Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Ivory's case, it is pretty clear that her understanding is that she could walk out tomorrow with no ramifications (other than to the students, but they'll just have to like it or lump it).
She asked about the ethics of it in her first post - my position is that the legal contract, while a part of the 'contract,' is not the only contract - that she has an obligation to her students that goes beyond what the contract language says.
Obviously, she is aware that I am hardly the only one who feels as I do, or the question would not be asked. At least, now, she has sort-of admitted that a teacher's leaving mid-term is disruptive to the students, though she has avoided any such language.
I would only say to you that I am aware that some private schools expect teachers to leave during the year and know that many they hire are only there in between other events. They know what they want and if they don't want teachers leaving during the year they can put that in their contract. Some will give teachers their full blessing if they are good regardless of when they leave. She may well work in a school like that and it would be with their blessing if she took a higher paying job. Private schools don't always see a teacher as the primary conduit of education and with their ready acceptance of teachers with a content degree and not certification they often have a pool of candidates.
There is a world of difference between a doctor or an engineer leaving their job and a teacher leaving in the middle of the academic year. Much of that has to do with schedule. Engineers and doctors also do not work with the same kids every day. If engineers or doctors came into their job in September, worked daily with a set group of kids and had set goals to accomplish at the end of the year, then yes, I would say it's unethical for them to leave in the middle of the contract, too.
Why take a teaching position if you know from the start that it's going to be financially unfeasible? I know that in many cases any job is better than no job, but I think in general it's probably most ethical (and professional) to not take a classroom position, then.
It's not devaluing teachers in the least to expect that in normal circumstances they are going to be there for the kids for the duration of the school year. If anything it shows that we DO value them - it shows that we don't think that they are reduced to just a "skills set," interchangable with the next person to come along. Even if the next teacher is the best teacher ever to walk the face of the planet it would STILL be disruptive to the kids. No matter how you try to put it, having a teacher leave and a new one come in takes some adjustment. (and I agree that maternity leave is completely different)
Engineers can and do leave in the middle of projects and in some cases go work for competitors on competing projects.
Folks remember that a teacher not being able to leave during the school year can work both ways. It can prevent a teacher regretting they took the job from leaving when another job becomes available. Sometimes the teacher and principal want the teacher to leave but H.R. won't let them. When the period of time to leave does come open there may not be a job for them so they come back. You need to look at the dates involved and see if they are the same for tenured and non tenured teachers. The overlap time of when teachers can leave and when hiring occurs may not be as great as people think. This is a critical issue with in public education with good and bad points for all involved.
I would only say to you that I am aware that some private schools expect teachers to leave during the year and know that many they hire are only there in between other events. They know what they want and if they don't want teachers leaving during the year they can put that in their contract. Some will give teachers their full blessing if they are good regardless of when they leave. She may well work in a school like that and it would be with their blessing if she took a higher paying job. Private schools don't always see a teacher as the primary conduit of education and with their ready acceptance of teachers with a content degree and not certification they often have a pool of candidates.
Yes.
I also know that parents look at private schools with high faculty turnover rates with a lot of caution.
I've worked in public schools and private schools. I ran a private school for a few years, and discharged a teacher part way through the year. If I ever hired a teacher who was certified, I assure you it was not intentional.
But my kids would have been devastated if a teacher had left abruptly during the term - and were pretty shaken when I ditched the one I did, for all that they came to understand the decision.
It's disruptive to the students, to their academics and to many of the students' emotions. *shrugs* A school that expects teachers to leave during the year will see it happen more, I imagine.
But most private schools wouldn't have the $$ muscle to enforce a 'no-leave' contract if they wanted to.
There is a world of difference between a doctor or an engineer leaving their job and a teacher leaving in the middle of the academic year. Much of that has to do with schedule. Engineers and doctors also do not work with the same kids every day. If engineers or doctors came into their job in September, worked daily with a set group of kids and had set goals to accomplish at the end of the year, then yes, I would say it's unethical for them to leave in the middle of the contract, too.
