Make the right to disconnect workable

Imagine a teacher sitting down to dinner with their family. A parent’s message arrives: a question about tomorrow’s homework. Answering takes only a moment, and not answering risks seeming uncaring. The teacher replies, another question follows, and the school day quietly resumes.

Taiwan’s discussion of teachers’ right to disconnect asks whether professional commitment should be measured by constant availability.

In “Protecting teachers, improving education” (Oct. 3, page 8), teacher Lee Chi-fu (李基福) welcomed efforts to protect educators from after-hours demands. His argument invites a wider discussion about how schools should organize care, responsibility and trust.

Teaching depends on relationships. Families need confidence that teachers understand their children. Teachers need confidence that parents and administrators respect their professional judgement.

Expecting instant access can distort these relationships. Teachers become service providers whose commitment is judged by response time, while parents become customers monitoring performance.

Japan offers a useful comparison. Japan’s education ministry reported that 7,087 public-school educational personnel, including teachers and principals, were on formal sick leave for mental illness in 2024. The figure does not show that parental communication caused their difficulties. However, it does underscore the importance of examining how educational responsibilities accumulate.

Some Japanese local education authorities have introduced automated telephone responses outside designated school hours. Closing a telephone line achieves little if teachers still feel obliged to monitor personal messages.

The deeper issue is control over time. A message takes seconds to send, but its recipient must decide whether to interrupt dinner, postpone rest or risk appearing indifferent. The sender’s convenience can become the recipient’s obligation. Without clear rules, teachers must repeatedly defend boundaries that their institutions should establish.

A formal right to disconnect means little if teachers fear that delayed replies would damage their evaluations or provoke complaints. That right needs administrative backing.

Parents also face constraints. Those working irregular hours might only be able to contact schools at night. Families dealing with bullying, disability-related needs or school refusal need support. Restricting communication without offering alternatives would merely shift the burden from teachers to families.

Community psychology offers a useful way to understand this dilemma: An interaction between a parent and a teacher is shaped by conditions beyond either person’s control. Staffing, school leadership, parents’ work schedules and the availability of support services all matter.

The goal should be to distribute responsibility fairly.

First, schools should establish predictable response periods. Being able to send a message is not the same as being entitled to an immediate answer.

Second, schools should identify clear routes for urgent concerns. Those routes need adequate resources.

Third, teachers, parents and, where appropriate, students should help develop communication rules. Accessible complaint procedures must remain available, so that boundaries do not become barriers to accountability.

For Taiwan, the task is to make the right to disconnect workable. Parents should know when to expect a reply and where to turn for urgent help. Teachers should know that following agreed communication rules would not count against them.

Toshiaki Sasao is professor emeritus of psychology and education at International Christian University in Tokyo and a community psychologist.