The Role of Moral Injustice in Teacher Burnout

What is "moral injustice"? Originally coined to describe the dissonance that occurs when soldiers are forced to kill fellow human beings in war, the term is now more generally employed to describe, among other things, any situation in which one's job requires engaging in activities that contradict one's moral code.  

Being consistently expected to engage in activities that conflict with one's moral code can lead to feelings of anxiety, shame, guilt, alienation, frustration, and betrayal - circumstances that can significantly contribute to employee burnout.

We all know that teachers are resigning in droves, but why? A large part of the problem, I believe, is that teachers are increasingly being required to engage in activities that conflict with their sense of right and wrong.  As a society we have become adept at "gaslighting" teachers into believing that many of the expectations listed below are justified (or at least "a necessary cost of doing business"), but this hasn't extinguished the deep sense of "ick" (a highly non-scientific word meant to represent everything between from distaste to revulsion) that teachers experience when practices such as the ones described below are forced upon them: 

1. Being forced to inflate the grades of students so that they no longer bear any relation to actual student learning. (Some reasons teachers are increasingly being pressured to inflate grades: to protect the accreditation of failing schools or school systems; to justify decisions to promote students rather than fund expensive remediation classes; to conceal the extent of learning loss during Covid; to mask achievement gaps related to at-risk populations ....)
2. Being discouraged from documenting student misbehaviour (fights, theft, threats, vandalism, bullying) lest the school's safety rating, reputation, or accreditation be negatively impacted.
3. Promoting students who have not mastered grade level content - a practice justified by the belief that the practice of holding students back causes lasting social-emotional harm, notwithstanding the social-emotional harm caused by dooming these students to academic failure for the remainder of their academic career.
4. Allowing students who have been failing all year to participate in “grade recovery” activities that merely stuff them with enough short-term learning to pass gateway test but do not in any way compensate for actual learning loss.
5. Being expected to accommodate the needs of disruptive students at the cost of the slighting the academic rights and needs of the other students in the class. 
6. Being required to adhere to curricula that omit certain important topics due to political constraints.
7. Being falsely accused by society of engaging in politically inflammatory practices (indoctrinating students, teaching critical race theory). (Seriously, if teachers could indoctrinate students, they'd all be showering regularly and doing their homework.) 
8. Bearing the entire blame when students are disengaged, disruptive, or unsuccessful. Not sure why society seems intent on shifting the blame for student misbehaviour away from parents and onto teachers ("You must not have done enough to build a relationship with the student"), but that's what's happening. 
9. Basing teacher evaluations on factors that teachers cannot control, such as student academic growth (impacted by family engagement, absences, psychological trauma, poverty), observations conducted too sporadically to be valid, measures of student/parent "satisfaction" (hugely subjective).
10. Requiring teachers to teach content areas in which they have insufficient expertise, to include the practice of requiring untrained AIs, interns, and staff to fill in gaps left by teacher shortages - rapidly becoming an established practice in many districts.
11. Ignoring the social-emotional needs of advanced students by depriving them of intellectual challenge - typically justified by an imperfect understanding of the difference between "equality" (everyone gets the same thing) and "equity" (everyone gets what they need).   
12. Forcing level 1-2 ELL students to participate in classes far above their comprehension level.
13. Forcing ELL and intellectually disabled students to participate in wildly inappropriate testing.
14. Requiring teachers to restrict their lessons to standards that have not been updated to reflect new discoveries, changing perspectives, or evolving needs. (We're still teaching kids how to use a lathe but not how their cellphones work?)
15. Being required to teach using methods known to be ineffective. (Ex: strategies lacking scientific/statistical validity, strategies based on debunked theories.)
16. Requiring that teachers make and implement decisions based on data known to be invalid. (Ex: poorly crafted assessments that (1) don't align with standards or (2) measure factors like cultural literacy or reading level that have nothing to do with content knowledge).
17. Seeing their lived realities. (Ex: persistent unrealistic expectations, stress) negated/gaslighted by admins and society.
18. Being forced to stomach “the parent/student is always right” policies that place unreasonable burdens on teachers. (Ex: "The student's been on vacation for 3wks; we'll need to catch them up"; "My son can't be bothered to write down due dates so please email us every time something is due.")
19. The expectation that placing teacher lives in peril (moldy classrooms, violent students, school shootings, pandemics) is justified. 
20. The expectation that teachers pay for required materials out of their own pockets. (A recent example: schools that refuse to buy copier paper because students have laptops.)  
21. Being expected to prioritize the needs of the school over the needs of teachers and their families. (Ex: unreasonable limitations on the use of personal leave).
22. Being expected by society to work for less than their expertise is worth because “it’s about the outcomes, not the income." (See 'gaslighting.')

10+ Common Recycling Myths and Mistakes

 

So much misinformation out there about recycling! I'm an environmental science teacher, and even I discovered, after doing some more in-depth research, that I was harboring some misapprehensions. 

Why are we so ineffective at communicating recycling do's and don'ts? Feel like part of the reason is that we often don't explain the WHY behind these imperatives. People are much more likely to follow rules when they understand the reason for them, or the consequences likely to ensue if the rules aren't followed. 

To that end, the following list contains not just recycling recommendations, but explains the reasoning behind each recommendation. Unlike other posts on this site, I encourage folks to borrow and repost this info at will, because when everyone recycles responsibly, we all win!  