Why take a teaching position if you know from the start that it's going to be financially unfeasible? I know that in many cases any job is better than no job, but I think in general it's probably most ethical (and professional) to not take a classroom position, then.
It's not devaluing teachers in the least to expect that in normal circumstances they are going to be there for the kids for the duration of the school year. If anything it shows that we DO value them - it shows that we don't think that they are reduced to just a "skills set," interchangable with the next person to come along. Even if the next teacher is the best teacher ever to walk the face of the planet it would STILL be disruptive to the kids. No matter how you try to put it, having a teacher leave and a new one come in takes some adjustment. (and I agree that maternity leave is completely different)
Same reason I might take an engineering job that I knew wasn't sustainable in the long term. Because any job is better than no job. You don't choose to starve until just the right offer comes along. For all you know, it may never come along. People usually take whatever they are offered until something better comes along. It is not unusual for professionals to take one job only to have another offer within weeks and jump ship.
Yes, it takes some adjustment when you bring in a new teacher but that isn't reason to deny the old teacher an opportunity they may never see again. You just deal with it. Unfortunately, we don't control when opportunties come along and many, in teaching, come along after the first day of school. Teachers retire, leave on medical leaves, leave on maternity leaves, their spouses get relocated, schools have more students than they planned for....There are many reasons that opportunties crop up mid year.
I also know that parents look at private schools with high faculty turnover rates with a lot of caution.
I've worked in public schools and private schools. I ran a private school for a few years, and discharged a teacher part way through the year. If I ever hired a teacher who was certified, I assure you it was not intentional.
But my kids would have been devastated if a teacher had left abruptly during the term - and were pretty shaken when I ditched the one I did, for all that they came to understand the decision.
It's disruptive to the students, to their academics and to many of the students' emotions. *shrugs* A school that expects teachers to leave during the year will see it happen more, I imagine.
But most private schools wouldn't have the $$ muscle to enforce a 'no-leave' contract if they wanted to.
You can't enforce a no leave contract. Any contract that required one to commit to a year could be considered to have been signed under duress if the person coming in had no other job offers and that would nullify that clause in the contract. If you tell me that I MUST sign this paper to have this job and I need the job right now, you won't be able to force me to stay because it's written in my contract. You can put penalties, such as loss of 401K matching funds but that's really all you can do.
The only way such a contract is enforcable is if signing it is optional or the contract is negotiated. If you say "If you want to work here, sign this", good luck enforcing a no leave clause. You can't. You can take me to court but I'm going to claim duress.
I was worried about the clauses in my termination contract when I was in engineering. Sigining was a condition of getting my severance package. My lawyer told me because there was money on the line, the contract was being signed under duress and they couldn't enforce a thing. It was either sign or not get 6 months severance pay and benefits. One condition was I couldn't sue if I determined I was wrongfully dishcarged later . Like having signed a contract would have stopped me if I had later learned that was the case. (I was actually chosen for personal reasons not business ones but I know the reasons and I'm ok with that so I'm not suing anyone.)
But an engineer is not a teacher. A work project is different than a group of kids with an inflexible deadline for completing a grade. Teaching and engineering are completely different professions, and come with different set of professional ethics. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
You asked for opinions, so I'm answering. I don't think it's ethical to take a teaching job knowing that you hope to to move on in the middle of the academic year, and I think, barring certain specific circumstances, that the ethical thing to do is to complete the school year, or, in the case of high schools or places with semesters or trimesters, at least wait until a natural break.
Medical leave, maternity leave, relocation, etc., are also in a different category and not particularly relevant.
First, a teacher's contractual obligation. If a teacher has a legally binding contract, and the teacher and school properly executed the contract, the teacher must abide by the contract or suffer the consequences. I think we can all agree with that.
Second, a teacher's ethical obligation. Here is where we all differ. I think that a teacher has no more ethical obligation to stay than any other employee. Kids are reislient and are well able to adapt to a change in the classroom. Do parents who 'don't get along' have an obligation to stay married so they don't 'disrupt' their kids' lives?
