It's Time for Educators to Demand the Right to Refuse Service
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder argues that educators should have the right to refuse to work with students who pose a physical danger to them.
Key Takeaways
- No other profession requires this - Workers in virtually every other field can refuse service when their safety is threatened
- Teacher safety is a right - Educators shouldn't be forced to endure violence as a condition of employment
- This isn't about rejecting students - It's about requiring appropriate placements and supports before expecting teachers to work with dangerous students
Transcript
As educators, I think we've got to start demanding the right to refuse service to students that we cannot serve safely.
I think safety has to be the bottom line, just as it is in the medical profession, right?
In the medical profession, doctors take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm, and doctors will refuse service if they cannot provide that service safely, right?
Like if you call your general practitioner to say, if this is a medical emergency, hang up and dial 911.
If you're on an airplane with a doctor, that doctor will render first aid and help if somebody's having a medical emergency, but they're not going to do open heart surgery, right?
They're not going to grab a ballpoint pen and some cocktail napkins and say, yeah, let's get into this open heart surgery right here on the airplane.
And we're frequently, as ridiculous as that sounds, We are frequently in very similar situations when it comes to safety with our most troubled students.
I got an email the other day from a teacher who's just at her wit's end with a student who was kicking and had hurt people and had already been moved out of a pregnant teacher's classroom because he was such a danger to others.
and teachers are being told that like this kid has to stay in class, this kid has to come back to class, this kid cannot be sent out of class, this kid cannot be sent home, there is no aid there and does the aid want to get kicked?
I mean there is nowhere else for this student to go and I think at some point as educators we have to stand up and demand the right to refuse service and say you know what if there is not a placement for that child probably it's because I'm the cheapest person to inconvenience.
It is because somebody is willing to dump this problem on me, and as long as I'm willing to go along with that, that solves the problem for other people.
If we refuse unsafe placements and say, I don't know where you're going to put this child, but you're not going to put them in my classroom because it is not safe for that child or anyone else or me, then that is going to create the demand for those specialized programs.
Programs where there are different safety protocols in place, there's more staff, there's staff with shoe sizes in the double digits who can handle the violent behaviors and have the training to restrain when needed and have the doors locked so kids don't run out into traffic.
We have all these incredibly unsafe things happening in gen ed classrooms with 30 students with no aid, with no special training, with no support, and all of that, the gross part of this is that all of this is happening in the name of inclusion, as if kids are getting a better education because inclusion's a good thing, right?
Well, inclusion is not a good thing if it is not appropriate for that child, if it is not the least restrictive environment for that child.
Least restrictive doesn't mean the least restrictive generally.
It means specifically for that child.
What does that child need to succeed?
And a child who is assaulting people, destroying classrooms, eloping and running into traffic, That is not the least restrictive environment for that child.
And I think the next step up from that, like the one better but not good enough step is to supply a one-on-one aid and say, all right, now we have a designated person for this child to kick and run away from.
That is not better, you know, and aids are often grossly underpaid.
And so many people have told me I had to have surgery.
I got injured.
because of a child whose behavior was not safe so just putting a person in line to be the first to get injured is not good enough either we need to have programs for students who cannot be safely served in a general classroom and maybe some of that is special education some of it is disciplinary you know every kid is different every situation is different but we cannot simply keep agreeing to serve students that we cannot safely serve I think we've you know even if you don't legally have the right to I want to give you some language to refuse service you can say like I'm not willing to create the legal and professional and ethical liability that it would create to have the student back in my classroom and can't advise you to to actually say this to to make that decision for yourself but i want to give you that language like it is creating liability and i feel like you know at some point we do have to say i am going to bring my class to the office and we are going to leave this student in the office if the student returns to my classroom because it is simply too unsafe that is a difficult thing to say i don't know if that is the right thing to say in your situation i know in some states teachers now do have the right to say that and to refuse service to a student.
Remember, you refusing service to a student does not mean your district is out of options, right?
Your district has options other than you.
But if you are the person who is willing to say yes and serve that student, even if all learning grinds to a halt in your classroom, even if you are unsafe, even if the student is unsafe because of eloping or other behaviors, even if the rest of your class is constantly traumatized and having to evacuate because of unsafe behaviors, Something needs to change, and it's not you.
It's the district placement that is available, and I think we've got to demand the right placements for each child.
Let me know what you think.