教师作为专业人员的劳动合同

D. Mangan
{"title":"教师作为专业人员的劳动合同","authors":"D. Mangan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1491613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In England and Canada there is a ‘professional’ nuance to teachers’ employment. Jurisprudence in both countries suggests a deliberate expansion of what reasonable expectations education employers have of their teacher employees. Teachers’ claim to professional status forms the basis for this expansion of teachers’ duties. The function of this long-held interpretation constitutes a further step in the contractualisation of teachers’ work. A hallmark of reforms dating back to the 1970s has been the increasing prescription of teachers work, a point which remains at odds with the claimed professional status. The age of the relevant cases hints that contractual flexibility has been a tool during times of reform. The result is that teachers’ employment contracts are understood as professional-level contracts, which means (to the courts) that not all duties must be spelled out in the contract. In fact, professional-level contracts cannot possibly include such an itemisation. Teachers are left with a series of lost decisions which reinforce not only their professional status (though in an unintended manner), but also unequivocally identify them as employees who are expected to follow all reasonable expectations of their education employers.","PeriodicalId":402063,"journal":{"name":"Education Law eJournal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Employment Contracts for Teachers as Professional Employees\",\"authors\":\"D. Mangan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1491613\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In England and Canada there is a ‘professional’ nuance to teachers’ employment. Jurisprudence in both countries suggests a deliberate expansion of what reasonable expectations education employers have of their teacher employees. Teachers’ claim to professional status forms the basis for this expansion of teachers’ duties. The function of this long-held interpretation constitutes a further step in the contractualisation of teachers’ work. A hallmark of reforms dating back to the 1970s has been the increasing prescription of teachers work, a point which remains at odds with the claimed professional status. The age of the relevant cases hints that contractual flexibility has been a tool during times of reform. The result is that teachers’ employment contracts are understood as professional-level contracts, which means (to the courts) that not all duties must be spelled out in the contract. In fact, professional-level contracts cannot possibly include such an itemisation. Teachers are left with a series of lost decisions which reinforce not only their professional status (though in an unintended manner), but also unequivocally identify them as employees who are expected to follow all reasonable expectations of their education employers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":402063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1491613\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1491613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在英国和加拿大,教师的就业有“专业”的细微差别。两国的法理学都表明,教育雇主对其教师雇员的合理期望是有意扩大的。教师对专业地位的要求构成了教师职责扩展的基础。这种长期存在的解释的功能构成了教师工作合同化的进一步步骤。改革的一个标志可以追溯到20世纪70年代,那就是教师工作的处方越来越多,这一点与声称的专业地位仍然不一致。相关案例的历史表明,在改革时期,合同灵活性一直是一种工具。结果是,教师的雇佣合同被理解为专业级别的合同,这意味着(对法院来说)并非所有的职责都必须在合同中详细说明。事实上,专业级别的合同不可能包括这样的条款。教师们面临着一系列失败的决定,这些决定不仅巩固了他们的专业地位(尽管是以一种意想不到的方式),而且明确地将他们确定为被期望遵循其教育雇主所有合理期望的雇员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Employment Contracts for Teachers as Professional Employees
In England and Canada there is a ‘professional’ nuance to teachers’ employment. Jurisprudence in both countries suggests a deliberate expansion of what reasonable expectations education employers have of their teacher employees. Teachers’ claim to professional status forms the basis for this expansion of teachers’ duties. The function of this long-held interpretation constitutes a further step in the contractualisation of teachers’ work. A hallmark of reforms dating back to the 1970s has been the increasing prescription of teachers work, a point which remains at odds with the claimed professional status. The age of the relevant cases hints that contractual flexibility has been a tool during times of reform. The result is that teachers’ employment contracts are understood as professional-level contracts, which means (to the courts) that not all duties must be spelled out in the contract. In fact, professional-level contracts cannot possibly include such an itemisation. Teachers are left with a series of lost decisions which reinforce not only their professional status (though in an unintended manner), but also unequivocally identify them as employees who are expected to follow all reasonable expectations of their education employers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信