A ruling found that a current high school teacher's insulting remarks to an elementary school homeroom teacher for the teacher's child—such as "Build your character first, junior," and "Kids these days have no manners"—constituted an infringement of teachers' rights. The high school teacher must complete special training to prevent infringement of teachers' rights.
The 12th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) said on the 22nd that it dismissed a lawsuit filed by a person surnamed A on Dec. 4 last year seeking to overturn a Teachers' Rights Protection Committee disposition issued by the head of the Northern Seoul Office of Education.
A was found to have called B, the child's homeroom teacher, dissatisfied with the child's performance assessment results, and said, "Reflect," and "You need to be disciplined." Citing being an incumbent teacher and older, A also said in effect, "Elementary school teachers just slack off at school; it's obvious." B reported the incident to the office of education as an act infringing on educational activities.
In Oct. 2024, the office of education determined that A's conduct constituted an infringement of educational activities under the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status and the Protection of Their Educational Activities (Teachers' Status Act). Accordingly, A was notified to complete 12 hours of special training at an institution designated by the Seoul superintendent of education.
A filed an administrative suit in objection. A argued that while some inappropriate expressions were used, the call occurred only once and thus could not be considered a repeated infringement. A also said voices were raised because of B's provocative remarks and noted that a medical leave was taken after the incident due to bipolar disorder, which should be taken into account.
The court did not accept A's claims. The court said, "Parents or other guardians may offer opinions on their child's education, but the manner must not infringe on teachers' educational activities."
According to the court, after visiting the school and consulting with the principal, A confronted B, saying, "Wasn't that wrong?" and shouted, "Can a teacher do that?" while protesting for about an hour. A denied this, but the court recognized the facts, noting that witness accounts and the principal's statement were consistent.
The court said, "The plaintiff still does not acknowledge the conduct and continues to blame the victim teacher, showing no remorse," adding, "It also considered that the victim teacher was reported for child abuse and the homeroom teacher was replaced."
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding it difficult to view the office of education's disposition—ordering A to complete 12 hours of special training—as a deviation or abuse of discretion.