School drama

[Catwoman]

They should have put the needs of the students first. Disrupting the school year in March seems unnecessarily vindictive. They could have waited until June and then put out a statement, "We regret to inform you that Ms X will not be returning next year due to a violation of her contract. We made the decision to allow her to finish out the year because we believe the education of your children is paramount." Etc. They are acting like she was found with a stash of child porn or something.

I'm sure the school believes that they are putting their students first by not having them be taught by a teacher who has violated the morals by which she contractually agreed to abide.

 

They aren't acting like she has a stash of child porn. They are not being vindictive. They are treating her as an employee who is in direct violation of her contract.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Catwoman

[Barb_]

I'm sure the school believes that they are putting their students first by not having them be taught by a teacher who has violated the morals by which she contractually agreed to abide.

 

They aren't acting like she has a stash of child porn. They are not being vindictive. They are treating her as an employee who is in direct violation of her contract.

Contract violations aren't nearly as cut and dried as that when there are complicating factors. Such as disrupting the education of a couple dozen students. The students are bearing the greatest burden in this scenario.

[Catwoman]

Contract violations aren't nearly as cut and dried as that when there are complicating factors. Such as disrupting the education of a couple dozen students. The students are bearing the greatest burden in this scenario.

We have no idea whether or not the students' education is being disrupted.

 

If the students are bearing any burden, blame the teacher. If she cared so much about her students, she wouldn't have violated her contract. You say the school should have waited until her contract expired at the end of the year, but I would suggest that it was the teacher's obligation -- to both the school and her students -- to wait until the end of the school year to move in with her boyfriend and to inform that school that she would not be returning in the fall.

 

I'm not sure why you insist on villainizing the school, when clearly the teacher is the one who knowingly broke the rules.

[Sdel]

Eh, maybe so but for the sake of discussion I think we have to take it on face value.

 

I don't agree that we have to.  

 

 

This year my goal is to refuse to get worked up about things that aren't relevant to my life.  It's turning out to be a strong theme for the year so far.... 

 

 

Stefanie

[Barb_]

We have no idea whether or not the students' education is being disrupted.

 

If the students are bearing any burden, blame the teacher. If she cared so much about her students, she wouldn't have violated her contract. You say the school should have waited until her contract expired at the end of the year, but I would suggest that it was the teacher's obligation -- to both the school and her students -- to wait until the end of the school year to move in with her boyfriend and to inform that school that she would not be returning in the fall.

 

I'm not sure why you insist on villainizing the school, when clearly the teacher is the one who knowingly broke the rules.

Cat, I don't think you're reading my posts. Or you're ticked at me for something else? I can't figure it out. I don't even have a dog in this fight.

 

A. Losing a teacher more than midway through a school year is indeed a major disruption. I'm not sure how that is even up for discussion.

 

B. The teacher behaved in an immature fashion. I've said that more that once. She deserved to be fired for breaking her contract.

 

C. Blame is less important than mitigating the suffering of the students. Remember, that was the point of the OP. The disruption the students are dealing with.

 

D. I'm not villainizing anyone. I said they could have handled it better. They both could have.

 

Whatever. I hope the kids are okay and bounce back without any long term consequences. Our 9th grade English teacher was a very old nun who sadly was fighting cancer. We had more subs days than days she was there. She really should have retired, or barring that they should have moved her to a non-teaching job. I went from honors English to coming close to failing English the next year because my 9th grade writing education was so spotty.

 

ETA: forgot to finish. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Schools are in the business of education, so in my opinion finishing out the year would have been the right thing to do.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Barb_

[Barb_]

I don't agree that we have to.

 

 

This year my goal is to refuse to get worked up about things that aren't relevant to my life. It's turning out to be a strong theme for the year so far....

 

 

Stefanie

Lol, fair enough.

[Catwoman]

Cat, I don't think you're reading my posts. Or you're ticked at me for something else? I can't figure it out. I don't even have a dog in this fight.

 

A. Losing a teacher more than midway through a school year is indeed a major disruption. I'm not sure how that is even up for discussion.

 

B. The teacher behaved in an immature fashion. I've said that more that once. She deserved to be fired for breaking her contract.

 

C. Blame is less important than mitigating the suffering of the students. Remember, that was the point of the OP. The disruption the students are dealing with.

