Fired Teacher Hired - Unbelievable

[Wilber]

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

If you're defending him as some kind of educational conscientious objector, would you defend him on a different point ?

I defend him because I believe the school board is wrong and their policy is wrong. If I didn't believe they were wrong, I wouldn't support his position but I would respect him for sticking to his principles and accepting the consequences. It might not say much for his judgment but it would say a lot about his character.

[Wild Bill]

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 ?

Michael, left wing politics has never been big on science and the scientific method. Neither has ANY politics, I would say!

People with a political agenda often try to pervert their opinions and biases with a veneer of "science". Like an advocate of Intelligent Design, they try to dazzle the reader with pseudo-scientific mumbojumbo that he won't understand anyway.

The science rarely works. It is just being used as glamour for the gullible.

"A volt of potential will shove an ampere of current through an Ohm of resistance." This is a scientific fact, devoid of any politics. It is easily proven and always consistent.

"A child should never be given a zero to prevent harm" is not the same thing at all. It is merely someone's opinion. It is not in any way scientific, or at least, as scientific as Ohm's Law.

[GostHacked]

Harnder....

If the grading system is unjust and many teachers think it's wrong, then they really have no choice but to break rank and stand up for what they believe in is right, even if they are ultimately wrong in that stance.

But this is what drives change for the better. The board needs to listen to the teacher(s) who are complaining that this policy is detrimental to a child educational development.

But in the end, yes people will support actions of people if they agree with them. It's that plain and simple. We know that you, Mike, do not agree with the actions of the teacher and therefore support the actions of the school board or administration firing the teacher.

This teacher may drive a significant change that is needed in the education system. To make students accountable for their actions, as the teacher was held accountable for his actions. Yes he violated the policy and was fired for it, no questions on that part. However with his actions he brought awareness to a growing issue that we will face in society.

I see it every week here where I work. Young workers come in thinking they have a sense of entitlement and if they do not follow the rules they are reprimanded and/or fired. Businesses don't have the time/manpower/money to waste to train people that cannot do the job.

If you are simply passing students for work not complete, what kind of an impact will that have in the future? We now have a flood of this type of workers entering the workforce.

If you keep giving people a pass, and they simply do not learn from the mistakes and keep making mistakes because they have gone through a system that passed them even though the students have not met the requirements to pass a grade. But yet kids are passed (violates school policies as well) just so we don't hurt their feelings. And if they are sensitive to that, then they are simply not going to make it in the real world.

It's a narrow view to look at just this one teachers actions and make a determination, you must take into account what will happen to that student going forward.

Let's talk university, where these students are actually going to pay for their education. Do you think universities really care about feelings of students if they fail? Professors give out assignments, if the assignment is not done, what do you think the consequences are there? You fail, and then you have to pay again to redo the course in order to hopefully pass. Sure there are exceptions, but that is a case by case determination on what can be done.

So this teacher is bringing to light a policy that he believes is hurting students. This is what drives change for the better as I indicated before. If no one stood up for what they think is right, we would not ever advance and grow as a society.

We need to listen to the teacher who are on the front lines educating the students. Unfortunately we see all too often that higher ups in positions that are so disconnected from the ground level that they think the policies they put forth will work. And that is setting everyone up for failure.

[Bonam]

Let's talk university, where these students are actually going to pay for their education. Do you think universities really care about feelings of students if they fail? Professors give out assignments, if the assignment is not done, what do you think the consequences are there? You fail, and then you have to pay again to redo the course in order to hopefully pass. Sure there are exceptions, but that is a case by case determination on what can be done.

One can only hope that this remains true. Sadly, some of these "new and improved" teaching methods are beginning to make it into universities as well. And a lot of the paying for university education comes from taxpayers too. The tuition that students pay usually covers only a fraction of the cost.

[GostHacked]

One can only hope that this remains true. Sadly, some of these "new and improved" teaching methods are beginning to make it into universities as well. And a lot of the paying for university education comes from taxpayers too. The tuition that students pay usually covers only a fraction of the cost.

