Smoking Teachers

[August1991]

Walking to the metro the other day, I passed an elementary school and a woman and a man (obviously teachers) sitting on a bench, smoking cigarettes. It occurred to me that both were in plain view of many pupils in the school. The teachers' pupils certainly knew that the teachers had left for a "smoke break".

I wondered: should non-smoking be a condition for hiring a teacher? Should smoking teachers be layed off, if they don't quit?

Should we allow any person to teach children if the person smokes cigarettes where the children can see them smoking? If the children know that their teacher has left for a "smoke break"?

Edited April 3, 2015 by August1991

[Topaz]

In my area, the school has had a rule for years no smoking for anyone within a certain distance from the schools.

[Michael Hardner]

Should smoking teachers be layed off, if they don't quit?

Should we allow any person to teach children if the person smokes cigarettes where the children can see them smoking?

You can't lay people off for smoking, even in the private sector I don't think that's done.

I see a point in making smoking teachers hidden from impressionable kids, though.

[jacee]

In my area, the school has had a rule for years no smoking for anyone within a certain distance from the schools.

On school property. I assume this was on a public bench.

.

[Big Guy]

There are teachers and there are teachers. There is no law or restriction for teachers to not smoke. The teachers who care, make sure that they do not do so in front of students and certainly not impart their unhealthy habits on their students.

I have had the unfortunate responsibility to have to warn teachers who come back from a smoke break and then smelling like a chimney, be whispering into students ears on some individual teaching exercise.

I have had cause to suspend a teacher who had been the target of many complaints, was warned but continued to make her students uncomfortable with her smoke breath. There are restrictions against poor body hygiene and a teacher can be suspended or terminated if the problem persists.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

Walking to the metro the other day, I passed an elementary school and a woman and a man (obviously teachers) sitting on a bench, smoking cigarettes. It occurred to me that both were in plain view of many pupils in the school. The teachers' pupils certainly knew that the teachers had left for a "smoke break".

I wondered: should non-smoking be a condition for hiring a teacher? Should smoking teachers be layed off, if they don't quit?

Should we allow any person to teach children if the person smokes cigarettes where the children can see them smoking? If the children know that their teacher has left for a "smoke break"?

Isn't this the sort of thing that effete bleeding hearts usually waste their time wondering? Would it have been less worrisome if the man and woman were having coitus on the bench?

In any case, I still recall trying to catching the smoke rings my Grandpappy used to blow at me when I was just a little tad. I guess things were just a tad different then.

[overthere]

I had a smoking teacher in high school.

Miss Klimchuk, the subject of many dreams by many teens.

Whew.

[WestCoastRunner]

I have had cause to suspend a teacher who had been the target of many complaints, was warned but continued to make her students uncomfortable with her smoke breath. There are restrictions against poor body hygiene and a teacher can be suspended or terminated if the problem persists.

You suspended a teacher because of body odour due to smoking? Must be a private Christian school. Did she do an effective job teaching? Did she instill other values and was her overall teaching ability considered or was the suspension based purely on her smoking habits?

I find it incredulous that a teacher could be suspended for this reason alone. There must be other mitigating factors that aren't being brought forth. Maybe she was a single parent? Single woman?

We have all heard your opinions on single parenthood.

Edited April 3, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[LesActive]

A hundred years ago she (at least, possibly he too) would have been sanctioned for such blatant impropriety. <s>Separate benches are in order as teachers of opposing sexes should never commingle.</s>

[Big Guy]

To WestCoastRunner - A student does not have a choice of teachers. The system imposes a timetable within the availability of courses, qualified teachers and time slots. My reference to "personal hygiene" was that it is the criteria and section under which a teacher can be told to "change" his/her behaviour. The intent is to protect the student from conditions that he/she does not have to endure in the classroom. The protection of students in a school environment is the top priority of any school, board or system.

A teacher who smokes and then goes into a classroom smelling of smoke and upsetting students (who have to be there) is not satisfying the conditions of employment. I would suggest that it is difficult to be considered to be doing an "effective" job in the classroom if your students are going to the administration of the school with complaints.

The suspension was based on student complaints, followed by an investigation, followed by advising the teacher of the problem, followed by a warning, followed by her ignoring the warning, followed by suspension.

I do not know if she was single or married, children or no children, gay or straight or whatever. What I do know is that she was advised of the problem, her responsibility in her job and her refusal to alleviate the problem.

Suspension is based on refusal to follow board of education requirements.

So be it.

[WestCoastRunner]

To WestCoastRunner - A student does not have a choice of teachers. The system imposes a timetable within the availability of courses, qualified teachers and time slots. My reference to "personal hygiene" was that it is the criteria and section under which a teacher can be told to "change" his/her behaviour. The intent is to protect the student from conditions that he/she does not have to endure in the classroom. The protection of students in a school environment is the top priority of any school, board or system.

A teacher who smokes and then goes into a classroom smelling of smoke and upsetting students (who have to be there) is not satisfying the conditions of employment. I would suggest that it is difficult to be considered to be doing an "effective" job in the classroom if your students are going to the administration of the school with complaints.

The suspension was based on student complaints, followed by an investigation, followed by advising the teacher of the problem, followed by a warning, followed by her ignoring the warning, followed by suspension.

