Rights of teachers

Just like pupils' rights, teachers' rights ('pedagogues') fall into the categories of constitutional rights and the rights directly related to education.

As will be illustrated in the cases described below, teachers submitted significantly more complaints concerning violations of their rights than about violations of their rights stipulated in the Act on Public Education. This may be explained by the fact that in many cases a natural sense of justice is sufficient for an individual to recognise a person's rights whereas the perception of the violation of teachers' rights per se necessitates an in-depth knowledge of legal regulations. However, government regulations are seldom mentioned in the course of teachers' training and professional development training courses include very few programmes that are focused on government regulations.

In the course of the Office's activities, as well as at various technical/professional meetings and seminars, experiences and views are often exchanged with teachers concerning their educational rights, the exercising and enforcement of such rights and the relationship between the legal environment and the education sector (pedagogy). Also, teachers also appear to be interested in these topics, for on the one hand their rights are sometimes violated and on the other hand, in the course of their work, they have to make sure that they respect the rights of other participants of education. The degree of their interest is also indicated by the fact that about a third of the petitions received by the Office was written by teachers. Although in the majority of cases, teachers complained about violations of their rights, in many cases they asked the Office for advice on which educational techniques and solutions they had elaborated would be most appropriate with the relevant legal regulations. Petitions showed that teachers' rights may be just as easily and just as often violated, as are those of other participants of education. Despite prior doubts, as a matter of course, the Office does provide assistance for the enforcement of teachers' rights as well.

Basic constitutional rights of teachers

As has been mentioned already, the majority of the complaints submitted by teachers relate to violations of their personal dignity. In these cases, the Office faced difficulties of the kind encountered with violations of the personal dignity of children. For example, in the course of the Office's proceedings, when we asked the head of the institution concerned to make a representation, in some cases, he refused to admit that he had violated the personal dignity of his or her colleague. When this happened, the complainant would have had to prove his or her claim but when this was pointed out, many of the complainants withdrew their petition because they saw little chance to succeed in proving their claims. In one case, however, in the wake of the complaint submitted by the teacher, the Office considered it necessary to organise a personal reconciliatory session.

One teacher objected to the methods applied against him by the schoolmaster which the teacher claimed had violated his personal dignity and professional respect. The complainant claimed that the schoolmaster declared that he was not suitable for the teaching performance, and disregarded the opinion of an education expert. In addition, the schoolmaster criticised his teaching/education methods in the presence of pupils and meddled in his work, violating his professional autonomy. On one occasion while the schoolmaster was in his class, he did not permit the teacher to distribute tests to the pupils. Instead, in front of the pupils, the schoolmaster ordered the teacher to submit the tests to him for review. The schoolmaster, being a teacher of classical subjects, criticised the educational methods of the science teacher. On another occasion, he ordered the science teacher to submit his agenda of the parents' meetings that were to be held, while the schoolmaster had not ordered any other teacher to do so. On two occasions the schoolmaster reviewed all of the written tests assigned during the given term. The teacher considered that this behaviour was based on personal motives, violating his personal dignity and professional autonomy. In our view it is important that a schoolmaster checks on the work of teachers, this is not only a right of a schoolmaster, but, according to Article 55 (2) of the Act on Public Education it is also his or her obligation. But under no circumstances will a schoolmaster be allowed in carrying out his or her responsibilities to violate the dignity of a teacher. As according to Article 19 (1) a) of the Act on Public Education, a teacher has the right with respect to his job that his personal dignity and personality rights are respected. Even though, the monitoring activities listed by the complainant were not an infringement in themselves, they became a violation of the teacher's rights by the circumstances, for the schoolmaster abused his privileges. Our initiative made in the wake of a personal reconciliation negotiation, in which we called on the schoolmaster to comply with the provisions of the law and to duly respect the personal dignity of teachers, was accepted by the schoolmaster. (VI/284/2000.)

Article 70/G of the Constitution and Article 19(1) b) of the Act on Public Education stipulates that a teacher is entitled to professional and is allowed to choose the education and teaching techniques and methods. Some teachers complained that their schoolmasters did not respect this right. As a result, they suffered discrimination on account of the schoolmaster's perception of their teaching methods, which otherwise would be considered in line with the school teaching programme.

