Couple of weeks after we married at the beginning of May 1997, Lech received information from his PhD advisor about a postdoc position at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. It was surprising news, since Lech was not applying for jobs abroad at the time. We did not plan to leave the country. Our intention was to live and work in Poland.
After some consideration, we decided to go . The offer from Atlanta was for a one-year stay.
Małgorzata informed immediately the school director Anna Schmidt and asked her for one year unpaid leave during the school year 1997-98. Director did not respond to this request, although she had a statutory duty to provide an answer. She suggested instead a consultation with a lawyer associated with the Association of Polish Teachers (Związek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego).
Assuming the school director did not know how to respond to the request of an unpaid leave at that moment, she should have read appropriate regulations, consult with a lawyer, and give Małgorzata an answer. Director’s behavior indicates, that lack of clear response was not caused by insufficient legal knowledge, but was rather dictated by the logic of provocation.
Małgorzata followed director’s suggestion and made an appointment with the ZNP lawyer. She briefly explained to him the cause of the visit and presented her professional background. However, instead of providing a solid legal advice the lawyer told her “these kinds of journey may have unexpected endings”. This was a wholly unclear and imprecise statement. The lawyer did not specify, what dark forces would be interested in removing from her job a dedicated and already noticeably successful piano teacher. The aim of lawyer’s remark was to sow anxiety. Finally, he said that Małgorzata’s continued employment after return from USA is dependent upon obtaining the status of an appointed teacher before leaving Poland.
Several days later director informed Małgorzata verbally about the date of an appointed teacher examination. She did not say, however, how would examination be structured and how should one prepare for it. She ordered only to prepare a lesson with one of the students. Małgorzata learned that the examination committee will consist of three persons: school director, Ministry of Culture inspector Krystyna Karcz, and a female employee of the Academy of Music in Poznań. It turned out during the examination itself that it would have two parts: practical and theoretical. During the practical part Małgorzata conducted a sample lesson with her secondary-level student K. K. They worked i.a. on Alexander Scriabin’s Preludes. Afterwards, Małgorzata was answering committee members’ questions. With the exception of the Ministry of Culture inspector, they were delighted with her knowledge, professional pianist skill, as well as her teaching method.
According to the Teacher’s Charter from 1982, the transition to the status of an appointed teacher should occur in one of two ways:
(1) After two years from the beginning of employment in the school, if teacher’s performance has been carried out and the result has been positive,
(2) After three years from the beginning of employment in the school automatically, if teacher’s performance evaluation has not been carried out.
Małgorzata Głuchowska began working as the teacher of piano in the State School of Music in Zielona Góra on 1 September 1991. Hence, the transition to the appointed teacher status should have occurred automatically on 1 September 1994. Both the “examination” conducted by the committee and the school director’s letter from 1997 violated the law.
The school director Anna Schmidt, regional inspector of the Ministry of Culture Krystyna Karcz, the lawyer of the Association of Polish Teachers (Związek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego), and the visitor from the Academy of Music in Poznań participated knowingly in this provocation.
Simultaneously, a provocation against Lech was carried out at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań in Summer 1997.
6 November 2018