With any amount of foresight it's not hard to see that those type of polices will hurt everyone in the long run. And if that is indeed creeping into universities, can we have much confidence in the degree or educational credentials that a new hire states they have?

Go to university and earn a degree. If you are passed when it is not warranted, then it's only a matter of time before the employer finds out that the credentials mean nothing because the employee is failing to live up to their resume. Do employers give a pass or do they correct the mistake and then start the process to replace you?

I earned all my zeros in grade school and high school.I also learned from those mistakes which drove me to earn my honors degree for IT technology and PC systems, and I almost earned an honors degree for the web design course. I had to set up myself to win, because the education system taught me that if you don't do what is asked, you will fail.

[gunrutz]

Its pretty easy for psychological pseudo science to be seen as a success when those who change the rules are writing the expectations as well. Can this person who got a zero do the work, yes or no, if no, by any measure offered in the real world it would be considered a failure. Now the kid might not feel bad about themselves, so that's good, i suppose, but sometimes feeling bad about yourself is required to show you the error of your ways, but no, everyone is good and special and we can't have someone not thinking badly about themselves even when they deserve it. That kind of bullshit is directly related to this society progressives are trying to build, it is rooted in the 'we are all the same' culture, sorry we aren't, some people are going to work at the grocery store and some are going to be doctors. There is no shame in either, it is simply reality, no we don't have to kill each other over food, or raids the others camp and steal their women, but to try and remove all competition from life simply because someones feelings might be hurt goes to far and is completely against our natural way of being.

[Bonam]

With any amount of foresight it's not hard to see that those type of polices will hurt everyone in the long run. And if that is indeed creeping into universities, can we have much confidence in the degree or educational credentials that a new hire states they have?

Go to university and earn a degree. If you are passed when it is not warranted, then it's only a matter of time before the employer finds out that the credentials mean nothing because the employee is failing to live up to their resume. Do employers give a pass or do they correct the mistake and then start the process to replace you?

Depends. In many workplaces, replacing you may be very difficult, and worth it only if you commit some outrageous wrongdoing. If you are merely under-trained or half-competent or lazy, you may well coast by. Acceptance of sloth and mediocrity pervades our society at every level. Why do you think nations like Canada and the US are losing their competitive edge on the world stage?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Bonam

[GostHacked]

Depends. In many workplaces, replacing you may be very difficult, and worth it only if you commit some outrageous wrongdoing. If you are merely under-trained or half-competent or lazy, you may well coast by. Acceptance of sloth and mediocrity pervades our society at every level. Why do you think nations like Canada and the US are losing their competitive edge on the world stage?

I think we are addressing one item that contributes to that in this thread.

[madmax]

I earned all my zeros in grade school and high school.I also learned from those mistakes which drove me to earn my honors degree for IT technology and PC systems,

1111000110110

use as needed, its an old calculator joke.

[Guest Peeves]

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

If you're defending him as some kind of educational conscientious objector, would you defend him on a different point ?

Sorta like asking "Do you still beat your wife."

He's right on this account. If a kid won't submit a class exam, they should get a zero. PERIOD.

The kids wrong, the Principle is wrong and the policy is wrong.

I'm as much against the 'wrong' as I am the teachers stand as right.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

I defend him because I believe the school board is wrong and their policy is wrong. If I didn't believe they were wrong, I wouldn't support his position but I would respect him for sticking to his principles and accepting the consequences. It might not say much for his judgment but it would say a lot about his character.

He stood up to a ridiculous policy. He did so after judging the possible outcome. This wasn't a spontaneous act on his part, and he is not the only educator or teacher to hold his views re no zero marking. I say this says much for his judgment.

I hold him in respect for both his character and judgment. I think he was fired for only....ONLY.......making the school policy public and for taking interviews by the media which exposed a serious flaw in the policy...read principle.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Peeves

[Wilber]

He stood up to a ridiculous policy. He did so after judging the possible outcome. This wasn't a spontaneous act on his part, and he is not the only educator or teacher to hold his views re no zero marking. I say this says much for his judgment.

I hold him in respect for both his character and judgment. I think he was fired for only....ONLY.......making the school policy public and for taking interviews by the media which exposed a serious flaw in the policy...read principle.

I also respect his character and his judgment on this particular issue. What I was trying to say is even if I hadn't agreed with his position and questioned his judgment, his stand would say a lot for his character.

[Guest Manny]

No way I'd want my kids to be raised in a school where they get non-zero marks for doing nothing. What the hell kind of values are we encouraging here? You wan our industry to be able to compete with the work done in foreign lands, you better do some actual work.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Obviously. So the question of how to address this is therefore tossed into a pit of subjectivity...

"The teacher should do what he thinks is right and should be allowed to !!! er... unless I disagree with him"

[Michael Hardner]

We know that you, Mike, do not agree with the actions of the teacher and therefore support the actions of the school board or administration firing the teacher.

It's not that simple. Whether or not I agree with him is a different question as to whether I support his action and that's what people don't seem to get here.

I'm not interested in the question of whether zeros are a good idea or not - I'll leave that to the educators.

We need to listen to the teacher who are on the front lines educating the students. Unfortunately we see all too often that higher ups in positions that are so disconnected from the ground level that they think the policies they put forth will work. And that is setting everyone up for failure.

Here you seem to return to some idea of a principle: that we should "listen to teachers". I suspect, though, that you would be against "listening to teachers" if the message wasn't to your liking.

Again, it's back to the question of rights. Most people don't seem to get that I'm talking about that, and I supposed I can't teach them.

[Bonam]

Again, it's back to the question of rights. Most people don't seem to get that I'm talking about that, and I supposed I can't teach them.

Taking a condescending tone is hardly going to help you. What you seem unable to understand is why no one cares about the point you are making, despite the fact that this has been explained several times in this thread.

You may see this as some kind of frivolous abuse of his position, but many people, seemingly from all sides of the political spectrum in this thread, see it for what it is: an individual standing up for what he believes is right against an institution that is trying to implement policy that he believes is detrimental to children.

And whether people support that or not is going to depend on what they think of that policy.

The merits of the policy are the key point here for most people, and they are the point you have entirely avoided. You think what is most important is following the rules to the letter: do what your employer tells you. And yes, generally, one should do what one's employer asks. But when one's moral imperative prohibits one from committing wrongs in the name of following orders, that is to be applauded, not condemned.

[This is no doubt where you will see the word "wrongs", claim that that is subjective, and dismiss the first four paragraphs out of hand while entirely missing the point]

If the policy of a prison is to beat its prisoners, and one guard decides not to do that because he think it is unjust and gets fired for it, he may get praised and applauded. If the policy of a prison is to NOT beat its prisoners and a guard decides to go beat them because he thinks THAT is just, he may get condemned and vilified.

What is the difference? It's the merit of the individual's opposition to policy. Is what he is doing the morally right thing to do, or not? That is what is MOST important about the case. And that is subjective. The above scenario is how we would react in Canada. In some times and places, the reaction may be the opposite.

There is no general principle that conforms with our sense of morality that would either lead us to condemn both above situations or to applaud both above situations. And yet there is no ethical or moral inconsistency there. Because what matters most is not whether the guard followed the prison's policy; not whether guards should, in general, follow the policy of the prison they are working at; but whether he did what we, the observers, think was the morally right thing to do.

[This is no doubt where you will dismiss this analogy out of hand for no reason other than the fact that you refuse to consider it]

Your problem is that you have fixated on something that is of less relevance to most other observers: you are judging the situation based on whether you think it's appropriate for a teacher to, in general, take matters into their own hands. And the answer is no, it isn't. We do not disagree on that. But most people believe there are exceptions to such things, exceptions such as when they see a policy as being so destructive that it is worth standing up against, even if it is not within one's duties to do so.