 

D. I'm not villainizing anyone. I said they could have handled it better. They both could have.

 

Whatever. I hope the kids are okay and bounce back without any long term consequences. Our 9th grade English teacher was a very old nun who sadly was fighting cancer. We had more subs days than days she was there. She really should have retired, or barring that they should have moved her to a non-teaching job. I went from honors English to coming close to failing English the next year because my 9th grade writing education was so spotty.

 

ETA: forgot to finish. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Schools are in the business of education, so in my opinion finishing out the year would have been the right thing to do.

How about if we just agree to disagree about whether the teacher should have been fired immediately or allowed to finish out the school year? :)

[Barb_]

That works.

[Catwoman]

That works.

Works for me, too!

 

And now I'm finally getting off the iPad and going to watch whatever idiotic show is on HGTV. I'm pretty sure it's "My Lottery Dream Home."

 

I set the bar pretty low when it comes to TV shows. :D

[TX Native]

Trying to figure out why the parents who have a problem with the teacher being fired don't enroll their kids in a school without that moral clause in the contract. Would the same parents be fine if the priest moved in with a girlfriend and continued on school/church staff?

 

I went to a religious college of a particular protestant denomination. I attended a church of a different denomination. The school allowed students to attend any church of choice (or no church if desired). The instructors were required to attend church of that particular denomination only. A friend that was a professor at the school resigned when that friend joined a church of a different denomination. Even though I disagreed with the narrow mindedness of the college's faculty rules, I would have had little respect for the friend if the friend kept the job until someone found out about violation. If the college rule bothered me that much, I would have found a different college to attend.

Edited March 11, 2017 by TX native

[Sdel]

 

ETA: forgot to finish. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. Schools are in the business of education, so in my opinion finishing out the year would have been the right thing to do.

 

Okay, one last comment.  I understand you opinion, you've made it quite clear what you think about the moral ideas.....

 

But the highlighted is dismissing a major concept that can not be ignored from this specific situation......

 

For a RELIGIOUS school, they are not just in the business of academic education.  Equal, and probably even more important to this school, is education in the ways of the faith.   My local religious schools place faith above academics.  They do provide great academics, but it is secondary because the founding purpose of the school is to immerse the children in the faith.  My local Catholic school won't deny entry if your not Catholic, but they expect children not of the faith to still learn the principles of Catholicism, follow the rules per the values of the Catholic faith, and politely attend Mass daily.  I would think they would expect no less of their teachers.  

 

Stefanie

[AimeeM]

Contract violations aren't nearly as cut and dried as that when there are complicating factors. Such as disrupting the education of a couple dozen students. The students are bearing the greatest burden in this scenario.

A Catholic school education, at its best, is as much about teaching the faith as it is about teaching academics. You can disagree with that all you want, but it's the base and stone of almost every Catholic school I've come into contact with. 

[Barb_]

Okay, one last comment. I understand you opinion, you've made it quite clear what you think about the moral ideas.....

 

But the highlighted is dismissing a major concept that can not be ignored from this specific situation......

 

For a RELIGIOUS school, they are not just in the business of academic education. Equal, and probably even more important to this school, is education in the ways of the faith. My local religious schools place faith above academics. They do provide great academics, but it is secondary because the founding purpose of the school is to immerse the children in the faith. My local Catholic school won't deny entry if your not Catholic, but they expect children not of the faith to still learn the principles of Catholicism, follow the rules per the values of the Catholic faith, and politely attend Mass daily. I would think they would expect no less of their teachers.

 

Stefanie

I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for ten years. Are you Catholic?

[Barb_]

A Catholic school education, at its best, is as much about teaching the faith as it is about teaching academics. You can disagree with that all you want, but it's the base and stone of almost every Catholic school I've come into contact with.

And yet, I said I thought she should be let go too. There are ways to make their point without causing the children undue harm. You don't have to agree, but that doesn't mean I don't understand Catholic schools or the Catholic faith.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Barb_

[chiguirre]

I have a friend who got her teacher credential last year and has been doing long term subbing at her kids' Catholic school hoping to get a permanent job. Although she's a hard worker and good with kids, a long term sub is disruptive. Her first gig was gym teacher and that's not so critical but now she's subbing in first grade for a teacher on maternity leave. It's not an ideal situation for such a critical year. I can see why parents at Moxie's school are upset.

