Learning Task 2: McKay et al. v Board of Govan School Unit No. 29 et al.

Hannah C. Jagorinec, Evan M. Kung, and Jacob J. MacNeil

Department of Education, University of Calgary

EDUC 525: Ethics and Law in Education

Dr. Astrid Kendrick and Dr. David Scott

October 12, 2023

students who volunteered to put on a gymnastics display under the supervision of teacher Donald

Molesky. After McKay sustained serious injuries when he fell between parallel bars while

practicing for the gymnastics display which was to be staged at the high school. The fall left

McKay with paraplegia, resulting in a long period of hospitalization, and at the time of the case

was paralyzed from the neck down. The action was brought forth against the respondent school

board and the supervision teacher, Donald Molesky. The action against Molesky was dismissed

and after a long trial, the jury found the defendant school board failed in its duty of care to the

plaintiff and that such failure resulted in the injuries sustained. The jury assessed the damages to

the infant plaintiff at $183,900, calculated at $500 a month for 53 years plus a substantial sum for

additional damages.

Stakeholder Perspectives: The teacher was the one to teach the students what to do and how to

do it safely, as they were the ones in charge of the safety precautions (Gangireddy et al., 2021).

They were supposed to be an expert on the equipment and how to perform the exercises and

movements on this equipment. The teacher felt as though they were preparing the students for

their performance and were competent at teaching the skills required. The principal allowed the

teacher to continue with no formal coaching license in gymnastics. The principal had felt as

though they had hired a competent teacher and instructor for the students. The parents and

community members felt as though the teacher was not a competent instructor as a child had

gotten majorly hurt and had injuries that would last the rest of the child’s life. The students

probably felt unsafe while under the instruction of the teacher as they had heard about or had

witnessed the accident. The school board was probably not aware of the risk or had not heard any
previous concerns about gymnastics or the lack of knowledge from the physical education

teacher.

Identifying Areas of Conflict: The legal action taken against Molesky was dismissed

considering the regulations outlined in section 225a (added in 1961, chapter 29) of The School

Act of Saskatchewan (currently R.S.S. 1965, chapter 184, section 242). This section stipulates

that if the school principal approves activities like the ones in question, the teacher overseeing

the students' actions is not responsible for injuries. When considering this through the lens of

ethical frameworks in teaching education (Mathur & Corley, 2014) there is a distinct lack of the

dimensions of care and profession. While a lack of profession comes from not only the school

boards lack of regulations on what actions were performed, but also the professional

incompetence demonstrated by Molesky who allowed the activity despite lack of competent

instruction on parallel bars, insufficient care and attention to spotting, insufficient demonstration

of activity, rushed progressive learning steps, lack of qualifications, and insufficient safety

procedures (Posner, 2000).

Your Role as a Teacher:

As teachers we would wish to have respect and autonomy for the choices we make in our

classrooms as professionals but realize that to have this we must act responsibly and with a high

degree of integrity in our pedagogical practice. We would like to teach without fear of liability if

the necessary precautions for our students are taken. We would seek out feedback from

colleagues, supervisors, and students to inform our practice and integrate these voices with our

program specific professional learning to maximize a safe and clear learning environment (Van

der Smissen, 1968). If our colleague’s or our own teaching does not reflect safe practices, we
would expect the board and legal system to hold us accountable for these actions in a fair

manner.

External References:

Gangireddy, V. G. R., & Talla, S. (2021). Sports-related Injuries in Schools: 606. Medicine and

Science in Sports and Exercise, 53(8S), 203–203.

https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000761424.22780.83

Posner, M. (2000). Preventing school injuries: a comprehensive guide for school administrators,

teachers, and staff. Rutgers University Press.

Van der Smissen, B. (1968). Legal liability of cities and schools for injuries in recreation and

parks, including those in operation of physical education and athletic programs. W. H.

Anderson.
Questions for Discussion (Part II):

The questions we posed to our group are as follows: 1) Considering the action against Molesky

was dismissed, as a teacher colleague at this school, would you be wary of cases of negligence or

professional incompetence to occur again? Or, if you were a parent with a child attending this

school? 2) How and why might the ethical framework of profession have been used to influence

the standard of care given within this case? What about the critique framework? 3) As an

educator, what steps should you take to ensure you provide students with the proper standard of

care and avoid negligence?

Synthesis:

In response to our first question one group member commented on how the teacher being

ruled not liable might provide some comfort to a parent or colleague, but they would be

extremely cautious about the teacher’s future practices. This led to the question of whether a

teacher should hold some accountability for their decision to let the student participate in such a

dangerous stunt and if the principal's awareness of the event is enough of a precaution as the

physical education teacher should theoretically know more about this situation’s specific safety

measures. This brought up the issue of teaching as a profession. One member spoke about how

the teacher was given autonomy in choosing the activities based on the assumption of their

professional expertise. It was mentioned how an incident like this might be damaging to the view

of teaching as a profession and we must act in a way that shows how the autonomy in our

classrooms is justified based on intelligent and responsible decisions.

In response to our second question, several of our group participants brought to the light

the implications of practicing teaching through a professional ethical framework. The agreement

amongst the group was that serving the interest of the student as well as promoting professional
standards were not upheld by the defendant. Through continuing to teach gymnastics without

proper training, Molesky did not uphold the duty of keeping professional standards in mind

throughout his teaching. Another concern raised throughout this discussion was that of the effects

of the situation if Molesky held a critique ethical framework within his practice. Challenging

social discourse in order to confront moral issues is a key frame of the critique framework. Our

participants discussed the implications of the case if Molesky had challenged the overarching

system of allowing himself to facilitate an extra-curricular gymnastics performance without the

proper certifications or safety procedures in place. Challenging the regulations that were in place

at the time by the school board and viewing the situation with a practical lens may have

highlighted issues within the system that were highlighted after the incident in question.

After posing our third question our group took turns addressing what they felt was a key

element of avoiding these issues. One member mentioned how we hold a great responsibility to

know our areas of practice intimately and how important supervision is in the role of safety. It

was mentioned how one needs to be present and mindful when watching the students as they are

fully in your care during your class (Van der Smissen, 1968). Another insightful contribution

made by our group was how we need to be honest and transparent in our knowledge even within

our subject of teaching and how just because you are a physical educator, it does not mean you

are qualified or up to date in every kind of safety procedure for every physical activity (Van der

Smissen, 1968). It was mentioned how regardless of their teaching subject, an educator must be

proactive and efficient in risk management and assessing the possibilities of what may happen

with knowledge of the activity, environment, and expected student behaviour.

Despite being liable for injury or not, teachers must care for their students not only in the

way a parent does for their child, but also make appropriate knowledgeable decisions as a hired

professional.

Continuing education and awareness of a gap in knowledge is necessary to stay up to date

and within your scope of expertise as a professional educator.