Fired Teacher Hired - Unbelievable

[Bonam]

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.

Fair enough. Needless to say, I am tempted to bring forth analogies/examples for the above cases, but in the end I think there is really not much point. Though I am still curious if you would judge both acts of conscience in the prison guard scenario I mentioned previously to be equally valid and equally worthy of either support or condemnation. Despite the fact that we understand each other's arguments, I think we are continuing to talk past one another. My emphasis in analyzing these cases remains centered on the question of whether the act is morally right as I see such things, while yours, as far as I understand, remains focused on trying to apply a general principle across such acts regardless of their morality. Therefore it looks like we've reached an impasse and don't really think much else productive can be gleaned from this debate besides us both repeating the same arguments over and over.

[madmax]

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.

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.

I clearly understand your logic. I think most here know what you are trying to say.

You want to pin people down in an overall thought process and one that may include hypocrisy.

That said,

A teacher has taken a stand and by going against the rules, has received a specific discipline. In this case its dismissal. He has also highlighted and issue that few knew about. To do so cost him his job of 35 years.

What also exists in this thread is that some suggest not only did he do wrong (to disobey the directive) but that he is wrong.

[cybercoma]

Michael Hardner,

You changed my opinion on this incident. I originally thought good for the teacher! Students that don't hand things in deserve a zero and that's what they should get.

However, now that you contextualize it as the teacher enforcing his own values arbitrarily, which is exactly what this is, that opens the door for other teachers doing the same with things that I may not necessarily support. We can't have teachers just arbitrarily shirking the rules because they don't agree with them.

I still think the kids that don't submit work deserve to get zeroes, but I think he handled it in the wrong way. He should have worked in the system to have the policy changed. He should have gathered support from other teachers and took it to the district or the province and kept fighting, bringing public attention to the issue. Working unilaterally and going against the rules based on his personal judgments and values was the wrong approach.

[Michael Hardner]

What also exists in this thread is that some suggest not only did he do wrong (to disobey the directive) but that he is wrong.

Whether or not giving zeros is good education policy - that's something we can discuss but it's in the area of "armchair quarterbacking" I think.

I would think that a teacher giving zeros would be a great lesson about meeting deadlines. Should anybody on this thread be surprised by my position ? I don't think so.

[Michael Hardner]

I still think the kids that don't submit work deserve to get zeroes, but I think he handled it in the wrong way. He should have worked in the system to have the policy changed. He should have gathered support from other teachers and took it to the district or the province and kept fighting, bringing public attention to the issue. Working unilaterally and going against the rules based on his personal judgments and values was the wrong approach.

I think that getting zeros is a good idea too.

I don't feel comfortable second-guessing what professionals deem is the best approach. That may come from the fact that I experience this phenomenon at work ... constantly.

[Wild Bill]

Michael Hardner,

You changed my opinion on this incident. I originally thought good for the teacher! Students that don't hand things in deserve a zero and that's what they should get.

However, now that you contextualize it as the teacher enforcing his own values arbitrarily, which is exactly what this is, that opens the door for other teachers doing the same with things that I may not necessarily support. We can't have teachers just arbitrarily shirking the rules because they don't agree with them.

I still think the kids that don't submit work deserve to get zeroes, but I think he handled it in the wrong way. He should have worked in the system to have the policy changed. He should have gathered support from other teachers and took it to the district or the province and kept fighting, bringing public attention to the issue. Working unilaterally and going against the rules based on his personal judgments and values was the wrong approach.

Working within the system was not an option for him, CC. He had taught for 35 years. Judging by the experience of anyone who has tried to work within the education system, he would have needed another 35 years to affect any change!

Meanwhile, students keep being graduated who are severely handicapped in their usefulness to an employer.

[cybercoma]

Working within the system was not an option for him, CC. He had taught for 35 years. Judging by the experience of anyone who has tried to work within the education system, he would have needed another 35 years to affect any change!

Meanwhile, students keep being graduated who are severely handicapped in their usefulness to an employer.

What are you talking about? This hasn't been a policy for 35 years and you don't know how long it would have taken to change the policy if he tried other avenues. Moreover, we don't know if this policy is grounded in sound research about academic achievement and child behaviours and development. The claim is that not submitting work is a behavioural issue and needs to be addressed as such, not an issue about academic ability. Therefore, their grades should not reflect poor behaviours, but rather their academic abilities. Some people want high school to be like a job, but it's not a job. It's not even on the job training. It's to imbue these children with the basic intellectual requirements for civil society. These behavioural issues are best address, according to the proponents by other means than failing students. In fact, they argue that failing them makes things worse.

