Home > Free Essays > Education > Teacher Career > Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing
Cite this

Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing Essay


Abstract

The paper dwells on the case of teaching proficiency and contemplates the fairness of an educator’s dismissal. The purpose of the analysis development concerns the establishment of a consistent correlation between teaching professionalism and a personal life of an instructor. In this context, four structural parts are developed. The first section reviews the relevance of the ethics code, in the dismissal of a teacher, who takes part in swinger activities. The second part refers to the definition of unprofessional conduct in teachers. The third chapter concerns the fact that there is a strong bond between personality implications and occupational practices. Finally, the last section relates to the description of five conduct types, which hamper learning progress.

Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing

The paper discusses the overview of the case, in which a devoted Californian teacher was dismissed from her job for taking part in swinger activities. The contradiction of the study refers to the correlation between teaching professionalism and the impact of an educator’s moral picture on school performance.

In the analysis, we argue that the dismissal was fair and could be completely justified by teaching ethics. Indeed, according to the code of educational privacy ethics, an instructor may be fired if he/she reveals the type of behavior, which does not comply with a professional morality picture of a specialist, who may serve as a proper example for the learners (Osler, 2009). The intensification to the criticality of the issue is provided by the fact that the characteristics of the teachers’ sexual life receive publicity notification.

One can name three reasons, according to which, a dismissal may be considered to be justified. First, despite the personal life of an educator does not always relate to the student performance directly, it should be noted that a teacher is a part of a micro-community. Thus, the surrounding society, which includes teaching stuff, the learners, and their parents, possesses a specific moral standing. If a participant of the community’s life makes the immoral characteristics of his/her personal life public, this person can not be allowed to take a position of an educator. Secondly, the decision of the Board of Education has a greater weight then the law opinion, which pleaded the teacher to be not guilty (Neckles, 2005). Therefore, the act is completely legal. Finally, the case states that the teacher works with the students, who have physical and mental disabilities. It is well-known that such individuals require stable morality examples and appropriate professional (Levy & Slavin, 2013). Since the students have a distorted worldview, the behavior of an educator can facilitate the adoption of immoral values, in class.

Unprofessional Behavior: Teaching Implications

The personal actions of an educator can be estimated as moral or immoral, in the moment when the actions receive public recognition. Thus, when the surrounding community found out about Pettit’s sex preferences, the Board of Education, automatically, received a right to contemplate the ethical characteristics of the teacher’s behavior. The participation of Pettit in swinger’s club shapes a certain picture of moral implications, which question the conduct of an educator as well as her right for taking a position. The teachers must realize that being an educator does not only involve managing successful class activities but also revealing the character features, which exemplify positive personal development.

According to some scientific opinions, swinging may be referred to the group of psychological deviations, which means that the conduct of Pettit might endanger a normal development of the students’ intellectual abilities. Moreover, unprofessionalism implications may be certified by certain philosophy theories. For instance, according to the utilitarian doctrine, normative ethics relies on the enhancement of utility improvements, which, in the given case, refers to the personal characteristics of the teachers’ community. Conclusively, one may state that Pettit is unfit for teaching since the characteristics of her negative personal conduct become public.

Professionalism versus Personal Life Characteristics

The case describes a teacher, who, evidently, possesses excellent class management skills as well as a perfect understanding of the students’ treatment. Thus, the assessment reveals that the learners, in Pettit’s class, succeed in academic performance and, furthermore, provide a positive feedback to the methods of instruction, which are offered by the teacher. According to that, the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case, suggested that the educator has the right to occupy the position since her personal conduct does not disrupt academic progress. Nevertheless, the conclusion contradicts the professional code of teaching ethics.

Specifically, it is claimed that taking the standing in the sphere of education does not simply embrace good occupational capabilities but a general moral picture of an individual. The issue is connected with the idea that progressive education has a tight connection with the real life since the experiences, which are gained in class, must be transferred in everyday activities so that the learning could be called beneficial. Therefore, if the students receive certain morality examples and knowledge in class, they have to be sure that the information goes from a person, who practices decent ethical persuasions in life. Otherwise, the process of learning may be called dishonest. As a result, Pettit has no rights to occupy the position of a teacher and facilitate morality-based learning in class for the students might find out that she does not follow the instructed principles in reality, which might impose discouragement to study.

Immoral Teaching Behaviors

Despite morality of an educator is one of his critical professional characteristics, one differentiates some additional types of unprofessional behaviors, which contradict the code of teaching ethics. In general, five critical teaching faults may be specified. Primarily, the competence of professional knowledge handling plays a critical role in the domain. Therefore, if an educator has a low understanding of the subject, which is instructed by him/her, the learners’ progress is hampered.

The second factor, which defines a beneficial development of learning, refers to the healthy environment in class. The condition may be guaranteed if the teacher reveals confidence, emotional stability, and friendliness. Otherwise, the students, who perceive tension in class, and can not find a positive emotional contact with the educator, fail in the process of academic study. The tendency is particularly applicable if one refers to the class of disabled learners for retarded students require special psychological care.

The third professional teaching misconduct concerns the issue of labeling and spreading gossips about the students’ personal life or academic failures. This characteristic rather refers to the personality of an educator than to his/her professional competence. Thus, a successful teacher must note that class management is a private procedure, which involves only students and an educator, which facilitates trust and confidentiality of academic progress. The fourth factor concerns punctuality and teaching habits. Mainly, if the educator practices absenteeism or reveals inappropriate organizational actions, the learners may develop false professional habits. Finally, the personal life of a teacher should serve as the embodiment of decency and morality, which is illustrated in the example of the analyzed case.

References

Levy, C., & Slavin, S. (2013). Social work ethics on the line. London: Routledge.

Neckles, P. (2005). The dwindling rights of teachers and the closing courthouse door. Fordham Law Review, 44(3), 511-549.

Osler, A. (2009). Teacher and human rights education. London: Trentham Books.

This essay on Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.
Removal Request
If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda.
Request the removal

Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by
professional specifically for you?

Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar
Writer online avatar

certified writers online

GET WRITING HELP
Cite This paper

Select a referencing style:

Reference

IvyPanda. (2020, May 14). Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/right-for-privacy-violation-analyzing-the-reasons-for-firing/

Work Cited

"Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing." IvyPanda, 14 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/right-for-privacy-violation-analyzing-the-reasons-for-firing/.

1. IvyPanda. "Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing." May 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/right-for-privacy-violation-analyzing-the-reasons-for-firing/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing." May 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/right-for-privacy-violation-analyzing-the-reasons-for-firing/.

References

IvyPanda. 2020. "Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing." May 14, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/right-for-privacy-violation-analyzing-the-reasons-for-firing/.

References

IvyPanda. (2020) 'Right for Privacy Violation: Analyzing the Reasons for Firing'. 14 May.

More related papers