Re: Always on duty?
 

So he did intervene, and he did put himself "on-duty".

Your were his student not his kid, so he didn't even have to talk to you or acknowledge you, he didn't ignore you and say "I'm off-duty so he's not my problem".

He just chose to handle it in a certain way and ask you why you were bunking off, rather than grass you up. He's a good teacher, he understands his pupils and what is the best way to get through to them and gain their trust and confidence.

Re: Always on duty?
 

I think there is a difference between contractual obligation and moral responsibility. Sadly the latter is deteriorating more and more in today's increasingly selfish society, so we have come to rely more on the former to make sure society doesn't turn totally chaotic and anarchic, thus leading to the dilemma of the OP.

Some job roles have a greater degree of obligated duty than others but I would hope that everyone would always carry a sense of willingness to use their professional expertise, in whatever field, should it become necessary. Of course, individuals should be allowed to use personal discretion and judgement but I don't think anyone should be allowed to just ignore a situation simply because they weren't "on the clock".

As far as intervention goes, in my experience the direct quiet "word in the ear" provides a better first action than a faceless report to a third party enforcer, if the aim is to educate (moral/ethical improvement, greater self awareness and personal responsibility) rather than simply get someone into trouble for breaking an arbitrary rule. It's just a shame that the rulemakers never see it like that - the law may be black and white but the real world is many shades of grey.

Re: Always on duty?
 

Ironically, this was a specific example I had running through my head when I was writing my last post in a more general way.

Re: Always on duty?
 

Sorry just realised it sounds like I'm aiming this at you Messie...It is not, it is more of a response to your 'Senior Teacher'

I think as a Teacher you need to reevaluate your view of your job role slightly.
Your role is to inspire and teach children to become knowledgeable and a credit to society first and foremost. Unfortunately there is now a lot more disipline involved now and maybe teacher feel more like a peacekeeper/enforcer than a teacher which may explain why you feel the need to be 'on duty'
Personally I feel that teacher have duristiction in the classroom, outside of that there is no need to get involved in the welfare of your pupils...that's Child Service's job.

Police Officers and Medical Staff are different as others have said. They are on duty pretty much all the time, that's why it takes a special type of person to be in that type of job. I would hope that if I was getting set upon there wasn't an off duty copper watching it happen thinking to him/herself I am not on duty today, I would hope he/her would use their training knowledge and demeanor to diffuse or stop the situation.

I don't really see the resemblance between a teacher and a police officer in terms of duty.
What I am getting at is the primary job role of a teacher is teaching not enforcing.

Re: Always on duty?
 

No, but both jobs are vocational and hold responsibility towards society.

Re: Always on duty?
 

Absolutely..Police are there to uphold the law..Teachers are there to teach kids.

I am agreeing with Messie on this one. Its not her job to stop a teenager from underage drinking it is the Police. I also wouldn't expect her to feel moraly obliged to either.

Re: Always on duty?
 

I guess you could see it that way but i honestly dont think he acted that way. It was lunchtime in summer and he'd gone to have a pint and i walked in. He chatted to me kinda how i guess he would have chatted to a friend. he certianly didnt say "so explain yourself" or anything like that, he simple said if like he would ask a mate "what brings you in here then" kinda attitude. What was going thru his mind obviously only he knew but i felt like i was being treated like the adult i thought i was acting like and that earnt my respect in a huge way.
Howeer i think Messie's original quesion was more about should she or any other teacher, if walking down the road get involved if they witness underage drinking or something....my teacher clealry actively encouraged it by buying me a pint, lol.
reverse pschology achieving the same ends? I dont thing so. If i'd bee drinking on the streets with mate while bunking off ans rhe same person came over and wanted to tell me the rights and wrongs of my behaviour i know i'd surley have to him to f off and not had an ounce of respect for him at school after that.

Re: Always on duty?
 

I'd love to think i could buy one of the kids a pint if that happened but if it got back to the powers that be or the parents i'd probably get binned on the spot. So that was quite a risk he took!

Re: Always on duty?
 

Yc, you make me laugh, and i agree with every word. :)
For me, there's a number of places in the uk, let alone the world that i cannot go. Visiting such places, regardless of my actions is grounds for instant dismissal from my job! But thats down to knowing a financial system intimately.
As some on here know, if i come across an accident etc, i'll gladly help out where possible, and i'd hope others would do the same for me. Whatever their job.
But there is a line between genuinely helping someone, and interfering.

Re: Always on duty?
 

I have quite strong views on this and possibly not very popular ones.I believe that professional and contractual employment responsibilities belong firmly in the "on duty" period,and what anyone does outside this time is absolutely their business.Thus I would not condone the current situation where employers and professional bodies can attack and ruin people for what they do or dont do in their own time.Professional bodies should confine themselves to whether their registrants are competant at work,and employers should do the same.
History tends to show us that great people are often very flawed personalities,and sometimes downright unpleasant,but great at what they do nonetheless.Our current system of total control over every aspect of peoples lives favours the ordinary and mediocre,and edits out real talent and ability.
Having said that,I would hope most people would stop and help their fellow humans where they could,and I would be first to denounce those who didnt as thoroughly unpleasant,but its got nothing to do with their employment status or professional competance.