I disagree. I think students need the possibility of failure to be fully adjusted and functional adults. They need the threat of failure to perform and achieve, as well as for motivation. However, it's not the place of the teacher to change the way the executives of the schooling system have decided students will be taught. This is the exact same thing as an employee in a factory figuring they have a better way to assemble a car, so they're going to do it their way. Their way might be better, but they can't just act unilateral and start doing things that way. It's incumbent upon them to bring their idea forward to the executive, so they can make the decision about their business and implement the new practice if they feel it is better for the company. You don't like that? Don't work for the company. Find a job somewhere else.

The same is the case here for the teacher. His practice may be better and many people seem to agree. However, it's not for him to act unilaterally and start doing whatever he damn well pleases. He's part of a company that is responsible for the public's education. He ought to have brought his idea forward to management and told them that he has a better way to educate these students. They ought to have considered it and if they feel it is a better way to educate children then they will implement. If they choose not to implement it, then there's nothing the teacher can do other than leaving that district and finding a job somewhere that will allow him to give zeroes.

The very real problem with supporting what this teacher did is that you condone any teacher to act unilaterally when it comes to the education of your child. That teacher can impose their values on the education system without any oversight or accountability. In the case where it lines up with your values and beliefs, you obviously don't care because you feel what he/she is doing is right. However, what happens when it doesn't match up with your morals or beliefs? What if a teacher believed, for example, that any student that shows up to every single class will get 100% in the course, regardless of whether or not they hand anything in. Insert whatever reasoning you can think of for this decision. This act is against school board policy, but the teacher refuses to follow policy because he/she believes this is the right thing to do. Why would you support the teacher giving zeroes, but not support this? The only reason is that the former lines up with your values and beliefs, while the latter does not.

The issues is not the giving of zeroes. Most of us agree that students should be getting zeroes. The problem is the process by which this teacher implemented that. He went against school board policy and acted unilaterally. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, one of which is condoning the ability of a teacher to impose his/her rights on your child without any sort of accountability or oversight by the board (which in many districts is elected mind you). It doesn't matter how long it would have taken for change to be implemented. As a teacher, he is responsible for following the rules and guidelines for his job that the board sets out for him. If he thinks there's a better way for him to carry out his duties, it's his responsibility to bring those concerns forward. If the board doesn't want to change, then he doesn't just get to act on his own and do things different because he personally feels it's a better way of doing things. Most people don't get to just do whatever the hell they want at their jobs, especially when it goes against the company's policies. This situation isn't any different.

[bleeding heart]

Damn, cybercoma. Very thoughtful....and you just made me rethink my position.

(So if I'm wrong, I'm taking you down with me.)

[Guest Manny]

Do we know if he has tried in the past to voice his disagreement with the policy? For example, at school board meetings. Or how many letters did he write up till now. If he did those things it would give him some credibility in my view.

But even if not, if he felt perhaps i's futile or whatever, are not his actions a form of attention-getting. He's certainly (rapidly) raised this issue to the foreground in public awareness by doing so.

[cybercoma]

Damn, cybercoma. Very thoughtful....and you just made me rethink my position.

(So if I'm wrong, I'm taking you down with me.)

This is Michael Hardner's argument, not mine. So thank him.

[bleeding heart]

This is Michael Hardner's argument, not mine. So thank him.

No reason not to give both the fine gentlemen credit.

Edited September 25, 2012 by bleeding heart

[socialist]

What are you talking about? This hasn't been a policy for 35 years and you don't know how long it would have taken to change the policy if he tried other avenues. Moreover, we don't know if this policy is grounded in sound research about academic achievement and child behaviours and development. The claim is that not submitting work is a behavioural issue and needs to be addressed as such, not an issue about academic ability. Therefore, their grades should not reflect poor behaviours, but rather their academic abilities. Some people want high school to be like a job, but it's not a job. It's not even on the job training. It's to imbue these children with the basic intellectual requirements for civil society. These behavioural issues are best address, according to the proponents by other means than failing students. In fact, they argue that failing them makes things worse.

