You are on page 1of 7

EDUC525: Ethics and the Law

A Community-Based Perspective to I-Thou Life in Rural Alberta

Community-Based Group:

Jessica

Lace

Kelly

Marsha

Natasha Van Driesten

University of Calgary

July 19. 2018


In a rural community, teachers play multiple roles in their student’s lives, and the

issues regarding ethical principles become more complex. As mothers, employees of

the schools in our communities, and as students in the Community-Based Program

hoping to spend our teaching careers working in those communities, we are extremely

aware of the unique dynamics that arise for teachers in rural settings. We see that it is

not uncommon for teachers to have valid and important reasons to engage with their

students after school hours in a way that is different than city teachers, such as

coaching, carpooling, organizing community events and volunteering in church groups.

This overlap continues to develop because a teacher’s students are also their children’s

friends, and following school hours, they are often in the homes, cars, and even the

refrigerators of their teacher. Teachers have been conditioned to distance themselves

from this level of teacher-student interaction in urban areas, however, it is our

experience that these extending relationships provide many benefits to small-town life.

In performing multiple roles within the community, teachers become a well-known,

multifaceted entity and an intrinsic part of the society. Therefore, they are afforded more

understanding and grace in times of ethical misunderstandings. We will argue that the

reaction of the community toward a teacher’s behaviour after school hours and off

school premises is more tolerant in a rural community, that you are treated as part of an

“I-Thou” relationship instead of an “I-it”, and that virtue ethic are shared between the

teacher and the community at large.

It seems to be the common conclusion that the intrusion into your personal life in

a rural community is to be feared, and that the narrow-minded people who live in these
communities are unwilling to accept or tolerate any behaviour that is perceived to be

questionable. In a rural community it is common that people are related, life-long friends

since childhood, neighbours, or acquaintances in some form or another. City teachers

may fear this kind of transparency and involvement with their students and their families

after hours, but in our communities this degree of interaction is normal and valued.

People who live in rural communities are invested in the relationships that come from

the unique situation of living so closely together, and, therefore, we feel that there is a

higher level of tolerance and problem solving instead of the perceived higher level of

narrow-mindedness that most would presume. For example, a simple hug with a

student in a small- town school would not warrant a call to the police, but the same act

may be questioned or have legal implications in an urban school. We feel that the

child’s parents would call for clarification first, or that this type of interaction between a

teacher and a student would not even be noticed. Of course, teachers in rural

communities are not immune to ethical issues entirely, but the possibility of a

misunderstanding resulting in a career threatening situation is negated.

An interesting way to approach the value of teaching in rural communities is

through the lens of Buber’s “I-it and I-thou” theory. Buber states that the “I-it”

relationship comes into play when a leader places more value on oneself and less on

others, whereas the “I-thou” theory states the opposite approach, where leaders are

less egocentric and treat their fellow man with greater dignity and respect. We feel that

the “I-thou” dynamic is more present in rural communities and therefore, both the ethical

choices of small-town teachers and the possible repercussions of their actions would be

dealt with in a more forgiving fashion. “In other words, when making ethical choices a
leader ought to be committed to experiencing relationships where the goal is described

in terms of mutual wins, growth and appreciation” (Walker & Donlevy, 2005, p.16). City

teachers, or teachers that commute to communities for their profession may be seen as

one-dimensional “it” beings by both their students and the parents of their students, as

they do not fill any other roles within their teaching communities. Rural teachers, on the

other hand, have more investment in their community, and as such are valued in a

“thou” capacity. There is a special unspoken comradery in small towns which affords its

teachers special privileges, like the right to have a life outside of school walls in a

greater capacity than non-community teaching professionals. But, this requires earning

the trust of community members, and navigating accordingly to not break this trust.

Rural teachers have special insight regarding what is accepted or taboo within their

communities, as they know and understand the types of people that inhabit their small

towns. This knowledge allows them to avoid the types of conduct that would be

considered questionable or immoral. In contrast, city teachers may not have the same

insights regarding what’s right and wrong in the communities they serve, and their

involvement in an ethical issue may become exaggerated, which in turn could risk their

reputation and career.

Our argument is highly dependent on virtue ethics from both the teacher and

community perspective. Due to the fact that everyone within a small town is cognizant of

being judged, most people adopt a belief of practical wisdom, which helps them to

consider all of the consequences to their actions before they act on them. We believe

that rural communities would adopt the “golden rule” principle when dealing with matters

involving a teacher’s private life, and likewise, most teachers would conform to this
virtue ethic as well. Teachers are aware that the likelihood of encountering parents and

students outside of school is guaranteed, therefore, they also consciously agree to

present themselves as role models, in that they will not risk the possibility of becoming

an ineffectual teacher. Thus, their conduct wouldn’t even raise the eyebrows of school

officials or affect their professional duty or ability in the classroom. Even when parents

in a small town do criticize teachers’ public behaviour, most often “parental criticism [is

not] an automatic trigger for adverse employment action against teachers” (DeMitchell,

2011, pg.338).

Obviously, this tolerance has limits and rural teachers who cross the boundary

into serious inappropriate behaviour would be under scrutiny. As Fulmer (2002)

explains, “as expectations for students to be more moral continue to rise, there may be

an increasing desire to evaluate the character of those who teach it” (pg.271). When the

balance between teacher expectations and teacher behaviour is severely off-course,

such as engaging in conduct that is prohibited within your morality clause or behaviour

that is illegal, members of the community have every right to call for disciplinary action.

But, minor ‘immorality’ offences are often subjective and as Assistant Superintendent

Allen Davidson explains, the way you deal with a faux pas speaks to your character and

may ultimately save your job: “own your mistakes when you make them, as this goes a

long way ethically” (Ethics in Law Presentation, 2018).

In conclusion, we as Community-Based education students want to emphasize

how advantaged we feel about our prospects of teaching in rural Alberta. We reiterate

our feelings that small towns are more supportive and accepting than they are intrusive,

and that other teachers should covet this special experience. It is inevitable that
teachers and students will encounter each other many times outside of school hours.

Rather than stress over these encounters, this paper encourages teachers to embrace

these interactions.
References

Davidson, A. (2018). Ethics and Law Presentation. University of Calgary. July 18, 2018.

DeMitchell, T.A. (2011). “Immorality, Teacher Private Conduct, and Adverse Notoriety:

A Needed Recalculation of Nexus?” Journal of Law and Education 40(2): 327-

339

Fulmer, J. (2002). Dismissing the immoral teacher for conduct outside the workplace –

Do current laws protect the interests of both school authorities and teachers?

Journal of Law and Education. Vol. 31, No.3, p. 271.

Walker, K. D., & Donlevy, J. K. (2006). Beyond relativism to ethical decision

making. Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 216.

You might also like