Eggertson v. Alberta Teachers\' Association

¶ … Eggertson v. Alberta Teachers' Association (2002 ABCA 262) case, the teacher was convicted of violating 3.13 of the Code of Professional Conduct, which states that one staff member may only criticize another after the one in question has been informed of the criticism and only in connection with the appropriate official. The appellant was then cleared of the accusation, and subsequently sought an award of costs. This became a lengthy matter and could only be partially granted. The Court determined that there were three factors that justified award of costs and these were:

That the appellant was required to undergo lengthy, painful, and fatiguing sessions in order to defend her reputation and she was ultimately vindicated in her position.

The significance of the case, since many of the members of the ATA are similarly parents with children in the school who have a dual obligation of parents with professional obligation as teachers, the appellant wants to be certain that her reputation is cleared.

3. The appellant has incurred significant liability in duration of the case.

The Court eventually decided to indemnify the appellant part although not all of the costs of her case and to do so in a lump sum of $15,000.00 aside from being entitled to recover all "reasonable disbursements incidental to [the] proceedings"

The implications to professional and classroom practice as a teacher are evident: that one must follow ethical guidelines throughout criticizing another colleague to her face first, and then in an instructive, and gentle manner -- in a manner that is intended for her good and supposed to help her -- before, in the last resort, approaching the appropriate officials about the situation. Sometimes, one needs to approach the appropriate officials first, if, for instance, there is suspicion that the teacher is stealing from the school or having relations with a student. In all cases, however, the substance of the matter should be kept private and related only to the officials who are most concerned with the matter (

Professionalism and Ethics; web). Evidence should be collected before decisions are made, and gossip-mongering should be abstained from. Implications to classroom practice are that not only does this foster respect between the teaching staff, but it prevents conflicts that can more rapidly be controlled, stunted, and dealt with, and spreads an atmosphere of upper-level teamwork and cordiality throughout the school. The environment at the 'upper level', in turn, affects the way the students interact with one another and perceive their school. More so, conflict amongst teachers and the liberal atmosphere of teachers liberally and only criticizing others would negatively impact all stakeholders involved with the education and prevent instruction from having the full influence that it should. Teachers, incidentally, are also encouraged, although not obliged, to tell principals and vice-principals of their intention of making an adverse report about another staff member (ibid)..

When conducted in the correct manner, an adverse report is not considered gossip or nasty, pejorative comment. Negative comments, made inter-staff, on the other hand, (consisting of mere gossip or belittlement) whilst not considered an adverse report are considered inappropriate and unprofessional and for the sake of the schools' reputation and for one's own professionalism should be abstained from. Individuals are, rather, encouraged to approach their problems openly with one another.

Teaching as David Hansen (2001; in Campbell (2008)) sees it is a moral activity since it is other-directed and intended as impression-forming to teach another the difference between bad and good. The example, therefore, for the instruction to be optimally effective must proceed from the top, i.e. from the teacher down. With this lacking, the instruction will fail to have the impact that it should.

Teaching, furthermore, as Hansen notes (Campbell, 2008) is a relational component intractably and complicity involving the field of human relations. One has to be "patient with others, attentive to them, respectful of them, open-minded of their views" (2001, 828). These are the ethics that one endeavors to teach one's students as well as the way that a competent teacher has to be with his or her students. Being like this with students and not with colleagues spoils the endeavor as well as indicating that the teacher is making only a face at being open-minded, tolerant and respectful. Such a teacher may not retain her job for long since shortfalls in her manner to colleagues may likely indicate more serious shortfalls in her manner (even if not overt) to her students. To be moral, which is what teaching entails, one has to be moral across the board and had to be intrinsically moral.

Intrinsically moral, with each and every staff member epitomizing ethical dealings in relationships with one another, permeates a moral environment throughout the school since the teachers represents a moral agency and teaching becomes a moral activity. In short then, the effect can be both upwards and downwards. If teachers perceive their task as being one of moral connotations and significance and their duty as consisting of moral representatives, this is bound to effect their intra-class conduct and they would be less liable to spread baseless adverse reports about another or to indulge in gossip mongering about other staff members (particularly in an open school setting). This is the downward effect. Upward effect occurs when the teacher starts with the assumption that creating and disseminating adverse reports are unprofessional and immoral. This augments her ethos as teacher / moral agent, which, in turn, accords her instructions and distribution of that instruction greater credibility (since students perceive it as moral activity), and, ultimately effects the environment of the academic agency as a whole with respect for all (be it teacher or student) palpable throughout the school.