[Sdel]

I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school for ten years. Are you Catholic?

 

Absolutely not.  But we have many faith based religious schools here, even non-christian, and we have many Catholic based organizations.  I used to work for the local Catholic hospital and the nuns were VERY involved while they were the Catholic organization in charge.  Faith is/was a HUGE part of the management ideology and public face of the hospital.  They did as beautiful a job as they could of pushing their faith ideals while being respectful of their other faith patients and employees as possible*.  

 

Stefanie

 

ETA:  *and social ideals

Edited March 11, 2017 by Sdel

[Sdel]

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Sdel

[TX Native]

I have a friend who got her teacher credential last year and has been doing long term subbing at her kids' Catholic school hoping to get a permanent job. Although she's a hard worker and good with kids, a long term sub is disruptive. Her first gig was gym teacher and that's not so critical but now she's subbing in first grade for a teacher on maternity leave. It's not an ideal situation for such a critical year. I can see why parents at Moxie's school are upset.

But why upset with the school? Why not the teacher? The teacher is the one who did not fulfill her contract to abide by the rules of the contract while employed at the school. Regardless of whether or not the teacher (or the other parents) think the rule is stupid, it is the teacher's fault the kids are having their academic year disrupted. If the teacher felt her immediate removal from the job for violating her contract was detrimental to the students, she would have waited 3 months to move in with her boyfriend and found a new job next fall. It is not about whether the teacher is being moral in her personal life, whether the rule is stupid, or if it is anybody's business. It is about the teacher agreeing to not live with a boyfriend while employed by the school, and choosing to do what she agreed not to do as a condition of employment. If the rule was something as silly as being a vegetarian as a condition of employment and the teacher got fired for getting caught eating meat, I would still fault the teacher and not the school for the mid-year disruption to the class's academic stability. And I would be equally baffled that parents were upset with the school vs. the teacher if the parents knew being a vegetarian was a teacher requirement.

Edited March 11, 2017 by TX native

[foxbridgeacademy]

I assume they do. But I do wonder if they're as enforced. For one thing, I'm guessing that most of the teachers are female. I heard about a situation like this at a school once where it didn't apply to other employees, who were mostly male - administrative staff and support staff. But only to teacher who were mostly female.

 

For those of us who think that "living in sin" is an absurd thing to get worked up about or put in a contract, the duplicity is really not a big deal. I'm privileged enough not to have needed a job enough that I'd sign that clause in the first place because I find it offensive. But if I did, I wouldn't see the lie as a big deal. Definitely as a parent, it wouldn't bother me that she lied. I'd think, too bad she got caught. She was just trying to live her life. Having sex outside of marriage or living with a significant other is about as offensive as... eating green beans or going jogging or reading a book... not offensive or questionable in the least. It's the school putting the clause in that I would dislike.

 

Not that I'm questioning that they can. They can. That's why I stand by my language that it's pathetic. And why organized religion is such a turn off.

:iagree:  especially to the bold.  

 

She did know that if they found out she'd be fired.... it's a stupid rule and I would have encouraged her to find a way to break it without getting caught while also encouraging her to look for a new job for next year.  

 

My suggestion would have been to find the cheapest room in a shared house to store my stuff and be my address & NEVER put personal info on the internet.

[maize]

:iagree: especially to the bold.

 

She did know that if they found out she'd be fired.... it's a stupid rule and I would have encouraged her to find a way to break it without getting caught while also encouraging her to look for a new job for next year.

 

My suggestion would have been to find the cheapest room in a shared house to store my stuff and be my address & NEVER put personal info on the internet.

Whoa.

 

The last person I would want teaching at any school is one who disdains the principles that school is founded on and looks for ways to get around contractual obligations dishonestly.

 

And that applies to any organization, not just a school.

 

I get that you think this shouldn't be an issue that matters to the school and maybe to the church, but encouraging someone who signed a contract to follow that rule to utilize duplicitous means to break it and not get caught?

 

Is this your standard operating procedure for any rule you disagree with? You would encourage your children to sign a contract with an employer with no intent of keeping it; it's all good if the rule they break is one they think is dumb and they just need to be careful not to get caught?