One teacher, who made a petition, applied a special technique in teaching literature for which he had been criticised by various parties, despite the good results accomplished with the pupils. In his petition, he mentioned that the schoolmaster had not assigned him a form-master's position for years. In this regard, the Office asked for the position of the schoolmaster, who, in response, cited that the complainant's teaching methods had been criticised by a number of interested parties. It seems that parents were concerned about the progress of their children ' s studies. Pursuant to Article 19-(1) b) of the Act on Public Education, a teacher has the right to choose the teaching methods based on the education programme, but that he must not jeopardise the attainment of the goals as laid out in the curriculum. The schoolmaster also responded that there were 55 teachers and 23 forms in the school, so it was not possible for each teacher to work as form-master. Decision-making on the appointment of teachers as form-masters is part of the competence of the head of the school. Accordingly, it was not contrary to the law that the complainant was not appointed as a form-master over a period of several years. Based on the information made available to the Office, it was decided that no infringement of educational rights had occurred. (VI/291/2000.)

Some teachers submitted complaints concerning violations of the right to the freedom of expression and confidentiality of personal information.

One secondary school teacher submitted a complaint to the Office because the schoolmaster had ordered him to confiscate a petition prepared by pupils. For at that time, the school was preparing for the election of a new director and the then head of the institution was one of the candidates for the position. The pupils had outlined their complaints against the schoolmaster and then they had wanted to send their letter to the town mayor. The complainant realised that the schoolmaster's instructions violated the pupils' right to express their opinion. Therefore, he refused to carry out the order. However, the complainant presented a petition, of similar content but prepared by the teachers, to the schoolmaster. (VI/128/2000.)

We informed the teacher that the right to express one's opinion is a basic constitutional right that is granted to pupils and teachers alike. Therefore, teachers may formulate and express their opinion, even when criticising a schoolmaster, without specific permission by the head of the institution.

A teacher complained that the schoolmaster decided on installing security cameras in the school, e.g.) classrooms, workshops, gym, etc, so as to prevent theft. (VI/155/2000.)

The complainant was informed that the action proposed by the schoolmaster would violate the constitutional right of the protection of personal data of those individuals who entered the school for one reason or another. According to the Act on the Protection of Personal Data, personal data may be handled only with the consent of the persons concerned, except when statutory authorisation at the appropriate level is obtained. Since the electronic images produced by the video cameras, as they contain pictures of individuals, qualify as personal data, a schoolmaster may not make a discretionary decision on the introduction of such a monitoring system.

Rights of teachers directly related to teaching

Provisions in Article 19 (1) e) and f) of the Act on Public Education grant the right to teachers to evaluate the performance of their pupils. The professional autonomy resulting from this right, however, is not unlimited. Other provisions in the law, such as those that include the rights of parents and pupils determine the limits of this right to evaluate. Of course, a large number of complaints submitted by parents and pupils concerning the evaluation of the performance of pupils was related to the breaking of these limits. Therefore, we will deal with these in detail. Obviously, teachers may exercise their autonomy without hindrance only if they are fully aware of these limits.

Pursuant to Article 70 (10) of the Act on Public Education the assignment of marks (scores or grades) cannot be applied as a disciplinary tool when evaluating the performance and diligence of a pupil. The freedom of evaluation is also limited by the fact that the annual end-of-year teachers' panel reviews the year-end mark of each pupil. This is where decisions are taken on promoting pupils to the next grade. Where the year-end mark of a pupil is substantially worse than the average of the marks (scores) assigned to him during the school year, the teachers' panel calls the teacher concerned to account for the reasons of the difference and to change his or her decision if required. If the teacher refuses and the teachers' panel does not accept his or her arguments, the panel adjusts the year-end mark based on the marks scored during the school year.