I disagree. I think students need the possibility of failure to be fully adjusted and functional adults. They need the threat of failure to perform and achieve, as well as for motivation. However, it's not the place of the teacher to change the way the executives of the schooling system have decided students will be taught. This is the exact same thing as an employee in a factory figuring they have a better way to assemble a car, so they're going to do it their way. Their way might be better, but they can't just act unilateral and start doing things that way. It's incumbent upon them to bring their idea forward to the executive, so they can make the decision about their business and implement the new practice if they feel it is better for the company. You don't like that? Don't work for the company. Find a job somewhere else.

The same is the case here for the teacher. His practice may be better and many people seem to agree. However, it's not for him to act unilaterally and start doing whatever he damn well pleases. He's part of a company that is responsible for the public's education. He ought to have brought his idea forward to management and told them that he has a better way to educate these students. They ought to have considered it and if they feel it is a better way to educate children then they will implement. If they choose not to implement it, then there's nothing the teacher can do other than leaving that district and finding a job somewhere that will allow him to give zeroes.

The very real problem with supporting what this teacher did is that you condone any teacher to act unilaterally when it comes to the education of your child. That teacher can impose their values on the education system without any oversight or accountability. In the case where it lines up with your values and beliefs, you obviously don't care because you feel what he/she is doing is right. However, what happens when it doesn't match up with your morals or beliefs? What if a teacher believed, for example, that any student that shows up to every single class will get 100% in the course, regardless of whether or not they hand anything in. Insert whatever reasoning you can think of for this decision. This act is against school board policy, but the teacher refuses to follow policy because he/she believes this is the right thing to do. Why would you support the teacher giving zeroes, but not support this? The only reason is that the former lines up with your values and beliefs, while the latter does not.

The issues is not the giving of zeroes. Most of us agree that students should be getting zeroes. The problem is the process by which this teacher implemented that. He went against school board policy and acted unilaterally. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, one of which is condoning the ability of a teacher to impose his/her rights on your child without any sort of accountability or oversight by the board (which in many districts is elected mind you). It doesn't matter how long it would have taken for change to be implemented. As a teacher, he is responsible for following the rules and guidelines for his job that the board sets out for him. If he thinks there's a better way for him to carry out his duties, it's his responsibility to bring those concerns forward. If the board doesn't want to change, then he doesn't just get to act on his own and do things different because he personally feels it's a better way of doing things. Most people don't get to just do whatever the hell they want at their jobs, especially when it goes against the company's policies. This situation isn't any different.

Sometimes silly rules need to be broken. I would admire someone who took a stand against something they felt was harmful. People mindlessly following orders resulted in something as terrible as the holocaust.

[Guest Manny]

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Not the holocaust stuff but blindly following rules or instructions we know are wrong. I personally cannot do that, I am one of those who has difficulty following orders that I believe to be incorrect. As for the teacher, I say what he did was a statement and he probably knew exactly what he was doing.

I'd like to know, how does one determine the non-zero mark a person should get for not handing an assignment in? Is there a rule of thumb, or is it a fixed, minimum value. Is 1% ok?

[cybercoma]

There's a difference between following unethical, inhumane, and illegal orders and doing your job as mandated by your school and jurisdiction. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of handling things.

[Guest Manny]

There's a difference between following unethical, inhumane, and illegal orders and doing your job as mandated by your school and jurisdiction. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of handling things.

I agree. Without knowing the particulars of the case though, it's hard to tell whether these were acts of insubordination, or desperation. I know there's been a major battle between teachers, unions, and school boards and part of it is teachers opposing the standardization of the template, so that there is no particular style (which is part of how a teacher relates to their student audience). It's also true that different kinds of students need to be dealt with differently. There shouldn't be too many all-encompassing rules regarding the particulars of what goes on in the classroom.

[Guest Peeves]

I agree. Without knowing the particulars of the case though, it's hard to tell whether these were acts of insubordination, or desperation. I know there's been a major battle between teachers, unions, and school boards and part of it is teachers opposing the standardization of the template, so that there is no particular style (which is part of how a teacher relates to their student audience). It's also true that different kinds of students need to be dealt with differently. There shouldn't be too many all-encompassing rules regarding the particulars of what goes on in the classroom.

It is my understanding that he made many earlier efforts to bring the egregious policy of no zero to the fore with no results. He then took proactive methods openly hoping the policy would change. It didn't. He then took a position, knowing full well he might be fired to emphasize the "No zero" rule. Many students- teachers voiced support.Since the alternative was to continue or cease and desist, he showed the courage of his convictions and started to give interviews knowing and openly stating that he might be fired.

The issue that resulted in his being fired was...Going public, interviews, in particular media coverage.

It was worth it to him. He certainly caused the conflict. He did so on purpose. Good for him. It took courage to follow the course he did, and anyone that ever fought the good fight, the righteous fight, should applaud and be proud of the guy.

After all, he put it all on the line openly with a position and conflict that hurt none but himself, AND, he did that while openly stating that it might cause his dismissal.

Not many would stand as he and be counted.

I consider the case of the Canadian soldier that stood for his morality and put an enemy out of his misery. He knew it could cost him dearly, but, he did what he considered right in the circumstance and took the consequences.

Too many would take the low road to serve themselves.

[Guest Manny]

There you go. If that's true then I respect his efforts. You see I suspected it all along because things like this don't just happen in isolation. And he's a professional, he knows how the system works. They would have had meetings to talk about these changes before they get implemented.

In fact people like this should be applauded for having courage to stick their neck out, as it were, taking a fall even, for trying to get the system to change. The rest of us are just the sheep who follow. Never challenge it, or you might be next.

[kraychik]

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 ?

It's entirely principled. I guess we need to go the dictionary again to help you:

prin·ci·ple (prns-pl)

n.

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.

2.

a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.

b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.

4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.

5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.

6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.

The principle we're seeing here from those who support the teacher's actions is that they believe that zeroes should be given to students in some circumstances, and that they reject the "no zeroes" policy of the school from which the teacher was fired. This in no way means that these same people will support any teacher who does anything that breaches any school policy for any reason he or she feels like. This has everything to do with principle and being principled, two words you don't seem to understand.

[kraychik]

What are you talking about? This hasn't been a policy for 35 years and you don't know how long it would have taken to change the policy if he tried other avenues. Moreover, we don't know if this policy is grounded in sound research about academic achievement and child behaviours and development. The claim is that not submitting work is a behavioural issue and needs to be addressed as such, not an issue about academic ability. Therefore, their grades should not reflect poor behaviours, but rather their academic abilities. Some people want high school to be like a job, but it's not a job. It's not even on the job training. It's to imbue these children with the basic intellectual requirements for civil society. These behavioural issues are best address, according to the proponents by other means than failing students. In fact, they argue that failing them makes things worse.

If you only want marks in school to be reflective of "academic ability" (as you see it), then schools should only base marks on a final exam. No consideration for anything else. Thankfully, schools don't operate in such a stupid manner as you would wish to see.

I disagree. I think students need the possibility of failure to be fully adjusted and functional adults. They need the threat of failure to perform and achieve, as well as for motivation. However, it's not the place of the teacher to change the way the executives of the schooling system have decided students will be taught. This is the exact same thing as an employee in a factory figuring they have a better way to assemble a car, so they're going to do it their way. Their way might be better, but they can't just act unilateral and start doing things that way. It's incumbent upon them to bring their idea forward to the executive, so they can make the decision about their business and implement the new practice if they feel it is better for the company. You don't like that? Don't work for the company. Find a job somewhere else.

No disagreement here. Except we don't know what this teacher did prior to his decision to break policy, and he was terminated as a result of his decision. More importantly, this is a public with a ridiculous "no zeroes" policy, which makes it public business.

The same is the case here for the teacher. His practice may be better and many people seem to agree. However, it's not for him to act unilaterally and start doing whatever he damn well pleases. He's part of a company that is responsible for the public's education. He ought to have brought his idea forward to management and told them that he has a better way to educate these students. They ought to have considered it and if they feel it is a better way to educate children then they will implement. If they choose not to implement it, then there's nothing the teacher can do other than leaving that district and finding a job somewhere that will allow him to give zeroes.

You're assuming he didn't do any of that. Anyways, he was fired.

The very real problem with supporting what this teacher did is that you condone any teacher to act unilaterally when it comes to the education of your child.

No. This is same stupidity we got from Michael Hardner. Supporting this teacher in this event doesn't mean we support him molesting young boys because he's a card-carrying member of NAMBLA. Get the hell out of here with that.