 

I am truly flabbergasted.

 

I will happily encourage my children to seek out honest and legal means to try to change a rule should they think it is unreasonable or unfair, but blatantly flaunting the provisions of a contract one has signed does not fall under that head. If a person believes that the right and moral thing to do in a given circumstance is to break a contract that is fine--but it should be done with the expectation that the conequences of a broken contract will follow. I.e. I'm taking a stand on this issue with the full understanding that I will lose my job over it; this action is worth that consequence. That I can respect.

 

I'm breaking my contract but hiding the fact so I don't have to face the consequence? No respect. Not when the contract was entered into freely without coercion.

[SparklyUnicorn]

That's what I'm wondering, too.

 

If I was doing something that I knew could get me fired, I would be very careful to keep it very quiet.

 

Yep.  I could see if this was a relationship at the school that both parties were trying to hide and people figured it out, but what do they do?  Follow her home at night?  Just...HOW do they know? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

You know, we're all reading a lot into this.....maybe the living with the boyfriend was just the tip of the iceberg, the excuse, or the public statement.  We don't know exactly what may have been going on between the teacher and admin regardless of how much the students and parents love the teacher and vice versa. 

 

Maybe she'd been fixing the standardized testing results?  Maybe she let some credentials lapse?  Maybe she got caught with drugs?  Who knows....

 

Stefanie

 

Yeah it occurred to me that maybe there is more to this because I'd think the school would generally want her to at least finish out the year because I imagine trying to replace a teacher after midyear would be highly disruptive. 

[Catwoman]

Yep. I could see if this was a relationship at the school that both parties were trying to hide and people figured it out, but what do they do? Follow her home at night? Just...HOW do they know?

According to Moxie in a post from last night, this is how they found out:

 

They know because she is under 30 and social media exists. Everyone knows everything about her.

This woman may have been a popular teacher, but apparently she's no Einstein. She knowingly violated her employment contract by moving in with her boyfriend, and then she posted about it online. :rolleyes:

Edited March 11, 2017 by Catwoman

[Valley Girl]

Yep.  I could see if this was a relationship at the school that both parties were trying to hide and people figured it out, but what do they do?  Follow her home at night?  Just...HOW do they know? 

 

I think Moxie said the teacher had information on social media and that everyone knew everything about her.

 

I strongly disagree with others who suggested that she should have lied about her living arrangements. (If you can't square yourself with the legal conditions of employment to which you've voluntarily contracted yourself, you have no business signing the contract in the first place.)

 

That said, unless the contract stipulated immediate termination was the penalty, I wonder if the information being out there on social media didn't force the school's hand. Perhaps if the information hadn't been public--and therefore available to parents and students--maybe they would have been willing to let her finish the year to avoid disruption for the students. But even in that case, the outcome rests squarely on the teacher's shoulders.

[Catwoman]

I think Moxie said the teacher had information on social media and that everyone knew everything about her.

 

I strongly disagree with others who suggested that she should have lied about her living arrangements. (If you can't square yourself with the legal conditions of employment to which you've voluntarily contracted yourself, you have no business signing the contract in the first place.)

 

That said, unless the contract stipulated immediate termination was the penalty, I wonder if the information being out there on social media didn't force the school's hand. Perhaps if the information hadn't been public--and therefore available to parents and students--maybe they would have been willing to let her finish the year to avoid disruption for the students. But even in that case, the outcome rests squarely on the teacher's shoulders.

I agree.

 

A morals clause is there for a reason, and I'm betting the school found out about the teacher's living arrangements because one or more parents reported her after seeing her posts on social media.

 

The parents would have been well within their rights to insist that the teacher be fired immediately, even if the school might have given her a bit more notice under less public circumstances. Morals clauses are a big deal to many people and I can understand why parents would want them enforced.

 

Also, people seem to be assuming that there will be terrible disruption for the students, but the school may already have a plan in place for dealing with this situation.

[Seasider]

People disagree that the school should abide by the terms of the contract the teacher signed? Or that the teacher should abide by the contract?

 

What do they think a contract is?

 

This is a religious school, with specific religious standards that it apparently values. The teacher presumably read and understood the contract before signing it.

 

I see no cause for drama here.

