"Christian secretary, 44, sues school ... after she was ... sacked for opposing compulsory sex education and the rise of 'transgender ideology' in schools" reads the first paragraph in a story out of the UK. Kristie Higgs was working in a grant-maintained school which is like a US charter school, except that it is religious in nature and so able to have a religious mission and to teach religion-themed classes up to a certain percentage of the program.
As this is a pseudo-private school, their position is different from public schools which have specific policies and procedures. As long as there is nothing unlawful like racial discrimination, I have no problem with a school releasing a staff member for improper activities or for non-Mission appropriate activities. In my view, a soccer academy would be within its rights to let go someone who is trying to convince its students to play American football. While I disagree with permitting or expressing religious views, statements and practices in public schools, I support their existence in non-public schools since such schools have to make these known in order to attract families and to survive. Although UK grant-maintained schools are public, their status allows them to operate in this pseudo-private middle ground.
Higgs reportedly maintains that she did or said nothing at work which prompts the question as to why the school did what they did. The article does not elaborate on this so I must assume that either she did, or that the objection was to her philosophy being at odds with the school's Mission.
The former, while valid, is tricky. She may think that she is just Kristie Higgs, but to many people she represents the school, even while out of hours. This is a message I emphasize to all young and new teachers : to the community, you are never "not at work". It does not matter what you think, to other people you are (a) a teacher and (b) a teacher at x school and so everything you do or say can be, and too often is, interpreted as or portrayed as representative of (a) all teachers and (b) school x. As evidence, just look at how many headlines read "teacher does something".
Higgs may well have been expounding her views outside school hours, but in doing so she may have been giving the appearance of challenging or criticizing the school's values, knowingly or unwillingly. For a school employee, this is undesirable. I have always included language in both staff contracts and handbooks to the effect that actions which bring the school into disrepute or are inconsistent with the school's Mission are disciplinary infractions. There are escalation and counseling procedures so the first "offense" is unlikely to justify termination.
The article does not say if this was the case, either that this is what she did or that this was the reason. and Higgs argues that her personal views do not affect her professional performance. If this was the case, then I support the dismissal; if this was not the case, then I find the sacking troubling. Of course the other factor is that the manner of the sacking and language used may not have been ideal, but that is fodder for another discussion.
The latter possibility, that of Higgs' philosophy being at odds with the school's Mission, to me would reveal leadership, recruitment and staff recruitment failures. Unless someone changes their views after being hired, in which case the above comments concerning actions and statements would apply, no-one should join a school who is not committed to the school's Mission.
This school is religiously orientated and sponsored, Church of England or episcopal, and the views and values of the church and of this particular school are particularly public and easily accessible. If she lied about her views to get the job, dismiss her. If the school hired her without investigating her views, change Policies and Procedures and/or re-assign the person(s) responsible.
I have written before about the need to explore a candidate's views to ensure that s/he supports the Mission. In this case, Higgs is clearly a bad fit and if her views are so opposed to the school's, then why would she want to be there and why would they want to have her? However there is much missing from the article. For example, how long had Higgs been at the school? Had she been expressing these views for some time or was the first occasion? Had she been previously counseled? What do the contracts and handbooks say about public denigration or criticism of the school? Have proper policies and procedures been followed? What did she say when hired? And of course, was this the final straw and there were other incidents which while not individually so serious, collectively they are?
I do not believe that this is anything to do with religion or that "the sacking breached her freedom of speech and religion." I am sure that the real reason is as discussed above, however without more information we cannot know.
**Please leave your comments and questions below.**
Further reading
http://teaching-abc.blogspot.com/search/label/Teacher%20Recruitment
No comments :
Post a Comment