Thousands of teachers in England are campaigning for a new code of conduct to be scrapped because they say it intrudes into their private lives and strips them of basic human rights.I wholeheartedly agree with their premise - when you work for someone, you rent out your time and behaviour for the duration of the job, that's all; anything else, and you might as well join a cult - but it's a little amusing to see them realise that this is where all those campaigns about 'thoughtcrime' they cheered have led.
A petition against the code – which comes into force next month and requires teachers to uphold "public trust and confidence" in their profession, even out of school and on weekends – has collected more than 10,000 signatures over the summer holidays.
Seriously, when they were championing the right for employers to sack people who belonged to a political party they didn't much like, did they not think then 'Oh, hang on, this is going a bit far...'?
Chris Keates, general secretary of Nasuwt, said the code, which was last revised four years ago, "gave the impression that teachers could not be trusted, and that their regulatory body needed to pin down their every activity and tell them how to behave".Oh, I agree, Chris. But when you supped with the Devil before, you clearly forgot to bring your long spoon.
She said: "We are not opposed to a code of conduct in principle, but what we have here are pious and vague statements that are open to abuse. If a teacher speaks passionately about their subject and urges students to choose it, is that going to be a breach of the code because it is not 'impartial'? The code is littered with statements that could put teachers' careers in jeopardy."
She added: "This code intrudes into teachers' private lives; it is an affront to teachers' basic human rights. There is no evidence to demonstrate it is needed."
Didn't you?
9 comments:
The French Revolution devoured its own; so did the Russian.
Now the Relentlessly Nice and Well-Meaning Revolution is going the same way. Heh.
Julia, the GTC who issued this is a Government set up organisation, with an appointed board. Teachers were not asked if they wanted it plus they cannot vote on its composition. All teachers have to join the GTC or they cannot teach, and they have to pay I think about £130 per year.
A quote from a BBC article from January this year is priceless.
GTCE head of professional regulation David James said: "You might have an incident in a pub, someone has had too much to drink and there's been some pushing and shoving.
"It hasn't resulted in a criminal offence, but we would look at it in great detail. It is not something we would want teachers to do, but professionally would it have an impact on their registration status?"
Translated - You've not broken any laws but we want the power to penalise you for behaviour the we don't like anyway. How dare you be drinking in a pub .. .. ..
I'm not completely with these sentiments, being a former head teacher but this is right:
"Oh, I agree, Chris. But when you supped with the Devil before, you clearly forgot to bring your long spoon."
Like you, Julia, I distrust anyone, especially in this age now, pushing ostensible codes of conduct when one needs to look at their own record in wanting to make this nationwide in that "one size fits all way".
If someone is not up to scratch, you don't employ them but I'm referring to the private sector here. It's easier in the independent system - they get their marching orders if they are threatening the organization.
In the state though it's more difficult. It's fine to say that each is giving his or her time but in which way are they giving it?
There's no easy solution to this. At Bloghounds, that's our main problem. Ostensibly set up to include "ethical bloggers", it soon ran into trouble that way.
Everyone wants quality to prevail but how to achieve that is illusory. Forcing codes onto people is not the way to do it. For a start, those who cannot conform to a norm won't and it could be a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Coming back to employing people - rather than telling them to conform to a code, if they clearly don't, then just don't employ them in the first place.
"The French Revolution devoured its own; so did the Russian.
Now the Relentlessly Nice and Well-Meaning Revolution is going the same way. "
Couldn't happen to a nice bunch, frankly...
"Teachers were not asked if they wanted it plus they cannot vote on its composition."
True. But also, not the point.
They were only too happy to see the rights to a private life taken away from another set of teachers, so it's pointless for them to now start saying 'Hey! Wait a minute..'.
Want your own rights to be upheld? Don't start something that makes you look like you are pretty lassaiz faire about that sort of thing.
Or, you just may attract a bigger bully than you are.
"Translated - You've not broken any laws but we want the power to penalise you for behaviour the we don't like anyway."
Yes, that seems to be pretty much the name of the game lately. What happened to the good old British 'Live and let live'?
"I distrust anyone, especially in this age now, pushing ostensible codes of conduct when one needs to look at their own record in wanting to make this nationwide in that "one size fits all way"."
Fully agreed. And why expect a code of conduct that covers the time you aren't at work?
Pay me 24/7/365, and I might think about it. Until then, my time's my own..
What's good for the goose is good for the marxist gander, as they say.
One of the only pleasures left living under this authoritarian bunch of shits is seeing other shits like teachers getting the same treatment as they inflict on others, and squealing about it.
I reckon this code is an assault on their human rights, specifically their right to a private life.
But I do hope it gets imposed upon them anyway. They lost their right to any support from me the day they accepted witch hunts against their own members for joining a perfectly legal political party.
How are they supposed to prove any errant behaviour unless it becomes a matter of public interest or it is admitted?
One could dance naked around their living room with custard covered chickens as long as the curtains were closed, the chickens didn't contact the PSPCA and it doesn't appear on facebook.
As for behaviour in public, if it doesn't lead to legal proceedings you've got a case of opinion. Surely private reports are unsubstantiated and run the risk of attracting libel and slander actions.
How is this GTCE protected in law against being sued for bringing potentially slanderous or libellous actions into someone's professional record?
I think it’s absolutely wrong that someone's private life is taken into account in their job as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their job. Equally employers and employees should be protected from people who seem to think that their individual beliefs have any platform in the workplace. It really does hold true both ways round.
The time has come for people to defend themselves and their private life, and for people to stop putting up with so called 'workplace culture'. Work is simply a required effort in exchange for reward not a social club is it?
"I think it’s absolutely wrong that someone's private life is taken into account in their job as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their job. Equally employers and employees should be protected from people who seem to think that their individual beliefs have any platform in the workplace."
Agreed. To allow anything else is to be no better than a slave.
Post a Comment