Ignoring this contractual clause could set a precedent for ignoring other, more aggregious breeches. Where to draw the line?

 

IMO the line was drawn when she signed the contract. It included nonpremarital cohabitation. The school held the line. I think that's actually commendable.

[Seasider]

I haven't seen anyone in the thread disagree with the idea that they were within their rights and that they absolutely could fire her and that she should probably have expected the possibility - and maybe even planned for it by selling it as a "roommate" situation or not posting on social media.

 

I think it's more that some of us feel it's unfortunate that so much emphasis is placed on a young woman's sexual and romantic choices in that contract instead of on her job performance. I know that's the way of most religions, but I think it's rather pathetic.

I would assume it works both ways - that a young man would be equally held accountable. Any teacher seeking employment has the choice to agree or not, and choose another position elsewhere.

[Seasider]

She was very upset, her husband showed up and told her she didn't have to put up with that, and so she quit. Right then.

Is she pursuing assault charges?

[DawnM]

Is she pursuing assault charges?

 

 

The kid was disciplined but I doubt she did.  It is unreal what goes on right now.  A security guard got put on leave because he "should have used his words" when trying to break up a huge fight at a middle school in the district.  

 

I have a whole bunch of examples.  But there have been almost 300 teacher assaults in the district since the school year started.  It is all public info so I am not spreading stuff.  In fact, my DH called me to tell me he saw it on the news.

[Selkie]

I find it depressing that there are people here not only condoning breaking a contract, but lying about it.  :huh: Remind me to never enter into a contract with some of you!

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I find it depressing that there are people here not only condoning breaking a contract, but lying about it.  :huh: Remind me to never enter into a contract with some of you!

 

No I think it's more some people think such a thing should never be allowed to be part of a contract (or only in extremely rare cases).

 

It's not hard to condone lying when you think something isn't right to begin with.  I'll lie any day of the week for the right reason.  But then I'd never agree to such a thing in a contract either.  But then I know how these things happen.  You sometimes take on a job that is less than ideal because you need a job and maybe they were the ones available to give you one.  And a job with weird terms is better than no job.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think Moxie said the teacher had information on social media and that everyone knew everything about her.

 

 

ahhh...ok

[Seasider]

The kid was disciplined but I doubt she did. It is unreal what goes on right now. A security guard got put on leave because he "should have used his words" when trying to break up a huge fight at a middle school in the district.

 

I have a whole bunch of examples. But there have been almost 300 teacher assaults in the district since the school year started. It is all public info so I am not spreading stuff. In fact, my DH called me to tell me he saw it on the news.

And people wonder why teachers aren't paid enough, and why so many good ones are leaving the field. Sad.

[eternalsummer]

I think it's important to respect the employer as people who have the right to organize a school the way they'd like.  So I might not agree with their rules - whether religious or secular (I'm sure there are Waldorf schools that prohibit using technology in the classroom, for instance) - but if I don't agree with the rules, I can't in good conscience tell them that I will abide by them while secretly knowing I won't abide by them if I don't feel like it.

 

I'd bet there are some schools in states where marijuana is legal that drug test their teachers, or at least require that teachers not smoke.  Do you think it would be okay to sign a contract saying you won't smoke, knowing you will, and be upset when a drug test comes up positive and you are fired?  I think that would be hugely irresponsible behavior - and I support legalization!

[EmseB]

I would venture to guess that the contract had the words "cause for immediate dismissal" somewhere in there. If so, then the disruption to the class is entirely the teacher's responsibility.

[Catwoman]

I think it's important to respect the employer as people who have the right to organize a school the way they'd like. So I might not agree with their rules - whether religious or secular (I'm sure there are Waldorf schools that prohibit using technology in the classroom, for instance) - but if I don't agree with the rules, I can't in good conscience tell them that I will abide by them while secretly knowing I won't abide by them if I don't feel like it.

 

I'd bet there are some schools in states where marijuana is legal that drug test their teachers, or at least require that teachers not smoke. Do you think it would be okay to sign a contract saying you won't smoke, knowing you will, and be upset when a drug test comes up positive and you are fired? I think that would be hugely irresponsible behavior - and I support legalization!

