCA Master Rulebook as an example:

"The National Dance Council of America, Inc., a non-profit educational organization, hereinafter referred to as the "Council" or the "NDCA", is the officially recognized governing body of Ballroom Dance Education in the United States of America, and as such, represents the USA on the World Dance and Dance Sport Council (WD&DSC), the worldwide governing body of Professional Ballroom Dancing."

As written, the NDCA has accepted a responsibility in governing Ballroom Dance Education. I do not see the word competition. I do see the word governing, which suggestions control, authority, or influence to name a few things.

I can easily see room for confusion here.

[rjcbear]

I can be fired if I have an affair with with a foreign national.

[hijack]If the ed head DW of yours get to you first your employer will not have to worry about firing you... :D [unhijack]

Now to my point as AM member of the NDCA all I am agreeing to is to obey their rules while I am attending a competition govern by the NDCA rules and that is all.

[Chris Stratton]

If the public actions (not private, not personal) of an individual acting in his capacity as a professional have a negative impact upon business and others involved in a business (other professionals and clients) and if this professional is registered with and claims an important affiliation with an organization, should that organization take action, particularly if that organization claims to be a governing body of that business?

No.

Negative impact on the business is not enough - that's too open to personal distaste and opinions as to possible effect which cannot be verified.

The bar must be higher than that: only if their actions seriously call into question their ability to perform their function within that organization.

And I believe there is a big difference between the standards for judges, vs. teachers. With teachers, there's always a huge "buyer beware" - even with the best of intentions, quality varies, and it is up to the consumer to choose. With judges, the consumer has almost no choice - eligibility is decided by the sanctioning organization and its institutional members, and eligibility is the primary visible and revocable means of selection control. In some cases (particularly championships) the organizer may not even have the power to select judges, but have to accept a slate of eligible officials nominated by an umbrella organization.

[tunape]

No.

Only if their actions seriously call into question their ability to perform their function within that organization.

This is only partially true. It also depends on how high up in the organization the individual may be. For example, a CEO, or Brian McDonald, has more restrictions on what he can do as public action because he represents the organization. However, a competition runner has more freedom since his public actions(eg. dress inappropriately for a comp) do not stand for what the organization is about. It's both about public perception of what the different roles of the individuals in the org, as well as the policies in place of the org.

This is the argument made by Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Khurana's book "Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs"(see amazon.com) where he argues that CEOs as leaders do not _do_ much but perform the rituals which represent the organizations.

More generally, the contract between an individual(ie dance pro) and the organization(ie dance affiliation) should reflect the lost of public actions taken away from individuals. So, for example, if NDCA wants their pros to better represent the organization in a personal way, they should give up more stake of the organization to the individual NDCA members(ie. voting rights, stock if they are a traded company, etc...). The situation is even worst when actions are less measurable.

[Chris Stratton]

Tunape's comments are much more relevant to a specific business than to an umbrella organization, especially one that seeks to be a defacto monopoly in its role. In a business, everyone is expected to be on the same team, and to buy into the mission statement or at least claim to.

In contrast, an umbrella organization in which membership/registration is practically mandatory cannot expect the same kind of unity of action or publically expressed opinion. It must make far more room for dissenting opinions and actions. And yes, these can at times damage business interests, but that's the cost of setting out to be the only game in town, vs. seeking to be only one amongst a number of players.

So for example, there's an open expectation that dance teachers are in business competition with each other. NDCA registration rules may contain some loose rules about what would constitute unfair business competition, but NDCA is not really in a position to regulate thousands of tiny businesses across the country. Business disputes need to be handled in the local community - media, courts, etc, not a national competition sanctioning organization.

[tunape]

Tunape's comments are much more relevant to a specific business than to an umbrella organization, especially one that seeks to be a defacto monopoly in its role. In a business, everyone is expected to be on the same team, and to buy into the mission statement or at least claim to.


You can model NDCA or similiar organizations as monopoly orgs. Individuals still can choose whether to be part of the monopoly or not, with its respective pros and cons. When the pros of not being in the org outweight that of being in the org(eg. a small NDCA studio decides to not be affiliated with NDCA because of its own thriving business cannibalizing other NDCA studios in the area and breaking an NDCA rule). This is the explicit and implicit contract between NDCA, the studio, and the instructor.

I would argue that the model still applies to NDCA, governing monopolies, and more general orgs, for profit or not. It's just that NDCA has set up an increasing incentive for pros to be part of it. However, any pro can still not be part of NDCA - it just means no competing, no judging, no directory, and no certification(amongst other things).

EDIT: To summarize, I think any organization(or individual) can infringe on personal privacy/rights given that it provides enough an incentive(either in terms of money, or a stake in the outcome of the org) to the individual, and that there are individuals willing to "buy in" on the incentive. Perhaps the unhappiness comes from: 1) not enough incentive to infringe on privacy, and 2) unhappiness of monopoly rule which gives the org more leverage and give out less incentives. But in either case, there are alternative actions that the individual or smaller org can take. Both the governing body and the individual/smaller org have choices.

[samina]

Because quite frankly what I do outside of an NDCA competition is my business, not the NDCAs. And I am not talking about sueing, I am am talking of privacy and civil liberties, which is something THIS country is founded on and we are struggleing with right now. Why add to the Big Brother Police State.

<big kiss> :)

[cornutt]

[hijack]If the ed head DW of yours get to you first your employer will not have to worry about firing you... :D [unhijack]


If my redhead and your redhead ever decide to gang up on me, I'm a goner. :shock:


Now to my point as AM member of the NDCA all I am agreeing to is to obey their rules while I am attending a competition govern by the NDCA rules and that is all.

Well, I think the brief agreement we assume to register as am competitors is quite a bit different from what the pros sign up to. The NDCA is, or at least it has aspirations to be, a professional organization -- a sort of union -- for dance pros. Us ams are just along for the ride, and that has more to do with their politics vis-a-vis USABDA than it does any desire on the NDCA's part to actually regulate amateurs.

I compare it to the IEEE (a professional organization for engineers). As in the case of the NDCA, the IEEE claims to be the national representative for the American engineering force. And the IEEE does have standards governing the public conduct of these members, which they do occasionally try to enforce. I'm not sure they have ever taken action against someone for a non-work-related reason, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Another parallel with the NDCA, though: The IEEE may like to think of themselves as having a monopoly on engineering in America, but their opinion has no force of law. If the IEEE pisses me off, then as a software professional I can go join the Association for Computing Machinery instead. If the IEEE pisses off my friend the automotive engineer, she can go join the Society for Automotive Engineers. Same deal with the NDCA -- they aren't the only organization representing dance pros, and sanctioning pro-am comps, in the U.S. Admittedly they are the largest. But a dance pro who leaves the NDCA won't get banned from competing in the U.S. They just can't compete in NDCA-sanctioned comps. And there are a lot more small-organization and "outlaw" pro-am comps out there than the NDCA likes to admit. I'm not saying the NDCA is good or bad; I'm just saying they aren't the only option.

[Chris Stratton]

The NDCA is, or at least it has aspirations to be, a professional organization -- a sort of union -- for dance pros. Us ams are just along for the ride, and that has more to do with their politics vis-a-vis USABDA than it does any desire on the NDCA's part to actually regulate amateurs.

I compare it to the IEEE (a professional organization for engineers).

Actually you are mixing up the missions of the PDF and the NDCA. The NDCA is an organization of and for competition organizers. The PDF is an organization of and for professional dancers.

IEEE -> PDF
DVD Consortium -> NDCA

Another parallel with the NDCA, though: The IEEE may like to think of themselves as having a monopoly on engineering in America, but their opinion has no force of law. If the IEEE pisses me off, then as a software professional I can go join the Association for Computing Machinery instead. If the IEEE pisses off my friend the automotive engineer, she can go join the Society for Automotive Engineers. Same deal with the NDCA -- they aren't the only organization representing dance pros, and sanctioning pro-am comps, in the U.S.

They are in fact the only choice for doing this at a high level. You do it their way, or you do CW instead of ballroom. Similarly, you want to make DVD players you join the DVD consortium, or you make super VCD players instead of DVD players (or if you do, a shipment gets seized by customs every now and then).

Well, I think the brief agreement we assume to register as am competitors is quite a bit different from what the pros sign up to.

That however is true, because amateur is theoretically a protected category (protected from professional teachers) wheras professional is not a protected competition category. the organization has a legitimate interest in involving itself in the behavior that makes the distinction. On the pro side, there is a rising star division, but the eligibility rules for that are very simple and tend to look primarily at past results of the subject competition, so there's very little for the national body to enforce that makes a difference to its operations. If an amateur acts as a professional, suspending them from amateur competition makes sense - if a pro competes for business "unfairly" with another pro, suspending them from competition does not make sense, because the competition is only incidentally the venue of that business - the business dispute should be resolved via the regulations of the business market where it occured. Or to put it another way, nobody but the NDCA or its designee should be deciding amateur eligibility at competitions run under its own (vs. IDSF granted) sanction. But for the business of dance teaching, there are regulatory bodies in the local community that have the primary jurisdiction.

As an idle thought, I started wondering about a pro/am category in which the pros must be rising star eligible...

[tanya_the_dancer]

I don't know; I'm mostly with Larinda and Chris on this. In Angel Hi's theoretical example, the only thing that justifies the NDCA taking action is that the person in question presented himself as being a representative of the NDCA. Had he not done that, I don't think the NDCA would have any standing to get involved.

