End confidentiality agreements. Three different schools. Three countries and three different cultures. Three different confidentiality agreements. They had one thing in common: to hide unacceptable (and even immoral) behavior and make it disappear. But none of them did. In any case, someone in the community who knew what was going on decided to tell someone (usually on social media). This made life even more difficult for the school community when people discovered that the school had taken steps to hide behaviours they knew were wrong. The people who approved these agreements wanted to protect the reputation of their school and sincerely believed that they would do the right thing for their community. But in any case, the story went back to them, knowing that the school had taken steps to hide them.
And what happened to the people whose behaviour was involved? Everyone came to find a job at another school. The application of confidentiality agreements in such situations is legal, but unethical. Our experience shows that behavioural deficiencies and border crossing points are often seen as “low-level concerns.” As a result, they are often not addressed, as not everyone can seem significant enough to take action. But when they`re all together, they become “something.” And while the accused are no longer the problem of their home school, they are probably repeating the same behaviour in their new schools, which may include a major border crossing with students. It is very likely that each person will continue to use their power and authority to unduly influence students and their families. Don`t these students and their families earn anymore? Don`t the principals of their new schools want to know exactly what they`re dealing with? Confidentiality agreements (or NDAs, as they are often called) may have a place in protecting the inventions and ideas of organizations, but they should never be used to hide behaviours that expose others, mentally or physically, to the risk of abuse and abuse.