I agree that it's all about personal integrity. Even if I think the rules are stupid, if I sign a contract stating that I will abide by them, I shouldn't violate those rules. If I know I'll have trouble abiding by the rules, I shouldn't sign the contract and should seek employment elsewhere.

[Bambam]

I would venture to guess that the contract had the words "cause for immediate dismissal" somewhere in there. If so, then the disruption to the class is entirely the teacher's responsibility.

 

I agree with this. And if she were a wonderful teacher, she would have thought about the consequences to her students *before* violating her contract. After all, how difficult would it have been to wait 4 months before moving in with boyfriend? 

 

And I too am shocked at how many people think it is okay to lie about things and to knowingly deceive their partner in a contract. Would you feel the same way if the other person in the contract did the same thing? 

[OneStepAtATime]

Whoa.

 

The last person I would want teaching at any school is one who disdains the principles that school is founded on and looks for ways to get around contractual obligations dishonestly.

 

And that applies to any organization, not just a school.

 

I get that you think this shouldn't be an issue that matters to the school and maybe to the church, but encouraging someone who signed a contract to follow that rule to utilize duplicitous means to break it and not get caught?

 

Is this your standard operating procedure for any rule you disagree with? You would encourage your children to sign a contract with an employer with no intent of keeping it; it's all good if the rule they break is one they think is dumb and they just need to be careful not to get caught?

 

I am truly flabbergasted.

 

I will happily encourage my children to seek out honest and legal means to try to change a rule should they think it is unreasonable or unfair, but blatantly flaunting the provisions of a contract one has signed does not fall under that head. If a person believes that the right and moral thing to do in a given circumstance is to break a contract that is fine--but it should be done with the expectation that the conequences of a broken contract will follow. I.e. I'm taking a stand on this issue with the full understanding that I will lose my job over it; this action is worth that consequence. That I can respect.

 

I'm breaking my contract but hiding the fact so I don't have to face the consequence? No respect. Not when the contract was entered into freely without coercion.

I must admit I am having trouble with this, too.  I am not going to teach my children that contracts only have to be followed if they are convenient in the moment.  If I am going to sign a contract, I would want to sign it in good conscience.  I would not sign it if I had strong convictions against certain items within it.  If I was desperate for a job and really felt I had no choice I would sign it and then abide by it while I sought employment elsewhere that would be a better fit.  I would honor the contract for as long as I was under it.  If I found myself really struggling with certain things within that contract and felt strongly that I could no longer follow it I would not LIE about it.  If I had to break the contract, I would do so and accept the consequences of my actions.  I would also seek ways to get the contract changed for the future if it looked like that would be a possibility.  I would want my children to do the same.

 

I just could not justify encouraging my kids to sign contracts but only honor contracts they have signed when they felt like it.  I certainly wouldn't want to hire someone with that attitude.  And if someone got that reputation within an industry they might find themselves having a hard time getting a job. 

 

What if someone's landlord followed that mentality?  Well I only want to follow the contract I have with you when it is convenient.  When it isn't then I'm going to violate that contract and lie about it, cover it up, 'cause who cares about you?  All I care about is me.  That is the message I feel I would be sending my kids.  Does this sometimes happen with landlords?  Yes.  Tenants, too.  And it can lead to a lot of grief.  I would not want that attitude with my landlord OR my tenant.

 

I am sorry that a good teacher got fired.  However, she violated the terms of her contract.  Maybe she had a very valid reason for picking this moment in time to do so.  This teacher felt she had to move in with her boyfriend during school, when she must have known full well that she might be fired for violating the terms of her contract during the school year.  Maybe her lease was up and she felt she didn't have much choice on timing.  Or probably a dozen other reasons that would make sense for why right now instead of taking the children into consideration and waiting until school is out.  I get that maybe there were extenuating circumstances that made it necessary right now.  She still signed and then broke her contract AND posted about it publicly on social media, making it impossible for the school to ignore until the school year had ended.  She is in the wrong and I don't think the school should be slammed for it at all.  

[JFSinIL]

Although how do they know this information?

 

Yeah, why would the school know about this and none of their business anyway.  One thing to expect folks working with kids to have no criminal record or partake in any illegal activity.  Another thing to nitpick over what an adult legally chooses to do outside of work and when not around kids. 