You can't enforce a no leave contract. Any contract that required one to commit to a year could be considered to have been signed under duress if the person coming in had no other job offers and that would nullify that clause in the contract. If you tell me that I MUST sign this paper to have this job and I need the job right now, you won't be able to force me to stay because it's written in my contract. You can put penalties, such as loss of 401K matching funds but that's really all you can do.
The only way such a contract is enforcable is if signing it is optional or the contract is negotiated. If you say "If you want to work here, sign this", good luck enforcing a no leave clause. You can't. You can take me to court but I'm going to claim duress.
I was worried about the clauses in my termination contract when I was in engineering. Sigining was a condition of getting my severance package. My lawyer told me because there was money on the line, the contract was being signed under duress and they couldn't enforce a thing. It was either sign or not get 6 months severance pay and benefits. One condition was I couldn't sue if I determined I was wrongfully dishcarged later . Like having signed a contract would have stopped me if I had later learned that was the case. (I was actually chosen for personal reasons not business ones but I know the reasons and I'm ok with that so I'm not suing anyone.)
Very briefly:
Liquidated damages is a concept that has been permitted in teacher contracts repeatedly, when applied reasonably. Your claim that signing it would have been under duress was tried in any number of court cases, and the finding has been that it is not an unreasonable clause for a teacher to expect to find in a contract, and as such, does not meet the "under duress" standard.
I've seen cases with a penalty as high as 20% of an annual salary in a case in which the teacher left the job for higher wages. (See, for example, Arrowhead vs. Klypan (sp?) in Montana.
The place schools get in trouble is if the clause specifies "reasonable expenses" or such language, and cannot illustrate that they have spent any more money than they would have otherwise.
First, a teacher's contractual obligation. If a teacher has a legally binding contract, and the teacher and school properly executed the contract, the teacher must abide by the contract or suffer the consequences. I think we can all agree with that.
Second, a teacher's ethical obligation. Here is where we all differ. 1) I think that a teacher has no more ethical obligation to stay than any other employee. 2) Kids are reislient and are well able to adapt to a change in the classroom. 3) Do parents who 'don't get along' have an obligation to stay married so they don't 'disrupt' their kids' lives?
Yes, we are discussing two different things. Ivory was clear, all the way along about contractual issues, from which she seems exempt, based on her description of her contract. She was only ever asking about the second of your issues - and then, only as a rhetorical exercise.
1) I get that you think that. If teachers were not held to a higher standard of morality, as I noted elsewhere, then there would be no inhibitions about going out to drink in one's own community, and there would be no steeper penalties for conduct between teacher and child than there are for other adults, for example. The public has a higher expectation of behavior from teachers - I don't find this unreasonable, other than in relation to their income and the general respect in which they are held.
2) Some kids are resilient. Some kids bounce back better than others. Even granting your resiliency argument (which I don't), it still fails to address the unarguable loss of coherent teaching time. Replacing a teacher who resigns on zero notice is non-trivial and very seldom immediate - it also can be a drain on other school resources, which then detracts from their efforts on behalf of other students. "Oh, it's okay if I hit them - kids are resilient and well able to adapt to a change in how they are treated." Just because somebody can adapt to mistreatment does not make it other than mistreatment.
3) Parents have an obligation to minimize disruption for their children when divorcing. Sometimes they agree to stay together; sometimes they live together but divorced or separated; sometimes they separate physically, regardless of legal status. Often, the parents try to avoid doing the actual split during the school year, to be less disruptive to their children's school terms.
Unfortunately, while parents have an ethical obligation to minimize disruption for their children, it seems as if the majority of parents fail to apply this notion very well. Ditto some teachers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Like having signed a contract would have stopped me if I had later learned that was the case. (I was actually chosen for personal reasons not business ones but I know the reasons and I'm ok with that so I'm not suing anyone.)
