At the Montessori Foundation we regularly receive queries regarding policies for relationships between staff and parents. Many school heads express concerns over issues ranging from staff being ‘friends’ with parents on Facebook to babysitting for school families, to (in some cases)
actual romantic involvements.
The issues span those which are merely internal or personal preferences to matters that are dictated by legislation and regulations. What is unethical and what is simply bad form?
As a starting point, we would say that every school should have a set of clearly worded policies, which spell out the ‘non-negotiables.’ These are shared with any prospective teacher before hiring, and any person not prepared to comply would probably not be a good match for your school.
In many businesses, there are clear understandings about what types of interactions employees can have with clients. While it may not be relevant if the burger flipper in a fast-food restaurant dates a regular customer, a Montessori school teacher would be regarded as being somewhat unethical if she dated the father of a child in her class. On the other hand, no business can really dictate what a staff member does in their free time. Or can they? While businesses cannot restrict who staff members interact with, they most certainly can set boundaries on what types of services can be rendered, or what can be discussed over coffee.
An accountant working for an accounting firm cannot agree to, in his spare time, do the books of a subsidiary of a major client. He cannot discuss the financial statements of one client with a life-long friend who just happens to work for another accounting firm. That would be considered unethical and may even be considered grounds for termination of services.
While it is understandable that parents would approach a teacher they know and trust to babysit for them, and while in many instances there may be no problem, there are many pitfalls to this type of arrangement. When the child is at school, it is very clear what each role is. The parent is the customer, the teacher the employee, employed by the head of school. The school is the provider of the service. The teacher is answerable to the head of school, and is, therefore, bound by the school’s code of conduct and by legislation. The child knows and understands the relationship too, and the rules of the classroom are clear to all concerned. When the teacher babysits, she is answerable to the parent.
“House rules” apply and not school rules. In respect to confidentiality, it takes a very firm will, along with a clear vision of boundaries, for a parent not to be tempted to ‘talk shop,’ asking about how the child behaves at school, how the child is progressing, and so on. Similarly, it is difficult for a teacher, especially younger, inexperienced teachers, not to be drawn into comparisons and inappropriate discussions with the parent about the school.
Generally, people who run Montessori schools are kind and caring people, who tend to avoid very business-like arrangements. This can lead to trouble when either staff or parents overstep the invisible line and one party or the other feels betrayed or used. This can lead to a rapid degeneration of the relationship between the school and the family, with the teacher in the middle (and the child as the victim in most cases).
One way to avoid potential problems is to have clear policies in place. These policies are communicated clearly to parents and staff and are printed in the staff and parent handbooks. Instead of blanket embargoes on babysitting, for example, it may be realistic to have a requirement that such arrangements are disclosed. Furthermore, very specific guidelines are given to parents and staff regarding issues of confidentiality. While parents may be keen to find out just a little more about what is going on at school, they may not be comfortable about personal family details being discussed in the staff room. Hence, staff members must understand that they will need to compartmentalize the two separate roles and treat information gained in each venue as discreet and separate.
They will then undertake not to discuss the child’s home life in staff meetings, any more than they would discuss confidential school issues with the parent. All well and good. But what if the home situation is impacting the child’s life at school? If the teacher knows something that is relevant, is she not required (possibly even by law) to disclose that where relevant? Because laws vary from state to state and country to country, schools should take the time to get appropriate legal advice on these issues.
Another problem that arises is that teachers may form a closer, or at least different, relationship with the children they interact with outside school. Other children in the class will sense this difference no matter how hard the teacher may work at avoiding favoritism.
There may also be financial and legal implications for the teacher and the school. If, for example, a teacher agrees to give a child a ride home, the school may be liable should there be an accident, as the teacher is an employee of the school. What happens if there is a disagreement or falling out between the teacher and the family, but then the teacher still needs to have this child in her class at school? There are many more implications to this type of relationship than might be obvious upfront.
We don’t recommend regulating staff connections to parents. Rather, we suggest you focus on hiring the right teachers, helping your staff to keep talking about what appropriate ethical behavior means for your school, and putting in writing which lines simply cannot be crossed. Exactly what those lines are will differ from one school to another, but it is important to clearly define where they are for your school.
Ensure that the lines are not crossed, and if they are, deal with the issues promptly and fairly. Where harsher measures are called for, take whatever action is necessary and mandated by law. Inappropriate, unprofessional parent-staff relationships can be devastating to a school.
Montessori Leadership / August 2014 / p.5