Edited March 11, 2017 by JFSinIL

[marbel]

Yeah, why would the school know about this and none of their business anyway.  One thing to expect folks working with kids to have no criminal record or partake in any illegal activity.  Another thing to nitpick over what an adult legally chooses to do outside of work and when not around kids. 

 

It's their business because it was part of the employment contract (according to the OP).  

[Guest]

Nm

Edited March 11, 2017 by tbog

[Reefgazer]

^{The teacher presumably knew what the result would be if she knowingly violated her contract.  Also, how did the school find out that she was living with her boyfriend?  She must have made her living arrangements known, yes?  If I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, I would be filing a change of address form and not telling anyone else about my arrangements.  It makes me think she really didn't care if she kept her job or not, and was maybe ready to move on to a different job anyway.}

[Reefgazer]

Radio silence would have served her well here, if she was really interested in keeping her job (which I suspect wasn't high on her priority list or she would have).  She can talk about her new digs all she wants, but there is no reason to advertise or confirm anyone's suspicions on social media.  She can also delete any posts on social media if she likes, limit who posts there or who sees her posts, or heck, not use social media.  It's not that difficult to fly under the radar.

They know because she is under 30 and social media exists. Everyone knows everything about her.

 

[Reefgazer]

But not living together without marriage is part of their instruction.

 

She wasn't fired for her social media posts; according to the OP, she was fired for living together with her boyfriend, which was in her contract.  I think that is ridiculous because I feel a private life is not the employer's call, but she knew the terms of her employment before she started working there.

A cruddy decision to place such a value on that over quality of instruction. Obviously, if you send your kids to Catholic school or work there, then you open yourselves to it though. So in that sense, it's all kosher.

 

I do wonder if they've ever fired a male teacher for a social media post. Sigh.

 

[gardenmom5]

I have a question for those who think violating a contract is no big deal if they disagree with it.  would they extend that same ability to ignore an inconvenient clause in a contract to an entitity or person who disagrees with it?  when the change in interpretation/casting off of any clause goes against you?

 

yes, I think the teacher brought this upon herself - she broke her contact, and she didn't care who knew.  (or it wouldn't have been all over social media.)

I also fully support schools which have said clauses in their contracts.  parents have the right to know their children's teachers are supporting the values of the school to which they are sending their children AND their money.  

 

personal opinions come across in so many ways.  that includes personal opinions that go against the institution employing them - and the teacher is around those kids sending them those conflicting messages to what the parents are paying those private catholic school tuition to get.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have a question for those who think violating a contract is no big deal if they disagree with it.  would they extend that same ability to ignore an inconvenient clause in a contract to an entitity or person who disagrees with it?  when the change in interpretation/casting off of any clause goes against you?

 

yes, I think the teacher brought this upon herself - she broke her contact, and she didn't care who knew.  (or it wouldn't have been all over social media.)

I also fully support schools which have said clauses in their contracts.  parents have the right to know their children's teachers are supporting the values of the school to which they are sending their children AND their money.  

 

personal opinions come across in so many ways.  that includes personal opinions that go against the institution employing them - and the teacher is around those kids sending them those conflicting messages to what the parents are paying those private catholic school tuition to get.

 

I think some stuff should flat out not be allowed to be in a contract.  But that aside, no I generally agree a contract is a contract.  Most people don't have any contracts with a job and/or they can be fired for pretty much any reason.  So putting such a thing in a contract strikes me as rather pointless. 

[AimeeM]

But not living together without marriage is part of their instruction.

 

She wasn't fired for her social media posts; according to the OP, she was fired for living together with her boyfriend, which was in her contract.  I think that is ridiculous because I feel a private life is not the employer's call, but she knew the terms of her employment before she started working there.

This. This. This.

The teacher is expected to not only uphold the morals of the church, if she works for the church (and I think this may be something others in the thread are missing--as a teacher at a Catholic school, she is working for the Catholic church; not for an individual school, really), she is expected to instruct children in those morals.

There are "morality" clauses in lots of areas of business, certainly not just schools, and not just religious businesses/schools/whatever. Some executive positions have clauses related to adultery. You can think it isn't their business, but at the end of the day, if things blow up and it carries anything negative to the brand/company, they absolutely will care. Many companies also have ethics statements in the contracts regarding talking badly about the company, etc. 

[abba12]

I don't understand this thread. 

 

The teacher at a catholic school is not just teaching math and english, they're teaching the faith and moral instruction, as a part of everything. If this teacher is living with her boyfriend, then either she will be teaching her students something she doesn't believe in (no sex/living together before marriage), or not teaching that aspect of morality and the faith at all. Now that might not be so relevant, it's not exactly a daily classroom discussion, however the lack of belief in one doctrine indicates a further lack of belief in other catholic doctrines core to the schools ideas. 

 

The parents are paying a lot of money to have their child at a school taught by people who follow their moral code and beliefs. It doesn't matter if it's what you believe, it's what that school believes and what at least a large portion of the families attending believe. If they wanted someone who doesn't agree with catholic teaching instructing their children, they would send the child to a non-catholic school. 

 

If this teacher is not keeping certain basic doctrines of the church, then she is not fit to act as a representative of that church. Whether or not you think that church is correct in it's doctrines, they have the right to choose who represents them and to ensure anyone placed in charge of teaching children about the faith actually upholds the faith themselves. Living with a boyfriend AND lying about it is two pretty good indications this teacher has a questionable faith in catholic doctrines (note I am not questioning her faith in God, but, especially among Catholics, she also needs faith in the catholic doctrines and theology specific to that denomination)

 

There are likely some parents there who would feel the continuation of instruction from someone who does not wholeheartedly agree with church doctrine would be more detrimental to their children than the academic issues of a teacher switch near the end of the year. I would place a religious school teacher on the same level as a sunday school teacher, and if I found out my kids Sunday school teacher was breaching basic church teaching and lying about it I would want her out of that role, yesterday. Not out of the church or anything crazy like that, and plenty of people end up with different interpretations of the faith which she can have and that's fine, but I would want her out of a role teaching my children about a faith she disagrees with or has different (and undisclosed) beliefs about. I want my kids Sunday school teacher to uphold the values and faith of the church, not do the wrong thing and try to hide it.

 

If that teacher believes there's nothing wrong with living with her boyfriend she's completely entitled to that opinion, but she needs to find a job elsewhere, not in charge of the moral instruction of children who's parents are expecting catholic doctrine and a dedicated, wholehearted catholic teaching it. 

 

ETA: My husband says, to someone who considers faith more important than academics, this is like firing a teacher after discovering they can't spell and have lied about it. Doesn't mean they can't do English altogether, doesn't mean they're not a great math teacher, but spelling is a core part of the children's instruction, and the parents expect excellent English instruction in all areas, not just the areas the teacher is good at. Reading spelling lessons from a book is a stop-gap, but wont help when it comes time to mark assignments and correct spelling off the cuff. Few people here would object to a teacher being fired for being unable to spell. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by abba12

[Anne in CA]

I have refrained from telling my story but I have a friend who is a real sweetie who was distraught when her children's favorite teacher was fired from an elite private school for bringing a dog to school. Yep, that was it. The teacher's husband was in Iraq and she was upset and got a therapy dog but the school board didn't like it and made her leave it at home and told her she would be dismissed if it ever came to school again. When her dh got home from Iraq he came to the school to surprise her for lunch, and not knowing about the ban he brought the dog and they fired her that day. Dumbest thing ever, but that school was known for a controlling nutty board. 

[gardenmom5]

I have refrained from telling my story but I have a friend who is a real sweetie who was distraught when her children's favorite teacher was fired from an elite private school for bringing a dog to school. Yep, that was it. The teacher's husband was in Iraq and she was upset and got a therapy dog but the school board didn't like it and made her leave it at home and told her she would be dismissed if it ever came to school again. When her dh got home from Iraq he came to the school to surprise her for lunch, and not knowing about the ban he brought the dog and they fired her that day. Dumbest thing ever, but that school was known for a controlling nutty board. 

 

this isn't the same thing.   if the therapy dog was licensed by a provider - the dog would have qualified as a service dog.   (even therapy dogs working with aspie kids can fall under that.)

 

having an aspie who has progressed from deathly afraid of all dogs (friendly dogs were the worst) to doesn't like them and he'll keep his distance,  - I understand the other side.  (and I'm a dog person.)

he desperately wants a cat - and sometimes I think it could help him.  but the of cat allergies in our family, . . no thanks.