I do not know if she was single or married, children or no children, gay or straight or whatever. What I do know is that she was advised of the problem, her responsibility in her job and her refusal to alleviate the problem.

Suspension is based on refusal to follow board of education requirements.

So be it.

You sound like a robot. Did you meet this woman in person? Did the investigation involve spying then a warning? It sounds so suspect.

[Big Guy]

I am sorry that it sounds suspect to you. I did my job and I did it well.

I just noticed your reference to my views on single parenthood. I believe my position has been that the child has a better chance of success in a two parent family than in a one person family - for a number of reasons.

As to the focus of the last few posts, near the end of my professional life I was in a position where I was brought in when there was a problem in a school. When it had not or could not be resolved by peers, department heads, vice principals, principals and/or local union rep then I got involved. Someone impartial had to be brought in to satisfy contract conditions of employment and processes of disciplining, suspension and termination of board employees.

To give you any more details might jeopardize her anonymity.

The basic tenet of any public school system that I have seen is that the student leaves the school in as good as or better physical condition than when he/she entered the school. Protection is the "prime directive".

Edited April 4, 2015 by Big Guy

[cybercoma]

I am sorry that it sounds suspect to you. I did my job and I did it well.

I just noticed your reference to my views on single parenthood. I believe my position has been that the child has a better chance of success in a two parent family than in a one person family - for a number of reasons.

That's not necessarily true. It's covariates that influence the child's outcome. A stable family is more important than single or two parent. High SES is also more important. The education of the parent(s) is important as well. There's a bunch of other things like social support, the quality of the neighbourhood, etc. However, children from single-parent families can do as well as those from two-parent families. It's just that divorce or family disruption often ends up changing the remaining parents' financial situation and ability to provide. They sometimes have to move to neighbourhoods with less support, etc. It's not single parenthood itself that's the issue. For instance, divorce can be a way of getting out of a horrible situation. A two-parent family with violence and turmoil is far worse than nearly any single-parent family situation.

So when you say your views on "single parenthood," you better be considering that single parenthood itself is not necessarily a problem. It's the things that can go along with it that are the problem, but those problems may be far less detrimental than a violent and disruptive two-parent home.

[Big Guy]

There are others who agree with your view on this topic - I do not. There are statistics that support both points of view. There is no set "rule" and there are exceptions that could be noted against either view. Personally, my experience in secondary school education has convinced me that two parent families generally provide more financial, nurturing, supervision and comfort then do single parent families.

Of course there are exceptions but a stable two parent family does a better job or parenting than a stable single parent family.

[Michael Hardner]

Thread drift...

[Big Guy]

Smoking teachers like smoking waitresses and others who deal with the public must cater to public tastes. Smokers are quickly becoming a small minority and the smell of smoke is becoming more and more rare and more and more noticeable in public areas. My friends who smoke often cannot sense how prevalent the aftermath of their habit can be. They become inured to it and inadvertently make others uncomfortable. Most are very considerate people and do try to accommodate others when informed.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think people should be able to complain effectively about the smells of peers except in extreme cases.

[Big Guy]

I suggest that people can complain about anything and everything - and they do. The obvious choice is to move from the area of discomfort.

In the case of a classroom, a student sitting at a computer is not going to stand up and move when his/her teacher is standing behind and the teacher's is bent over with her head almost on the students shoulder while giving instructions.

As to the way a person smells, all of the doctor's offices and health labs have signs requesting that patients wear no perfume, cologne or after shave.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Big Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

Just give them an area to smoke that's not highly visible to the kids and no chance of second-hand smoke. Or tell them to go sit in their cars in the parking lot with their windows wide open so they don't smell like smoke.

At least half of teachers I had were asses who didn't particularly get along with kids and just did it for the paycheck, and whom I certainly didn't look up to in any way.

[August1991]

I had a smoking teacher in high school.

Miss Klimchuk, the subject of many dreams by many teens.

Whew.

At least one poster "gets" part of my OP.

[Michael Hardner]

I suggest that people can complain about anything and everything - and they do.

They don't complain with effect, though, which is what I said. Complaining about a person's smell is a qualitative thing, and also very sensitive. If we're managing smells, then I would expect that "big picture" things, like say costs and quality of service are being done without any complaints.

That's obviously not the case.

As to the way a person smells, all of the doctor's offices and health labs have signs requesting that patients wear no perfume, cologne or after shave.

Allergies are a health matter, not a comfort matter.

[Bryan]

I don't think people should be able to complain effectively about the smells of peers except in extreme cases.

It's already policy in many places, including in the public sector. Any strong smell is grounds for discipline. If you stink, you go home.

[Hydraboss]

Policies on personal hygiene exist in almost every workplace that isn't a mom and pop operation. I've had to have that (remarkably uncomfortable) conversation with a few people over my management career. Never had to have it twice with the same person.

Now the "boob shirt" conversation was considerably worse. Three women in my office in the same day......ugh.

[masterlessman]

thread drift...hilarious. tobacco smoke,perfume and aftershave products are all odorous on a park bench. diesel fumes from buses are quite pleasant on a spring morning as well..i think we should lay off homeroom teacher as well. way too much bounce in the dryer.