Fired Teacher Hired - Unbelievable

[Michael Hardner]

I support his decision on this point rather than the man. I don't know whether he is a good person or a bad person but on this instance I support his decision. If he were a Holocaust denier and teaching that to his students, or chose to teach creationism exclusively I would most definitely oppose his views.

But you would support him teaching according to what he decided to teach right ? That would be the consistent viewpoint: that a teacher should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

At least that seems to be what people are saying.

Or, more accurately, teachers should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they agree with my politics.

[Signals.Cpl]

But you would support him teaching according to what he decided to teach right ?

I support the person based on the position that he takes, in this case few would argue that the teacher is right and the school board or the principle is wrong, he was willing to take a stand and risked his job in order to make a better tomorrow for the students. If people just go along with the situation and do not take a stand on important points than we would never improve.

That would be the consistent viewpoint: that a teacher should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

At least that seems to be what people are saying.

Or, more accurately, teachers should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they agree with my politics.

No, the point I am trying to make is that teachers should look out for the children in their care and fight for their wellbeing. In this case the school board is failing students who will enter the workforce in a few years and will be set up for failure right off the bat. Do you support people following orders from higher up when they know those orders are wrong? Is it your position that those who stood up in support of the Civil Rights movement were wrong and should have sat down and shut up and go along with the status quo?

He took a stand for what was right and suffered an unjust punishment for it but he still stood firm, maybe if more people had tried that in Germany during World War 2 the atrocities would have been lessened.

[Michael Hardner]

No, the point I am trying to make is that teachers should look out for the children in their care and fight for their wellbeing.

So when teachers fight for smaller class sizes, you support them...

It's not his call to decide the administration of education.

Is it your position that those who stood up in support of the Civil Rights movement were wrong and should have sat down and shut up and go along with the status quo?

Nothing like a little hyperbole... otherwise we might forget we're on the internet, I suppose.

He took a stand for what was right and suffered an unjust punishment for it but he still stood firm, maybe if more people had tried that in Germany during World War 2 the atrocities would have been lessened.

Even better.

My point is that you're "supporting him" (whatever that means) to decide these things on his own. But you wouldn't support him if he wanted to teach AGAINST your politics. And if he got fired, you'd probably think it was a good thing.

[GostHacked]

It's unprincipled. If you support somebody who refuses to do their job just because they agree with you, it's not a principled stance. There are matters of conscience and matters that require you do what you're paid to do. This isn't a matter of conscience.

I would argue that it should be a matter of conscience. I have to deal with that often in my job. Doing what is right, may not be popular or within the rules. But sometimes you just got to stand up to the plate and dig your heels in to stand up for something you believe is right.

I support this teacher with giving out zeros. I got a few in school and I deserved every single one of them. Also I had to learn from those mistakes, and I like to think I have.

I fully giving zeros when deserved, and I also support holding kids back a grade when it is warranted. Policies like no child left behind (not sure about how it plays out in canada) but... passing kids when its not deserved also sets them up for huge failures and huge disappointments later in life. This is part of the problem we see with young people and the sense of entitlement. Everything was simply given to them through school, why should they put any effort into anything else .. like a job or career?

[Michael Hardner]

I would argue that it should be a matter of conscience. I have to deal with that often in my job. Doing what is right, may not be popular or within the rules. But sometimes you just got to stand up to the plate and dig your heels in to stand up for something you believe is right.

...and get fired...

I support firing people who don't do their jobs.

[socialist]

Well, I would!

What I find pertinent is that obviously, parents have no input into public schools today, at least not in this one with the policy of no zeroes. They pay their taxes and essentially must keep quiet. To get a decision like that made by this principal overturned would require herculean efforts and bags of time, both things that working parents usually don't possess.

No, the only choice they have is to abandon the public system in favour of a private school. The school that hired Mr. Dorval survives directly on the choice of the parents of its students to pay their money. If they don't like a teacher giving zeroes they won't cut a cheque for the tuition.

As a populist, I applaud their hiring of Mr. Dorval! I would be even more in favour of some kind of voucher system, so that parents who disagree with a no zero policy could directly pull their financial support.

why should parents have more input in public schools? what a ridiculous statement. parents aren't trained educators. the voucher garbage idea would cause inequalities, i guess that is what you neo cons are all about bill. dorval went against his boss and got fired. the few people in the public who support him are clueless. i'm tired of hearing that this won't prepare them for the real world. what an overused cliche. public schools do a much better job of educating learners today than ever before. everyone has a fair chance now. not just the privileged. too bad most of you dont have a clue on the subject and come on here ranting like loons. like public educating for the experts and keep your ill-conceived rants for tea bagger get togethers.

[Wild Bill]

why should parents have more input in public schools? what a ridiculous statement. parents aren't trained educators. the voucher garbage idea would cause inequalities, i guess that is what you neo cons are all about bill. dorval went against his boss and got fired. the few people in the public who support him are clueless. i'm tired of hearing that this won't prepare them for the real world. what an overused cliche. public schools do a much better job of educating learners today than ever before. everyone has a fair chance now. not just the privileged. too bad most of you dont have a clue on the subject and come on here ranting like loons. like public educating for the experts and keep your ill-conceived rants for tea bagger get togethers.

I looked up "elitist" in the dictionary. Amazing likeness!

Man, if you carry on like this when and if you become a full time teacher, I will expect we shall see lines of parents carrying pitchforks and lit torches storming your school.

[socialist]

I looked up "elitist" in the dictionary. Amazing likeness!

Man, if you carry on like this when and if you become a full time teacher, I will expect we shall see lines of parents carrying pitchforks and lit torches storming your school.

what do most parents know about education? answer=very little. I'm not concerned.

[GostHacked]

...and get fired...

I support firing people who don't do their jobs.

Good idea, let's start with the government.

[GostHacked]

what do most parents know about education? answer=very little. I'm not concerned.

Parents are educators for life. My parents can still teach me a thing or two. Not everything is learned in the classroom.

[madmax]

Parents are educators for life. My parents can still teach me a thing or two. Not everything is learned in the classroom.

The older I got, the smarter my dad got

[GostHacked]

The older I got, the smarter my dad got

Even grandparents that have passed on years ago are still teaching me lessons.

[Bonam]

So, they're not defending his actions... they just like the guy's point of view.

If they had principles, they would say "well, yes, I agree with him but he didn't follow process so he should be let go"

And why would they say that? Perhaps some people consider principles more important than process? If someone bends the rules in order to do what is right, I say props to them.

[Michael Hardner]

And why would they say that? Perhaps some people consider principles more important than process? If someone bends the rules in order to do what is right, I say props to them.

But as I pointed out, they wouldn't defend him if they didn't agree with the message now would they ? How principled is that ?

[Bonam]

But you would support him teaching according to what he decided to teach right ? That would be the consistent viewpoint: that a teacher should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

At least that seems to be what people are saying.

Or, more accurately, teachers should be able to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they agree with my politics.

No there is no expectation that teachers should be "able to do whatever the hell they want". Of course we understand that a person that does not do what their employer requires of them may get fired. But not doing what your employer tells you may be seen by others as a good thing. There are higher principles and lower ones. The condemnation one may deserve for not following a contract or rule one agreed to follow may be small in comparison to the praise one may deserve for standing against something that is wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

No there is no expectation that teachers should be "able to do whatever the hell they want". Of course we understand that a person that does not do what their employer requires of them may get fired. But not doing what your employer tells you may be seen by others as a good thing. There are higher principles and lower ones. The condemnation one may deserve for not following a contract or rule one agreed to follow may be small in comparison to the praise one may deserve for standing against something that is wrong.

Right, but ... again ... and I'm restating this ... it seems to only apply to people who take a stand for principles that these posters AGREE with.

If we were talking about a conscientious objector who taught Global Warming against regulations they wouldn't be so supportive of his actions, would they ?

[Bonam]

But as I pointed out, they wouldn't defend him if they didn't agree with the message now would they ? How principled is that ?

The principle is in the message, it depends on the circumstances, on the validity of the action as determined by the observer. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you seem to be implying that it is never principled to support/defend someone who disobeys their superior or breaks a rule imposed on them. Have I misunderstood you?

If that is your stance, then I would certainly disagree. There are times when the world has been saved by someone not following orders.

[Michael Hardner]

The principle is in the message, it depends on the circumstances, on the validity of the action as determined by the observer. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you seem to be implying that it is never principled to support/defend someone who disobeys their superior or breaks a rule imposed on them. Have I misunderstood you?

No... I think it's fine for an act of conscience and I would support one. But this isn't that. And the definition of an act of conscience shouldn't be "an act by someone who agrees with my politics".

If that is your stance, then I would certainly disagree. There are times when the world has been saved by someone not following orders.

It's the vanity of political clothing rearing its head again. People who are anti-teacher, anti-educator, or people like Wild Bill who think that popular notions should trump well-researched educational politics... they are taking this as an act of conscience... but it's really just an act of defiance by someone they consider a compatriot.

Political vanity.

[Bonam]

No... I think it's fine for an act of conscience and I would support one. But this isn't that.

And how have you determined that it was not an act of conscience? That sounds like nothing more than your personal opinion. I would suggest that if, for example, I were a teacher, and was told to teach in such a way that I firmly believed would be a detriment rather than a benefit to my students, I may well disobey and choose to live with the consequences, such as being fired. And that would certainly be an act of conscience.

[Michael Hardner]

And how have you determined that it was not an act of conscience?

It's an administrative question. Now that I have answered that, will you answer my question ?

Do you think if he insisted on teaching "My Two Dads" or a book that promoted tolerance of homosexuals against school board rules, that these posters would support him ?

If he did that, I would think it was more a question of conscience. And I would support him being terminated for that too.

I'm pretty tired of people making easy choices like that.

That sounds like nothing more than your personal opinion.

Well, there is a point at which values aren't provable through logic. He may think that it's a better way to teach people but he doesn't have domain over that decision - it's a question of professional disagreement on policy.

I would suggest that if, for example, I were a teacher, and was told to teach in such a way that I firmly believed would be a detriment rather than a benefit to my students, I may well disobey and choose to live with the consequences, such as being fired. And that would certainly be an act of conscience.

You may think so... Maybe a chef being told to use cheap ingredients may quit because of "conscience", but I call it "professionalism". In any case, we're talking about semantics at this point.

[GostHacked]

It's an administrative question. Now that I have answered that, will you answer my question ?

Do you think if he insisted on teaching "My Two Dads" or a book that promoted tolerance of homosexuals against school board rules, that these posters would support him ?

Giving a student, aka 'learner' a zero for failing to complete said assignment is far different from a teacher teaching about 'My Two Dads'.

A teacher gets fired for giving students a zero. He violated policy and now gets the equivalent of said zero. Why could the administration not just give him a slap on the wrist?

Yep. I think you see it now.

[Bonam]

It's an administrative question. Now that I have answered that, will you answer my question ?

Do you think if he insisted on teaching "My Two Dads" or a book that promoted tolerance of homosexuals against school board rules, that these posters would support him ?

No, I would expect most of them would not. People judge morality based on their own views and understanding of the world. Morality is not dictated from above by governments or employers, but comes from within, from a person's own experiences and ideas. And that is as it should be.

If he did that, I would think it was more a question of conscience. And I would support him being terminated for that too.

And why would that be any more a question of conscience? Your evaluation seems arbitrary.

Well, there is a point at which values aren't provable through logic. He may think that it's a better way to teach people but he doesn't have domain over that decision - it's a question of professional disagreement on policy.

Values are almost never "provable" by logic. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion at hand. Values are subjective. And, even among people that hold similar sets of values, the relative importance they place on those values may differ.

I'm really no longer sure what your point is actually. I normally don't have any trouble following debates, even if I strongly disagree with the posters, but in this case you are losing me.

Perhaps your point is that disobedience of policy is only to be approved of if said disobedience is based on a "logically provable" set of values? I would kindly ask for an explanation of what precisely you mean by logically proving a value.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam

[TheNewTeddy]

Would those defending this teacher be as vocal if they didn't agree with his POV of assigning zeros ?

No.

And I'm aware of that.

And that's why I don't have much to say in these threads. If people were aware of their own biases more often there'd be less 'crap' to sort though.

[Michael Hardner]

No, I would expect most of them would not. People judge morality based on their own views and understanding of the world. Morality is not dictated from above by governments or employers, but comes from within, from a person's own experiences and ideas. And that is as it should be.

Exactly my point. They don't support acts of conscience, and so their positions are unprincipled. If you support a teacher's right to act out of conscience then you have to support that right in whatever context it's used.

I don't only support free speech I agree with, and that's where I seem to differ with many here.

[Signals.Cpl]

So when teachers fight for smaller class sizes, you support them...

It's not his call to decide the administration of education.

It is most definitely his job seeing as he is at the front end of education.

Nothing like a little hyperbole... otherwise we might forget we're on the internet, I suppose.

So you mean it is ok to stand up for something but not others? Should we take the status quo and never fight for what we believe in?

Even better.

My point is that you're "supporting him" (whatever that means) to decide these things on his own. But you wouldn't support him if he wanted to teach AGAINST your politics. And if he got fired, you'd probably think it was a good thing.

No I support his idea, in this case he is right in my eyes. I support the idea rather than the man behind the idea as has been mentioned earlier parents have little to no input in the larger school boards where the "professionals" who most likely have never been in the real world make decisions and force them down the chain.

Is your position that this man should have shut his mouth and gone along with the principle or the school board? Would you stand by and do nothing knowing that someone or some idea is doing great damage to an entire generation and do nothing?