There is no hypocrisy there, no logical inconsistency, no cognitive dissonance.

To summarize: "It's the policy, stupid".

Edited September 23, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

Taking a condescending tone is hardly going to help you. What you seem unable to understand is why no one cares about the point you are making, despite the fact that this has been explained several times in this thread.

Not a condescending tone. At least, I don't mean it to be. I have to stop trying at some point, and it's probably a good idea to communicate why.

If nobody cares about my point, well I haven't picked that up. It seems to me that people just kept repeating that they support the teacher - whatever that means. I guess you're saying that they don't care about principles, and at least that's an acknowledgement of my point if not an agreement. Thanks.

You may see this as some kind of frivolous abuse of his position,

No. I didn't say that.

but many people, seemingly from all sides of the political spectrum in this thread, see it for what it is: an individual standing up for what he believes is right against an institution that is trying to implement policy that he believes is detrimental to children.

Yes, this has been said many times. I believe that he is doing that.

And whether people support that or not is going to depend on what they think of that policy.

What does support mean ? If it's an act of conscience then people should have a single principled stance on individuals who act out of their conscientious beliefs, nothing to do with how that belief is viewed by others.

The merits of the policy are the key point here for most people, and they are the point you have entirely avoided.

Yes, purposefully so. The points made on that are banal to me. They don't care about my point and I don't care about theirs I guess.

You think what is most important is following the rules to the letter: do what your employer tells you. And yes, generally, one should do what one's employer asks. But when one's moral imperative prohibits one from committing wrongs in the name of following orders, that is to be applauded, not condemned.

Ridiculous statement - the point is that people have qualified their support of such acts to the ones they agree with. That's unprincipled.

If the policy of a prison is to beat its prisoners, and one guard decides not to do that because he think it is unjust and gets fired for it, he may get praised and applauded. If the policy of a prison is to NOT beat its prisoners and a guard decides to go beat them because he thinks THAT is just, he may get condemned and vilified.

Your analogy stretches to the point of breaking. The act itself is what's central to the question of rights here. Is it free speech we're talking about ? Is it workplace rights ?

I get what you're doing with this analogy but it's too unrealistic.

What is the difference? It's the merit of the individual's opposition to policy. Is what he is doing the morally right thing to do, or not? That is what is MOST important about the case. And that is subjective. The above scenario is how we would react in Canada. In some times and places, the reaction may be the opposite.

Maybe - but you could also frame the analogy to the point where it's free speech being defended, and those doing the defending change their views on free speech depending on what's being said.

Your problem is that you have fixated on something that is of less relevance to most other observers:

That is correct.

There is no hypocrisy there, no logical inconsistency, no cognitive dissonance.

There's a double standard, IMO. And it's about so-called populists trying to railroad the system into doing what pleases them in the moment. The mob doesn't rule, though, and from this thread I think that's a good thing.

[Bonam]

Not a condescending tone. At least, I don't mean it to be. I have to stop trying at some point, and it's probably a good idea to communicate why.

If nobody cares about my point, well I haven't picked that up. It seems to me that people just kept repeating that they support the teacher - whatever that means. I guess you're saying that they don't care about principles, and at least that's an acknowledgement of my point if not an agreement. Thanks.

Nowhere have I stated that they "don't care about principles". In fact, they care about the same principles as you do. They just prioritize those principles differently. Everyone agrees you should follow the rules of your workplace. And everyone (I assume) agrees you should do what is in the best interests of students you are teaching. But what happens when those principles come into conflict. You think that the only consistent stance is that either the first always overrides the second, or the second always overrides the first. Others believe it depends on the situation, which I believe is the correct stance, more nuanced, actually taking each specific situation's facts and issues into account.

What does support mean ? If it's an act of conscience then people should have a single principled stance on individuals who act out of their conscientious beliefs, nothing to do with how that belief is viewed by others.

I have explained why that is not the case, and how there is no inconsistency in that not being the case.

Yes, purposefully so. The points made on that are banal to me. They don't care about my point and I don't care about theirs I guess.

Yes, it does seem that way. This is called "talking past each other".

Ridiculous statement - the point is that people have qualified their support of such acts to the ones they agree with. That's unprincipled.

No, it isn't, for the reasons I've described.

Your analogy stretches to the point of breaking. The act itself is what's central to the question of rights here. Is it free speech we're talking about ? Is it workplace rights ?

No. The issue is neither free speech (not applicable in schools) nor workplace rights.

I get what you're doing with this analogy but it's too unrealistic.

How so?

Maybe - but you could also frame the analogy to the point where it's free speech being defended, and those doing the defending change their views on free speech depending on what's being said.

Again, there is no free speech in schools. Speech is heavily restricted in schools. This debate is not a matter of free speech.

There's a double standard, IMO. And it's about so-called populists trying to railroad the system into doing what pleases them in the moment. The mob doesn't rule, though, and from this thread I think that's a good thing.

That may or may not be true of some other posters who you have been arguing with in this thread. Personally, I have not been pushing "populism", nor do I care to. My main point here remains that people have every right to applaud someone who stands up to a policy that they (the observers) disagree with, and that there is nothing unprincipled about doing so.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

You think that the only consistent stance is that either the first always overrides the second, or the second always overrides the first. Others believe it depends on the situation, which I believe is the correct stance, more nuanced, actually taking each specific situation's facts and issues into account.

That's not true. I agree with such acts of conscience, but I do so in a PRINCIPLED manner. I support them consistently, not just if I agree with them or not.

"I may not agree with what you say but I defend your right to say it".

THAT is the principle I'm talking about.

No. The issue is neither free speech (not applicable in schools) nor workplace rights.

How so?

The question is whether the teacher should decide on marking policy, and therefore what the domain of their employment is, i.e. how much power they should have over teaching and marking of students.

My point is that posters who support him only as far as they agree with what he is teaching are taking an unprincipled stand. The opposite of supporting free speech whether you agree with the content: supporting free speech only IF you agree with the content.

Your analogy would stretch the example to supporting ANYTHING the teacher wants to do in the classroom - as such takes the example too far to be meaningful for our purposes.

That may or may not be true of some other posters who you have been arguing with in this thread. Personally, I have not been pushing "populism", nor do I care to. My main point here remains that people have every right to applaud someone who stands up to a policy that they (the observers) disagree with, and that there is nothing unprincipled about doing so.

What does "support" mean, though ? I myself support this person for acting out of conscience, but I also think he should be fired. If by "supporting" the teacher, you're saying you don't think he should be fired, are you saying teachers shouldn't be fired if they act out of conscience when they make decisions about teaching methods, within reason ? Because I can think of some examples that would make these people flip-flop on that principle...

[Shady]

To summarize: "It's the policy, stupid".

Exactly. Apparently Michael is shocked that people support things they agree with, and don't support things they don't agree with.

[Bonam]

That's not true. I agree with such acts of conscience, but I do so in a PRINCIPLED manner. I support them consistently, not just if I agree with them or not.

Really, you unequivocally always support anything that someone claims was an "act of conscience"? I find that hard to believe.

The question is whether the teacher should decide on marking policy, and therefore what the domain of their employment is, i.e. how much power they should have over teaching and marking of students.

That may be your question, but that is most definitely not the question that others see as relevant here. It can be part of the discussion, but for most, there are other, larger questions at play here.

Your analogy would stretch the example to supporting ANYTHING the teacher wants to do in the classroom - as such takes the example too far to be meaningful for our purposes.

No my analogy specifically states that support is based on whether the supporter-to-be agrees with the actions or not, and that this is, contrary to your claim, "principled".

