Cleared of false accusations of child abuse, restoration of reputation for teacher blocked by school

At an elementary school in Paju, Gyeonggi-do, the school’s Committee for the Protection of Teacher Rights (Kyobo Committee) ruled in favor of the homeroom teacher and took protective measures in response to a violation of parents’ educational rights, but the school is not properly implementing them. The Kyobo Committee requested that other parents be informed of the reasons for sick leave in order to protect teachers who are on leave, but the school refused on the grounds that ‘disclosing teachers’ sensitive information is a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.’

According to Elementary School A’s notice of the results of the Kyobo Committee’s actions on the 27th of last month, obtained by Kookmin Ilbo on the 18th, Parent B sent a tape recorder to his child last July and recorded the remarks of his homeroom teacher, Mr. Kim, in his 40s, without permission. She then took advantage of this and threatened to report Kim for child abuse. The school requested the replacement of the homeroom teacher and the dismissal of Mr. Kim. Kim’s qualifications were also criticized at parents’ meetings. Mr. Kim was shocked by this incident and received psychiatric treatment, and even took sick leave and sick leave based on the doctor’s advice.

The Kyobo Commission judged that Mr. B’s behavior was ‘recognized as an infringement on educational activities.’ Accordingly, we requested an investigation from the Superintendent of Education and ordered the parents and students involved to receive special education. In addition, as a protective measure for Mr. Kim, the parents of the class were informed스포츠토토 of the reasons for Mr. Kim’s sick leave and illness leave. This is because parents at the time misunderstood that Mr. Kim’s sick leave and leave of absence were due to child abuse.

However, the school did not comply with the Kyobo Committee’s request for reasons such as violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and did not notify parents of this information. A school official said, “We received a response from the education office superintendent and lawyer that ‘it is a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act for a public institution to disclose personal information about a teacher’s individual work situation.’ Besides, the school has never taken such measures before.”

Accordingly, lawyer Kim Bo-ra-mi, who specializes in personal information protection law, explained, “If the homeroom teacher, who is the subject of the information, consents to the disclosure of his or her information, this does not violate the law at all.” He added, “It is right to provide guidance in order to restore the teacher’s reputation.” Park Sang-soo, an advisory lawyer for the elementary school teachers’ union, also pointed out, “(The school’s failure to provide relevant information) is a measure that exceeds its discretion.”

Mr. Kim said, “There was no one among the school administrators who stood by me. “They even urged me to meet the parents in person and resolve the matter,” he said. “On the day the Kyobo Committee was held, the vice principal applied for recusal because he was personally in charge of the complaint, and the principal issued a public notice and left the meeting.”

In this way, voices in the education field say that even when teachers who have been victims of violations of their teaching rights apply to the Kyobo Committee, schools often consistently respond passively rather than protecting teachers. Teachers agree that even if a parent’s violation of educational rights is recognized through the Kyobo Committee, there are many cases where the school does not want to escalate the matter further. Mr. Kim also said that he heard from an advisory attorney for the Office of Education that “the school is worried about (implementing) the school being sued (for defamation by stating the facts) from parents.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *