Fired Teacher Hired - Unbelievable

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

There is a certain difference between knowing that a no-zero policy is detrimental to the well being of your student and acting to end or at least limit that policy v. promoting your own agenda for no apparent benefit to your students. As GH posted earlier, it is hypocritical of the administration in that they are not punishing the students for not doing their job(the job of being a student) while at the same time punishing(giving a zero) the teacher.

[Michael Hardner]

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

News flash - when you take a job you don't get to decide what it is. It's decided by those paying

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?

1. Yes 2. No

In some cases, it should be " I don't like how they do things here, so I quit. " Don't be a diva.

I support the idea rather than the man behind the idea ...

That makes more sense to me. It's a question of how to execute policy for a public school board. If you were a parent or citizen of that board, you would hopefully have input into that - but not final say.

Is your position that this man should have shut his mouth and gone along with the principle or the school board?

No - he can do whatever he wants. If he's a dinosaur and won't teach unless he can give the kids a good whippin' from time to time then I guess it's time for him to go...

But there is no "right to teach what I want". If he doesn't do what he's told, they should terminate him. As for those here who support him on grounds of conscience: my point is that I suspect their positions are not principled, that they wouldn't support him if they didn't agree with his politics.

As such, their just cheerleaders for political vanity.

Would you stand by and do nothing knowing that someone or some idea is doing great damage to an entire generation and do nothing?

Good question. I don't know what I would do. As it is, I can't even imagine wanting to be a teacher so the question is doubly hypothetical.

[Michael Hardner]

There is a certain difference between knowing that a no-zero policy is detrimental to the well being of your student and acting to end or at least limit that policy v. promoting your own agenda for no apparent benefit to your students.

It doesn't matter. If the example of giving zeros, you've given the teacher authority over deciding what's right to teach. I'm sure in my example they would assert that they're teaching Global Warming, or whatever liberal cause for the good of humanity and for the students themselves.

As GH posted earlier, it is hypocritical of the administration in that they are not punishing the students for not doing their job(the job of being a student) while at the same time punishing(giving a zero) the teacher.

It's not hypocritical, as those are totally different situations: a grown adult doing a job, and a child who is being taught social and life skills.

[Wild Bill]

News flash - when you take a job you don't get to decide what it is. It's decided by those paying

Who are those who are paying, Michael? Is it not the parents?

Why should the principal be the one to decide a no zero policy? Should this not have been a board level decision? Perhaps even an election plank for school board trustees when running for the office?

[Michael Hardner]

Who are those who are paying, Michael? Is it not the parents?

Only indirectly. Education policy, medical policy, science policy should be decided by experts in consultation with the public.

This should be blatantly obvious, although politicians have found ways to exploit issues and gain cheap political points and gain attention by standing on their soap box for some issues.

Why should the principal be the one to decide a no zero policy?

Personally, I think it should be the province, or the school board at least.

Should this not have been a board level decision? Perhaps even an election plank for school board trustees when running for the office?

Not an election issue. You're asking too much to expect the voters to research the educational issues behind this.

[Guest American Woman]

We talk about educating our children, is teaching them that actions do not have consequences the right way to do it? Well i suppose someone has to fill the tents at occupy events or protest in the streets over tuition hikes.

This is a good OP on the subject from the Edmonton Journal: Gutsy teachers should be praised, not fired

Some excerpts (involving another teacher who gave/believes in giving zeros for work that was not done, too):

Last June, after being forced to use the No Zeros program for two months, Tachynski had only two students turn in work they had previously not done. Out of frustration, he went back to his old system, where students who fail to do their work get zero. That said, they can earn a mark if they eventually do the test or assignment. In the next three weeks, 45 of his students got to work. They did 164 different missed assignments and tests.

“The urgency was back immediately,” he says. “I’ve proven that zeros can work.”

It seems a number of kids - surprise, surprise! - refuse to do work if they aren't given a zero for it:

The “No Zeros” policy was first tested in Edmonton seven years ago at a high school where Tachynski taught science. Many teachers loathed it. Tachynski decided to transfer out. “Year after year, more teachers also left, frustrated with seeing kids refusing to work, believing they, as teachers, were no longer making a difference there, and feeling they could no longer continue to report ‘fudged marks.’ ”

And as you suggested, it's not doing them any favors (which one would think would be obvious):

Teachers know this system does a poor job preparing kids. “We’ve had kids coming back to see us, frustrated after dropping out of first year university/college or getting fired from their first real job, telling us that high school did not prepare them for life after Grade 12. The tearful visit I had from one of my former students last October still haunts me to this day.”

This final quote addressed the issue that MH brought up, and I agree with the author completely:

In writing on this subject, some people have wondered why I refer to the two teachers, Dorval and Tachynski, as heroes. After all, they’re clearly insubordinate, not following orders. But the best definition I’ve heard of a hero is someone who risks their own well-being for a higher purpose.

Apparently teachers are afraid to speak out against the no-zero policy out of fear of retribution. In the meantime, the kids are the biggest losers - as education is supposed to be all about doing what's best for kids and preparing them for the best possible future.

[Wild Bill]

Only indirectly. Education policy, medical policy, science policy should be decided by experts in consultation with the public.

This should be blatantly obvious, although politicians have found ways to exploit issues and gain cheap political points and gain attention by standing on their soap box for some issues.

Personally, I think it should be the province, or the school board at least.

Not an election issue. You're asking too much to expect the voters to research the educational issues behind this.

Bless you Michael! Once again, your elitism shines through. On this we must agree to disagree. I simply don't share your confidence in "experts".

[GostHacked]

This is a good OP on the subject from the Edmonton Journal

Teachers know this system does a poor job preparing kids. “We’ve had kids coming back to see us, frustrated after dropping out of first year university/college or getting fired from their first real job, telling us that high school did not prepare them for life after Grade 12. The tearful visit I had from one of my former students last October still haunts me to this day.”[/indent

Seems like the teachers know what is up. Two people in my family, one retired and one still working both agree that giving out zeros is the right thing to do when students fail to do the work that was assigned to them.

If you learn from your mistakes, then the zero helped correct that. If you never learn from your mistakes, then you will wonder why you keep getting zeros and constantly failing in life.

[Wild Bill]

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 ?

Michael, I think you need a coffee!

NO ONE is going to support conscientious objection carte blanche! ALWAYS people will first decide if they do or do not agree!

Suppose someone calls for adopting Sharia Law across all of Canada. They may be acting in good conscience. They may be sincere. They are NOT going to get widespread support!

Most people, outside of those idiots of the Occupy movement, do not support any and all conscientious objection when it has effects on themselves and their own. If a teacher defied his bosses and started to teach the pedophilia beliefs of NAMBLA, who call for adults having sex with children, would you expect parents to support him as a conscientious objector?

People support what they believe in. Conversely, they will not support something in which they do not believe.

That is just human nature.

[Michael Hardner]

Bless you Michael! Once again, your elitism shines through. On this we must agree to disagree. I simply don't share your confidence in "experts".

But yet you expect voters to research education papers to determine the best way to apply grades ?

That's a bizarre form of populism. You don't have to be elitist to recognize that there are limits (limits of time, of available information, and yes of ability) to what the citizen can do.

[Bonam]

Bless you Michael! Once again, your elitism shines through. On this we must agree to disagree. I simply don't share your confidence in "experts".

There are no experts when it comes to these fields. More specifically, what I mean is that so-called experts are worthless when it comes to the fields of social science and social policy. That is because these are fledgling fields, if they can even be called sciences. They are no more advanced than chemistry was back when alchemists were trying to transmute lead into gold and brew elixirs of immortality.

Now don't get me wrong, expert and scientific knowledge is of deep value in many fields, and is the driver of much innovation in our society as well as technological progress. But experts in social science do nothing more than apply a mangled empty shell of the scientific method to systems they do not understand with variables they do not control and pull out whatever conclusions their biases want them to find. I have never once read a study in the social sciences that wasn't so full of flagrant scientific flaws as to make its conclusions anything but wild biased guesses.

We should no more trust social "experts" and their conclusions than alchemists, astrologers, or witch doctors. Not because they aren't trying, but just because they really don't know, and don't have the tools to know, and likely won't have any useful actionable information for us for a long time to come.

So when Michael says science policy should be decided by experts, I agree, because most science policy relates to actual sciences, and years of knowledge and understanding of these subjects is highly beneficial. Policy regarding research in theoretical physics, for example, is not something the average voter would have much insight into. But when he says the same of education policy I disagree.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, I think you need a coffee!

NO ONE is going to support conscientious objection carte blanche! ALWAYS people will first decide if they do or do not agree!

Then what are they "supporting" ?

Let's be SPECIFIC.

Are they saying they agree with his opinion or that they support his right to do whatever he damn pleases in the classroom ? Because the implications of the latter should give everyone pause to think.

Maybe we've found some limits of 'populism' as you yourself don't seem to have thought two steps ahead as to what it entails to allow this kind of classroom freedom.

Suppose someone calls for adopting Sharia Law across all of Canada. They may be acting in good conscience. They may be sincere. They are NOT going to get widespread support!

But the same posters above have supported some kind of principle that the teacher should be able to decide what happens in the classroom. Don't you see the inconsistency there ? It's obvious to me.

It seems like we're saying "the teachers should be allowed to do whatever they think is right in the classroom, so long as I AGREE that it is right".

People support what they believe in. Conversely, they will not support something in which they do not believe.

That is just human nature.

Have you ever heard the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it" ?

It seems to me that you don't agree with that idea.

[Bonam]

Michael, I think you need a coffee!

NO ONE is going to support conscientious objection carte blanche! ALWAYS people will first decide if they do or do not agree!

Yeah I don't quite understand Michael's confusion/disagreement regarding this point. It seems obvious and given.

[Michael Hardner]

There are no experts when it comes to these fields. More specifically, what I mean is that so-called experts are worthless when it comes to the fields of social science and social policy. That is because these are fledgling fields, if they can even be called sciences. They are no more advanced than chemistry was back when alchemists were trying to transmute lead into gold and brew elixirs of immortality.

So the entire field of education research or social science is invalid ? Fantastic.

So when Michael says science policy should be decided by experts, I agree, because most science policy relates to actual sciences, and years of knowledge and understanding of these subjects is highly beneficial. Policy regarding research in theoretical physics, for example, is not something the average voter would have much insight into. But when he says the same of education policy I disagree.

That's a convenient approach. Basically, any research that doesn't suit your politics is therefore invalid. I see leftists doing this with economics all the time, by the way.

You have fully put your lot in with the alchemists you disdain in your post. How far back you want to turn the clock back is really the only question.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah I don't quite understand Michael's confusion/disagreement regarding this point. It seems obvious and given.

If a teacher has the right to decide these things, then you're defending their right teach content that you don't agree with.

This right-wing black and white morality gets aggravating when I have to teach it to you people over and over again. If you support their freedom of speech, of action, then you necessarily have to support it when you don't agree with the content.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

[Bonam]

So the entire field of education research or social science is invalid ? Fantastic.

That's a convenient approach. Basically, any research that doesn't suit your politics is therefore invalid.

The validity of research has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the validity of the research. You know, based on its scientific merits?

[Michael Hardner]

The validity of research has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the validity of the research. You know, based on its scientific merits?

It just HAPPENS that this field produces results that tend to disagree with those opinions broadcast from the right-wing soapbox, right ? You're right, that's completely objective - how could I have missed that ?

How did such a pernicious field of research ever develop, pray tell ? Was there a conspiracy of some kind involved perhaps ?

[Bonam]

If a teacher has the right to decide these things, then you're defending their right teach content that you don't agree with.

This right-wing black and white morality gets aggravating when I have to teach it to you people over and over again. If you support their freedom of speech, of action, then you necessarily have to support it when you don't agree with the content.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Classroom teaching methods are not a matter of freedom of speech. Speech is heavily restricted in schools, in any case, both the speech on the part of students and on the part of teachers. What we are defending is not his absolute freedom of speech, which does not apply while on the job as a teacher, but his action of standing up to bad policy that is detrimental to children. And if he was doing the opposite, which would be standing up to good policy, he likely would have much less support. This action on his part is not any sacred or enumerated right, it was simply the right thing to do, and the judgement of what is the right thing to do is subjective, different people may disagree on it.

[Wild Bill]

It seems like we're saying "the teachers should be allowed to do whatever they think is right in the classroom, so long as I AGREE that it is right".

Have you ever heard the quote "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it" ?

It seems to me that you don't agree with that idea.

Indeed, I do agree with that idea! Say anything you want! However, if I disagree I will oppose you if you try to make your idea affect me and mine.

As for your words of "so long as I AGREE that it is right" - AT LAST! YOU ARE FINALLY STARTING TO SEE!

Michael, that is exactly what people say! In this case, parents feel no need to bone up on educational studies to make up their opinions. They have their opinions already and for them that is enough. They think the principal with his no zeroes policy was wrong and the dissenting teacher was absolutely in the right.

Supporting free speech is NOT the same as sanctioning any cockamamie idea that someone puts forth!