Having said that: I don't know all of the details of the agreements that professionals sign with the NDCA. For my current job, I signed agreements that places certain restrictions on my non-job-related activities. For example, I can be fired if I run up my credit cards and get heavily into debt. I can be fired if I have an affair with with a foreign national. I cannot travel outside the USA, even for personal reasons, without giving [someone] advance notice. I was made fully aware of all of these restrictions before I signed up, and I made a conscious decision that it was worth it to get the job. Having done so, my employer has the right to expect me to abide by these agreements, and if I don't, I have no one to blame but myself.

But NDCA is not an employer. Most dance professionals are either self-employed or employed by a studio owned by someone else. It is more like a professional association, which dance professionals can belong to if they choose so. My understanding is that they only have to register with it if they want to participate in its competitions. How much influence should a professional association have over its members private lives?

[Angel HI]

There is a standard that has to be maintained , and an " unwritten " code, as well as the general codes that are published, should be adhered to ..

Agreed!

To use the NDCA Master Rulebook as an example:

"The National Dance Council of America, Inc., a non-profit educational organization, hereinafter referred to as the "Council" or the "NDCA", is the officially recognized governing body of Ballroom Dance Education in the United States of America, and as such, represents the USA on the World Dance and Dance Sport Council (WD&DSC), the worldwide governing body of Professional Ballroom Dancing."

As written, the NDCA has accepted a responsibility in governing Ballroom Dance Education. I do not see the word competition. I do see the word governing, which suggestions control, authority, or influence to name a few things.

This is a fact, and the problem is......

...the NDCA...They watch over competitions. They ensure that I have water to drink and a 20 minute break.

Then they should say that! But, if they tout themselves as governing ballroom dance, then they assume the responsibility of the first paragraph from TT.

[Joe]

As an idle thought, I started wondering about a pro/am category in which the pros must be rising star eligible...
Trouble with that is that RS eligibility is spotty for any given comp, unless a pro has won the National RS, in which case they're ineligible for all RS comps (barring international competition, obviously).

[Chris Stratton]

Trouble with that is that RS eligibility is spotty for any given comp, unless a pro has won the National RS, in which case they're ineligible for all RS comps (barring international competition, obviously).

Oh, it would certainly need a whole page of rules. Something like must be RS elgible in this style at 50% of sanctioned NDCA comps including the subject comp. And must compete RS in that style at this comp if they have competed that style professionally within the past 3 months. And then you could go on and say perhaps that someone not sufficiently RS eligible in standard or latin is not eligible to work this event in smooth or rhythm, and someone nationally RS ineligible in smooth or rhythm cannot do the corresponding standard/latin, and so on. It was an idle thought for how to extend the RS idea to the business/monetary arms-race aspect of pro/am, but far from a complete plan.

[reb]

Another aspect to consider is testing and licensing to ensure standards are met.

Not so sure about all the IEEE equivalencies stated here so far (ee since the early 80s), but in the greater context, an example to consider is the National Society of Professional Engineers (plaque on wall) which represents individual engineers across engineering disciplines and handles testing and licensing to ensure standards are met, along with their state societies.

The NSPE is big on "professional" ethics (they even have an ethics exam) - professionally - and they also - professionally - stay out of personal lives (did I mention professionally!).

This might be interesting to look at from the dancers pov since there are many professional ethics aspects involving truthfulness, avoiding conflict of interest, etc., things which we unfortunately see in the dance world, such as not:

"falsify their qualifications nor actively permit written misrepresentation of their or their associate's qualifications"
"technical matters for which they do not posses professional competence"

[Larinda McRaven]

My Mom is probably tired of me coming to her with hypothetical situations...

I gave her these situations:
1) A school teacher is also a private tutor and sells the answers to the SATs to a students that she teaches privately in her home. Her answer was the teacher would be fired from the school and their license revoked by the State Board of Education.

2) A school teacher is hired to go to a local fair and run a booth administering IQ tests. She accepts a bribe to falsify the test result which is announced at the fair. Her answer was the teacher is jerk.

The difference being that the SATs are within the jurisdiction of the State Board of Ed. Yet a fun IQ test, admistered even as a professional teacher, is completely outside of the realm of the Department of Education and therefore none of their business, even though the teacher is a jerk.

[Chris Stratton]

1) A school teacher is also a private tutor and sells the answers to the SATs to a students that she teaches privately in her home. Her answer was the teacher would be fired from the school and their license revoked by the State Board of Education.

SATs are not under local jurisdiction, and the teachers do not have the answers. At most, they could sneak someone a copy of the questions beforehand, but even that is difficult as there are several different booklets used at each testing session, and it would require very careful choreography and shuffling to insure that the student sat in the right seat to get the right booklet for which they'd had time to do answer research.

Oh, and SATs are not likely to be proctored by your usual teacher, and may well not even be taken at your usual school.