Each week, The Ethics Centre’s executive director Dr Simon Longstaff will be answering your ethics questions. This week: can teachers cite a conscientious objection to returning to the classroom?
In recent weeks, there has been a particularly intense debate about whether or not students should return to the classroom. Much of that debate has focused on the interests of the children and their families.
However, there is a third stakeholder group — the nation’s teachers — who need to be considered.
Part “essential worker”, part “political football”, they have been celebrated on one hand and condemned on the other. So, what are the ethical obligations of those who teach our children during COVID-19?
As a starting point, let’s agree that education is a significant “good” and that children should not be deprived of its benefits unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. Compelling reasons would include the potential risk of infection due to school attendance.
At present, the balance of evidence is that the risk of children becoming infected is low and that they are unlikely to be transmitters of the disease to adults — especially in well-controlled environments. However, why take any risk if viable alternatives are available?
Here, we should note that the education of children has not been suspended during the crisis. Instead, it has continued by other — online — means. This has required a massive effort by the teaching profession to “recalibrate” the learning environment to support distance learning.
We should also note that the ability to provide distance education distinguishes teachers from other essential workers who, of necessity, must provide a face-to-face service.
For example, while some doctors can consult with patients using telemedicine, most health care workers need to be physically present (e.g when administering a flu injection, or caring for a bedridden patient, etc).
So, if distance learning achieves the same educational outcomes as classroom teaching, teachers would not seem to be under any moral obligation to return to the classroom.
However, the Federal Government has recently cited reports suggesting that online learning produces “sub-optimal” outcomes for students (unwelcome news for children living in remote communities and educated by the “school of the air”).
If this is true, then it would suggest two things. First that the government should be massively increasing its investment in education for children who have no option but to engage in distance education. Second, that teachers should be heading back into the classroom.
However, what of the teacher who lives with people for whom COVID-19 is a particular threat — the aged and infirm? In those cases, the choice is not just a matter of balancing a public duty as an educator against a preference for personal safety.
Rather, the teacher is caught in an ethical dilemma of competing duties. In such a case, I think it would be reasonable for a teacher to claim they have a conscientious objection to returning to the classroom — grounded in a refusal to be the potential cause of harm to a loved one — especially when the only certain protection for the loved one is that the teacher remain isolated.
Send your questions for Simon to letters@crikey.com.au, using the subject line ETHICS. Crikey will select one question to which he will respond each Friday.
Dr Simon Longstaff is executive director of The Ethics Centre. If you need support in addressing an issue or dilemma you can make an ethi-call appointment at: www.ethics.org.au.
Ehhhhhh…
Given individual conscientious objectors are frequently bulldozed into following the rest of the collective (or are penalised for individual resistance), this analysis seems to ignore the ethicality of collective action as a way to use power to ensure equity.
It would also be entirely ethical for teachers to take a “one out all out” approach until they are satisfied that no individual (teacher, student, family or community) will be worse off for individually not returning to school with other teachers.
Don’t you mean:
“It would also be entirely ethical for teachers to take a “one out all out” approach until they are satisfied that no individual (teacher, student, family or community) will be worse off for returning to school with other teachers.” ?
No, I meant what I said. 🙂
An example would be collective refusal to return to work until their colleagues who cannot return to work are likewise guaranteed an income for the period of time they choose to “conscientious object.”
Especially when the reason for objecting to return is broadly accepted a being reasonable. (Ie. immunocompromised due to chemo, household at risk, etc.)
“… the balance of evidence…”. Hmm, the word ‘evidence’ doesn’t mean a cracker unless it’s preceded by the words, “overwhelming and conclusive”. People tend to believe that ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’ are close synonyms, which is why Skidmo flaunts this nonsense. It’s just another form of lying, and if things go pear-shaped, he can point the finger elsewhere.
Interesting food for thought thanks Simon.
Can’t really compare remote kids with current urban kids learnings. The remote kids do it all the time. Urban kids need to learn to get used to it and in doing so they’ll learn something different.
A weekly current issues ethics article. Great idea Crikey.
One of the influencers on decisions not mentioned in the article is the legislative occupational health and safety (OHS) duties to not present hazards to one’s self or to others. Education Departments, as the employers of most school teachers, have an absolute duty of care tempered by what is reasonably practicable. The risk assessment criteria required under the OHS/WHS laws and regulations is likely to continue the closure of Victorian schools.
To comply with these legislative duties it would be necessary to guarantee that there is no risk of infection in all government primary and secondary schools. Some teachers and OHS professionals I have spoken with recently say this is impossible, given the age and immaturity of many of the students. If the infection hazard cannot be eliminated then an alternative, a substitute, control is needed and, as far as I can tell, the Victorian Government has already substituted face-to-face learning with virtual classrooms for as many students and household that can manage this, ie. the government has implemented what is reasonably practicable.
In OHS terms, this arrangement should persist until the risk of cross infection is gone. Masks, sanitisers, soap, sneeze screens etc are unlikely to be practicable given schools have very young children through to teenagers as the people over whom there is an absolute duty of care.
Very pleasing to see Simon Longstaff get a regular spot.
I liked the teacher that said that they were entitled to a safe workplace. This would entail testing done of any parent/ child that entered / exited school grounds, mandatory washing of hands, masks for all etc. – you get the drift. Similar to what health workers would have available to them, but extra to suit contact with many hundreds of kids and parents coming and going each day.
THEN, that teacher would be prepared to return to their school. But not before. But it appears teachers have not been consulted at any stage. Hey, they are only workers subject to command, aren’t they? Why on earth would their union get a say in this?
Popular comments about kids being a minimal transfer risk and thus teachers should be pressured to return, appear to deliberately overlook one major factor – Parents! Who move in and out of the school every day.
Never has the line that “teachers are paid baby sitters” been more obvious than keeping them working for essential services workers.
But will the public or politicians place a higher value on their work after all this? The Dept of Porcine Aviation has been alerted to several reports of pigs flying on this.