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 [email protected], 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.