That teacher can impose their values on the education system without any oversight or accountability. In the case where it lines up with your values and beliefs, you obviously don't care because you feel what he/she is doing is right. However, what happens when it doesn't match up with your morals or beliefs? What if a teacher believed, for example, that any student that shows up to every single class will get 100% in the course, regardless of whether or not they hand anything in. Insert whatever reasoning you can think of for this decision. This act is against school board policy, but the teacher refuses to follow policy because he/she believes this is the right thing to do. Why would you support the teacher giving zeroes, but not support this? The only reason is that the former lines up with your values and beliefs, while the latter does not.

See above.

[Michael Hardner]

It's entirely principled. I guess we need to go the dictionary again to help you:

prin·ci·ple (prns-pl)

n.

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.

2.

a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.

b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

That's the definition I'm looking for. Those on this thread aren't applying a standard, for the reasons I stated above.

The principle we're seeing here from those who support the teacher's actions is that they believe that zeroes should be given to students in some circumstances, and that they reject the "no zeroes" policy of the school from which the teacher was fired.

Then it has nothing to do with firing the teacher for not following policy. They should have supported a change in the policy, but not insurrection at work.

How are we supposed to set an example for students to pay attention to rules if we support a teacher who does not ?

This in no way means that these same people will support any teacher who does anything that breaches any school policy for any reason he or she feels like.

Then it's not a standard, because that's exactly what is happening here.

[bleeding heart]

Kraychik:

Just as point of order, because I think clarification might be needed, both Michael Hardner and Cybercoma have stated their disagreement with the "no zero" policy.

But it does not then follow that they support a teacher breaking the rules, without repercussion.

And your "NAMBLA" remark is in fact sort of the point. There are all sorts of "principles" to which a teacher might adhere, but that go against rules and policy....so at exactly what point is it acceptable to break employers' rules (without repercussion)...and at which point is it not acceptable?

Do you have some precise guidelines on the matter that can be followed?

[Michael Hardner]

.so at exactly what point is it acceptable to break employers' rules (without repercussion)...and at which point is it not acceptable?

Do you have some precise guidelines on the matter that can be followed?

That's an important iteration of my point, actually: if there is a principle at work here, then how do you encapsulate it in a rule ? At what point do you support insurrection ?

Thanks.

[Guest Peeves]

That's an important iteration of my point, actually: if there is a principle at work here, then how do you encapsulate it in a rule ? At what point do you support insurrection ?

Thanks.

I support the teachers action(s) that took place over a significant period of time and with his knowing it could lead to his dismissal.

Additionally some here are minimizing the course of action he followed. He gave students that had not turned in a project or exam every opportunity to explain and gave the zero if they made no effort to do so. He also gave them an opportunity to complete the project/exam at another agreed on time before marking a zero. Some here are purposely fudging the facts. He acknowledged he was contravening school 'No Zero" policy and acknowledged it might cause his dismissal. He was willing to put his money where his mouth was.

Suddenly that has been upgraded to insurrection...laughable and omitting facts.

He said weeks before that he was willing to accept the consequences. A violation of school policy, but hardly rising to the level of insurrection..what a stretch!

[Guest Peeves]

Kraychik:

Just as point of order, because I think clarification might be needed, both Michael Hardner and Cybercoma have stated their disagreement with the "no zero" policy.

But it does not then follow that they support a teacher breaking the rules, without repercussion.

And your "NAMBLA" remark is in fact sort of the point. There are all sorts of "principles" to which a teacher might adhere, but that go against rules and policy....so at exactly what point is it acceptable to break employers' rules (without repercussion)...and at which point is it not acceptable?

Do you have some precise guidelines on the matter that can be followed?

HE said he expected repercussion, dismissal, do you ignore that? There was repercussion.

Personally I would expect same AS HE DID. So who is the argument with?

[Bonam]

That's an important iteration of my point, actually: if there is a principle at work here, then how do you encapsulate it in a rule ? At what point do you support insurrection ?

The rule is simple:

If you believe a policy is harmful, and someone stands up against it, then you can applaud said act of conscience, so long as the harm done by said act is less than the harm caused by the policy, in your estimation.

The subjective judgment of the merits of the policy and of the act should not, in my opinion, be separated from one's appraisal of such situations.

We are a society of people with opinions, not of robots following algorithms.

Now, when it comes to legal and employment ramifications, that's a different story.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Bonam