Would Kansas school districts really fine teachers for trying to stay safe from COVID?

Should people actually be fined for not returning to work during the COVID-19 pandemic? Is that even possible?

Astoundingly, it’s indeed possible for teachers, and that’s the cruel bind some Kansas teachers face right now. Many school districts in the state have the authority to levy $1,000 or more in fines against teachers who refuse to return to in-person teaching if they didn’t notify the district before June. Despite the fact that coronavirus, and its inherent danger, has only spiked since then.

Let’s be clear about this: Fining someone for avoiding a public health hazard is wrong in every way.

In Johnson County, although the Shawnee Mission School District does have the authority to fine teachers who leave at this point, Linda Sieck, president of NEA Shawnee Mission, says that so far, the district board of education has waived the fines.

Meanwhile, Blue Valley Board of Education President Tom Mitchell said in an email that, “We don’t fine. It is not in our negotiated agreement like it is with some districts.” A district spokesperson added, “We anticipate being able to work directly with any teachers who desire not to return to the classroom this year to avoid any repercussions that exist in state statute.”

So, teachers in those big districts appear to be in the clear when it comes to being penalized for any COVID-19 fears they might have. The same may not be true elsewhere, though.

In Kansas City, Kansas schools, in fact, the district has the right to assess a penalty of up to $2,500 for a teacher leaving after Aug. 1. Director of Communications and Marketing Sharita Hutton told The Star, “At this time, KCKPS is not planning on implementing such fines, but all teachers have language in their contracts around resignations and cancellations of their contracts.”

Vulnerable instructors can file hardship

Teachers who have vulnerabilities to COVID-19 or live with someone who does can file for a hardship, she said, which would be evaluated for possible waiver of fines.

In the Turner school district, the fines rise to $1,500 after Aug. 1. Olathe doesn’t assess so-called “liquidated damages” against resigning teachers. But in Spring Hill, liquidated damages climb to a staggering $5,000 after Aug. 15.

Bonner Springs levies no fines, but getting out of a teaching contract there at this point requires an obstacle course that includes 30 days’ notice and the district finding a qualified replacement. It’s hard to see teacher replacements rushing in during a pandemic, though. The Bonner Springs rules do open the door to late-in-the game resignations under unusual or emergency circumstances.

In Bonner Springs and everywhere else, you would think a pandemic that shows few signs of ebbing certainly would fit the definition of unusual and emergency circumstances. The Kansas City area recorded 556 new cases just Wednesday, for a total of 24,000.

Yet in Wichita, the threat of fines of $1,000 to $5,000 appears to hang heavy over jittery teachers’ heads. The exception, a district spokesperson says, is that teachers who are eligible to retire may do so until Aug. 28 with only a $500 penalty. As for the rest, the Wichita district simply says it needs to know who’s available to teach and who’s not.

Certainly under normal conditions, even the Kansas National Education Association sees the reasoning behind such liquidated damage clauses, which discourage last-minute resignations that leave districts in the lurch. The problem is especially acute in rural districts, which may not be able to fill vacant positions as easily as their urban brethren. And fines are better than suspensions of teaching licenses, which state law also allows in cases of surprise resignations.

But come on. These are hardly normal conditions. Neither teachers, nor anyone else in any walk of life, should be penalized for focusing on their and their loved ones’ safety.

The right to protect one’s health?

“We don’t want anyone to be faced with the decision between their health and well-being and their livelihood,” says Marcus Baltzell, KNEA’s director of communications.

There are few easy calls in the COVID-19 era, most notably when and how to reopen schools, and what criteria should guide those decisions district by district. Spring Hill Board of Education member Ali Seeling rightly noted, in a passionate post on Facebook, all the societal and economic fallout for both businesses and families resulting from keeping schools closed.

So noted. But what about lost lives? What about one’s right to protect one’s health? And what would fining teachers for choosing to stay safe do to a profession that’s already facing a shortage of applicants?

“Penalizing teachers unnecessarily,” Baltzell says, “risks sending a message that would make it difficult to attract teachers at a time when shortages and a global pandemic already make it difficult for everyone.”

One certainty in all this uncertainty: Teachers shouldn’t have to risk their lives to reopen schools, nor should they be penalized financially for making their health a priority.