1. MYTH: Filmy plastics (shopping bags, newspaper bags, ziploc bags) can be recycled like other plastics. REALITY: False! These thin plastics get tangled in the sorting machines or accidentally end up in bales of separated paper.  If just 0.5% of a bale is contaminated with other materials, it can't be sold to reuse companies. There *are* processes for recycling filmy plastics, but specialty companies handle these types of materials - which is why you'll find some grocery stores collecting these types of plastics separately.
2. MYTH: Envelopes/boxes with film windows aren't recyclable. REALITY: False! I know I just said that filmy plastics shouldn't be placed in recycling, but the small pieces of film employed in envelopes and pasta boxes generally aren't big enough to cause issues with the machinery. If you can remove the windows, do - but don't let this stop you from recycling paper products that are almost all paper.
3. MYTH: You don't need to remove food remains/stains from recyclables. REALITY: False! The recycling process isn't designed to remove organic compounds. Food/oil stains can degrade materials, introduce bacteria, create sticky surfaces that interfere with sorting, and attract bugs/pests. While a few small stains may not be a deal-breaker, plastic or glass products should be well rinsed before they are recycled, and paper products that are stained with food shouldn't be recycled at all, but composted. 
4. MYTH: Rinsing out recyclables wastes so much water, it's not worth it. REALITY: False! Most people who ask this question are only considering the water required to remove food stains from their recyclables, overlooking the enormous amounts of water (and other resources) required to transform virgin materials into packaging.  Even factoring in rinsing, the process of recycling consumes much less water than manufacturing from scratch. 
5. MYTH: Recycling uses more energy/resources than it saves. REALITY: False! The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that recycling always has its environmental benefits, whether we’re talking about saving water, energy, resources, or money.
6. MYTH: A recycling symbol on a plastic product means that the product *is* recyclable. REALITY: False! There are over 9 different resins that can be transformed into plastic: polyethylene, polyvinyl, polypropylene, polystyrene .... Some of these resins are recyclable, some aren't. The number inside the recycling symbol is the important thing, as this identifies the specific resin used. Check with your local recycling provider to confirm which types of plastic resin they can/can't process, as this can vary among providers. One of the reasons our country struggles to keep up with plastic recycling is that so much of the incoming plastic debris is contaminated with non-recycleables that require time and money to remove  - enough time and money to make plastics recycling so unprofitable, potential providers get scared away.
7. MYTH: Coated food boxes are recyclable. (They're made of paper, right?) REALITY: Depends! Those "waxy" coatings - used to strengthen the packages or render them moisture-resistant - are made of plastic and, as discussed above, not all plastic resins are recyclable. The good news: food containers are usually coated with polyethylene, a plastic that is recyclable. The bad news: that doesn't mean that all suppliers have the facilities to handle polyethylene-coated paper. For one thing, the plastic coating has to be stripped off the paperboard it is affixed to, which some recycling facilities aren't equipped to do. You'll need to check with your local recycling supplier to see if coated food containers are allowed. 
8. MYTH: Water bottles are recyclable, but not the caps. MYTH: False! While it's true that bottles and bottlecaps are often manufactured from different resins, water companies generally ensure that both are made of plastics that are recyclable. (In fact, the resin used to create the bottle caps is even more desirable for recycling than the resin used to create the bottles.) However, please don't remove the tops before you toss them in the bin, and don't flatten the bottles themselves. 3D bottles are easier for mechanical sorting machines to recognize and successfully sort. 
9. MYTH: Store receipts are recyclable. (They're made of paper, right?) REALITY: False! The vast majority of store receipts are made of thermal paper (thermal paper feels like thin film rather than notebook paper), which contains chemicals called BPA and BPS, both of which have been linked to health issues in humans. (They throw human endocrine system/hormones out of whack.) Moreover, these chemicals easily transfer from the paper to anything that the paper touches. The best way to ensure BPAs don't transfer to recycled products - especially recycled products used to store food? Throw ALL your store receipts in the trash, not the recycling bin! 
10. MYTH: All glass is recyclable. REALITY: It's complicated. Pretty much all glass can be recycled, but different types of glass have different melting points. That's why most residential recycling company accept ONLY container glass. You absolutely should recycle windows, mirrors, etc., but you'll probably have to drop those items off at a municipal recycling center. Depending on your local provider, you may also be required to sort your glass by color. Why? This allows recyclers to more efficiently control the color of recycled glass products they produce. 
11. MYTH: Broken glass is recyclable. REALITY: It's complicated. Glass is, of course, recyclable, but broken glass poses so many dangers, most recycling companies refuse to accept it. Broken glass can slash the people who sort the recyclables and damage the machines that process them. Moreover, broken glass can be harder melt and reforge into new products. Some recycling companies will accept shards as long as they are large enough (ex: over 3"), but be sure to check with your local provider rather than make assumptions. And definitely DO NOT wrap your broken glass in newspaper or a cardboard box, hoping that the recycling company "won't notice"! 
12. MYTH: Materials can only be recycled once. REALITY: It's complicated. Some materials (plastics in particular) do lose quality over time, and often plastics are "downcycled" into items like clothes or lumber, substances that can't be further recycled. But other materials - glass, aluminum, paper - can be recycled multiple times. In other words, *do* continue to toss those goods labelled "made of recycled materials" in the recycling bin
13. MYTH: Some companies will recycle textiles (clothes, sheets, blankets, fabrics, etc.). REALITY: It's complicated. In general, it's not worth the effort to recycle textiles. Why? Textiles, like plastics, are fashioned from a variety of materials, some of which are recyclable (wood, cotton), some not (spandex, rhinestones). The effort of identifying the textiles used, separating the items by textile, and removing/sorting trim is so labor-intensive, few companies are interested in taking this on.  However, textiles are imminently reusable: just drop them off at a local thrift store! Every item you donate may prevent the need to manufacture a comparable item from scratch.