Arguments against forcing yard supervision include:
* Job description: Substitute teachers are primarily hired to teach, not supervise playgrounds. Forcing them to do so is outside their contracted role and could be considered an unreasonable expansion of duties.
* Safety concerns: Substitutes may lack the training and experience to handle playground incidents effectively, potentially jeopardizing student safety. Regular staff often have established relationships with students and are better equipped to manage potential conflicts.
* Liability: Schools could face increased liability if a substitute teacher is injured while supervising the yard, or if an incident occurs under their watch due to a lack of training or experience.
* Morale: Forcing additional duties on already stressed substitutes could lower morale and make it harder to attract qualified candidates.
Arguments for including yard supervision:
* Staffing shortages: Schools often struggle to find enough staff for all roles, and requiring substitutes to assist with yard duty could help address immediate staffing needs.
* Consistent supervision: Having consistent supervision during breaks is important for student safety and discipline. Requiring substitutes to participate could ensure this.
* Part of the overall school environment: Yard supervision is a crucial part of the school day and contributes to the overall learning environment; requiring substitutes to participate helps them better understand the school's culture.
Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to require yard supervision from substitute teachers should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the specific school's needs, the availability of other staff, and the training and experience of the substitute teacher. Clear communication and a well-defined scope of duties are crucial to ensure fairness and safety. Furthermore, appropriate compensation for additional duties should be considered.