A teacher submitted a complaint to the Office because the school's teachers' panel had altered the mark he gave to a pupil at the end of the first term. This is contrary to the law. In response to the Office's question, the head of the institution said that this was done to a pupil in the 8 th grade preparing for an entrance exam. Because there was a large difference between the average of the marks in the class registers and the mark given to the pupil at the end of the first term, and the teacher could not justify the difference, it was decided to alter the mark. In our view the decision taken by the teachers' panel was not contrary to the legal regulations because Article 11 (7) of the Act on Public Education stipulates that statutory rights and obligations have to be exercised and performed in line with their intended purposes. In properly exercising their rights, particular attention must be paid to the enforcement of the rights of pupils. Decisions have to be made in favour of a pupil in the proceedings where the facts of the case cannot be unambiguously identified. The Act on Public Education actually enables the teachers' panel to improve the mark of a pupil only at the end of a school year. But in this case, an exception had to be made for this eighth grader, as the marks earned at the end of the first term are more important then the year-end marks when applying to secondary school. Therefore, it was decided that the decision taken by the teachers' panel was justified. (VI/76/2000.)

Many of the complaints from pupils and to parents related to the observation that marks that seemed to be of equal value had different impact on the marks at the end of the first term and at the end of the year. The professional independence of the teacher enables him to attach different weights in calculating the end-of-term marks and the year-end marks, however, the basis of calculation must be pointed out in the teaching programme. As the Commissioner for Educational Rights is not in the capacity to handle a question concerning whether a mark or score has been established in line with the knowledge of the pupil, such petitions are usually turned down. However, the violation of educational rights occurs when pupils and parents are not informed of the basis of the evaluation. This will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on the rights of parents.

When a teacher exercises professional independence or autonomy concerning the evaluation of the performance of a pupil, the teacher has to respect the rights of parents as well as children.

As a result of information obtained from the Office, we were made aware of a teacher who had made it possible for pupils to improve on their failed tests. Pupils whose tests were given a mark of '1' (insufficient), had to rewrite the tests until they improved their result to at least a '2' (pass mark). In their case the results of each of their tests remained on the record. In the case of those whose initial tests were given a mark other than '1' but wanted to improve, and managed to write a better test, the lower mark was deleted from the registry. In this case it was established that this method of marking violated the principle of equal treatment of pupils. This was communicated to the teacher who had turned to the Office for information. (VI/125/2000.)

An important guarantee, that concerns the proper exercising of autonomy by a teacher, is comprised of the provisions enabling both pupils and teachers to seek for legal redress against non-compliant decisions by teachers in evaluating pupils' performance. These provisions will be elaborated in the chapter on the rights of teachers.

It should be noted that within the above limits, teachers enjoy full autonomy and they may make their own decisions with respect to questions of evaluation. Consequently, the Office cannot take measures with respect to frequent complaints submitted by pupils concerning their discontent with their marks or with respect to the complaints concerning the evaluation methods of teachers, especially if the evaluation methods are in line with the school teaching programme.

Labour-related complaints

Many of the complaints submitted by teachers related to questions where the Office could not take action according to the DOCER. Such questions included labour-related disputes. The rules pertaining to public servants and the Labour Code provide detailed regulations concerning the resolving of such disputes. They grant a wide range of powers to unions in this area. Although according to the DOCER, the Office cannot conduct investigations in such matters, through co-operation with the trade unions and with the participation of the Education Administration Department of the Ministry of Education, we make every effort to provide assistance to those asking us for help.

Our experience is that the situation of the rights of teachers and students in educational institutions cannot be separated from one another. It is clear from the petitions submitted to the Office, pupils and teachers equally need to learn and apply conflict management techniques that enable them to avoid infringement of rights. Furthermore, institutions will need to have mechanisms enabling them to ensure effective legal redress against infringements and violations. The elaboration of such mechanisms is essential for all parties concerned. The Office is convinced that techniques for conflict management and for the enforcement of rights developed with the involvement of teachers and pupils or student may provide real guarantees.

Act No. XXII of 1992 on the Labour Code

Content

Az oldal tetejére

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS
1055 - Budapest, Szalay u. 10-14.; e-mail: panasz@oktbiztos.hu

Impresszum