What does "support" mean, though ? I myself support this person for acting out of conscience, but I also think he should be fired. If by "supporting" the teacher, you're saying you don't think he should be fired,

No, I think the employer had every right to fire him. In fact, I generally believe employers should have the right to fire employees for a whole lot of reasons, disobedience not the least among them. Whether they "should have" fired him is a matter for their own deliberation. Personally, I think they (and more importantly, their students) would have been better off listening to him than firing him, but that is their own choice to make. Support (or the word that I actually used: "applaud") in this case means being willing to state that he did the right thing. And, if you recall the issue brought up in the original post by our friend "socialist", that this action should have somehow barred this teacher from being hired by other schools. I obviously disagree with that and support both the right and the decision of the private school to have hired this teacher.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Let me come back again to this unbelievable statement:

That's not true. I agree with such acts of conscience, but I do so in a PRINCIPLED manner. I support them consistently, not just if I agree with them or not.

Can you elaborate on this some more? Do you agree with such acts regardless of what the act was? Do you agree with such acts regardless of what the act was standing up against? Do you agree with such acts if they break rules and regulations, laws? Do you agree with such acts regardless of their outcomes? Do you agree with such acts regardless of if people get hurt in the process? Do you agree with such acts if the "conscience" of the person committing the act stands in stark opposition to the most basic values of our society?

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Apparently Michael is shocked that people support things they agree with, and don't support things they don't agree with.

It all depends on what we need by support.

[Michael Hardner]

Really, you unequivocally always support anything that someone claims was an "act of conscience"? I find that hard to believe.

No - I said I support such acts of conscience. I wouldn't expect anyone to give unqualified acts as such, however it isn't unprincipled to provide some qualification. It is unprincipled to say something like "I support free speech unless the person disagrees with me".

That may be your question, but that is most definitely not the question that others see as relevant here. It can be part of the discussion, but for most, there are other, larger questions at play here.

Yes, you said so. I didn't reply but I agree with you on that.

No my analogy specifically states that support is based on whether the supporter-to-be agrees with the actions or not, and that this is, contrary to your claim, "principled".

The actions within a domain... to add some qualifications does not necessarily compromise the principle.

No, I think the employer had every right to fire him. In fact, I generally believe employers should have the right to fire employees for a whole lot of reasons, disobedience not the least among them. Whether they "should have" fired him is a matter for their own deliberation. Personally, I think they (and more importantly, their students) would have been better off listening to him than firing him, but that is their own choice to make. Support (or the word that I actually used: "applaud") in this case means being willing to state that he did the right thing. And, if you recall the issue brought up in the original post by our friend "socialist", that this action should have somehow barred this teacher from being hired by other schools. I obviously disagree with that and support both the right and the decision of the private school to have hired this teacher.

I agree with you that the teacher should have been fired. I'm not sure how he could be barred from being hired by other schools - I think that's a ridiculous idea in itself.

In any case, I'm sure his resume will take care of that little detail.

[Michael Hardner]

Can you elaborate on this some more? Do you agree with such acts regardless of what the act was?

No, that's why it's a qualified position. Everything has limits, but if (as an analogy) you say you support free speech unless you disagree with the person speaking then you are being inconsistent. Even if you qualify your support for free speech by saying that there are limits to it, you're being inconsistent in this example.

I applaud people who make difficult decisions such as resigning due to their conscience, but these things shouldn't have to happen. In most cases, our rights to conscience can be legally guaranteed.

Do you agree with such acts regardless of what the act was standing up against? Do you agree with such acts if they break rules and regulations, laws? Do you agree with such acts regardless of their outcomes? Do you agree with such acts regardless of if people get hurt in the process? Do you agree with such acts if the "conscience" of the person committing the act stands in stark opposition to the most basic values of our society?

Yes. Yes, as long as the person accepts the consequences. No. It depends. Yes, generally.

Edited to add: we're trying to see here how many Hardners can dance on the head of a pin. Maybe we'll find out. In any case, I'm glad to answer the questions as I give a lot of thought to such things and to my mind I change my position when I'm challenged on the principles involved. Will I be wrong ? Of course - nobody is perfectly consistent. Also - others always seem to be more inconsistent than we appear to be.