Anyway, that is enough for the parents, as far as they are concerned. They have made up their minds and feel no need to justify it to anyone. They pay the taxes and they want the type of education THEY respect! They do NOT give carte blanche faith in the system!

Only a blithering idiot would!

In this instance, I happen to agree with the parents as well. I don't think this principal should retain his job. Not only do I think he is not sufficiently qualified, I think he is an outright quack!

However, as a populist if the parents happened to agree with him I would support their right to their decision.

I would just try to get my own children the hell out of there!

Edited September 22, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Bonam]

It just HAPPENS that this field produces results that tend to disagree with those opinions broadcast from the right-wing soapbox, right ? You're right, that's completely objective - how could I have missed that ?

Shrug, there are other fields that also produce results in opposition to the "right-wing soapbox" and yet have much more scientific validity to them, such as climate science, evolution, and astrophysics. And there are plenty of studies in the social sciences that come out of right wing think tanks, too, and they are pretty much just as worthless as well.

How did such a pernicious field of research ever develop, pray tell ? Was there a conspiracy of some kind involved perhaps ?

How did it develop? It's obvious. People try to use the scientific method to understand the world around them. In some cases, such as physics and chemistry, hypotheses can be quite easy to disprove if they are wrong, because the result of an easily definable experiment can serve as concrete and hard refutation. With the huge success in such fields, people tried to apply the same methods to understand human society. And there things are a lot harder, and they haven't gotten very far along. Their attempts are the equivalent of random dabbling and tinkering. Perhaps once in a while they may stumble on something that works, and that may be recorded and remembered. And very slowly and painfully knowledge in these field may build up. And perhaps many many years down the road these sciences will have advanced to the point that they can begin to have the same kind of successes as we saw with the harder sciences. But they aren't there yet. There is no conspiracy, merely fields in their infancy, and people in these fields speaking with more confidence than they should of things they do not yet understand.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

The validity of research has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the validity of the research. You know, based on its scientific merits?

It doesn't sound as if there is any "research" to speak of regarding the No Zero method, much less valid (from my previous link):

Tachynski’s principal Ron Bradley gave him a book to read over the summer, “15 Fixes” by “No Zeros” guru Ken O’Connor, an educational consultant. Tachynski read it three times but found it unsatisfying.

Where was the hard science backing up this educational theory? Through the summer, Tachynski dug into the O’Connor’s sources and found that the “No Zeros” philosophy was based more than anything on opinion. “The papers start referencing each other and the cycle of misinformation begins. There is simply no sound research.”

[Bonam]

It doesn't sound as if there is any "research" to speak of regarding the No Zero method, much less valid (from my previous link):

Tachynski’s principal Ron Bradley gave him a book to read over the summer, “15 Fixes” by “No Zeros” guru Ken O’Connor, an educational consultant. Tachynski read it three times but found it unsatisfying.

Where was the hard science backing up this educational theory? Through the summer, Tachynski dug into the O’Connor’s sources and found that the “No Zeros” philosophy was based more than anything on opinion. “The papers start referencing each other and the cycle of misinformation begins. There is simply no sound research.”

Thanks for the link. Needless to say, I am not surprised.

[Shady]

Michael, I think you need a coffee!

NO ONE is going to support conscientious objection carte blanche! ALWAYS people will first decide if they do or do not agree!

It's the classic Hardner false choice. He has a history of presenting a false choice argument where the choice is between his opinion, and some fabricated, subjective extreme position. He does it all the time.

[Michael Hardner]

Classroom teaching methods are not a matter of freedom of speech. Speech is heavily restricted in schools, in any case, both the speech on the part of students and on the part of teachers. What we are defending is not his absolute freedom of speech, which does not apply while on the job as a teacher, but his action of standing up to bad policy that is detrimental to children. And if he was doing the opposite, which would be standing up to good policy, he likely would have much less support. This action on his part is not any sacred or enumerated right, it was simply the right thing to do, and the judgement of what is the right thing to do is subjective, different people may disagree on it.

Do you even realize that you made this subjective by adding the terms 'bad' and 'good' ? Who would obect to resisting 'bad' policy ? Ridiculous.

[Bonam]

Do you even realize that you made this subjective by adding the terms 'bad' and 'good' ?

Bad and good are defined in the eyes of each individual making the judgement, as I already stated in that post and in many others.

Who would obect to resisting 'bad' policy ? Ridiculous.

I can think of at least one person in this thread who would

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam