Fired Teacher Hired - Unbelievable

[Michael Hardner]

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!

Insurrection means a revolt against authority, which is what this is - a violation of policy.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

That's an interesting take on it. It's still basically says that you are applauding act of conscience that you deem to be worthwhile. People following this axiom would still likely only support these so-called stands if they agree with the actions. Is there a way we can describe such things, so that I can empathize with an act of conscience regardless of the political colour behind it ?

I'm asking honestly here. I keep going back to

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This is a clear separation of the act of free expression, with the content of that act.

[Bonam]

That's an interesting take on it. It's still basically says that you are applauding act of conscience that you deem to be worthwhile. People following this axiom would still likely only support these so-called stands if they agree with the actions. Is there a way we can describe such things, so that I can empathize with an act of conscience regardless of the political colour behind it ?

I'm asking honestly here. I keep going back to

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This is a clear separation of the act of free expression, with the content of that act.

I simply don't see this as an issue of free speech. Certainly I am a firm supporter of free expression, including expression I disagree with. But when someone expresses themselves freely, I too can express myself freely, by agreeing with what they've said, or disagreeing with it. By condemning it or supporting it.

We can all recognize when people are within their legal rights in carrying out an act of conscience, and when they are breaking the rules of their workplace or the terms of their contract. That's all fine, those are the facts of any given situation. But knowing and acknowledging the facts of a situation is one thing, forming an opinion on it requires one to put those facts into some kind of moral/ethical framework, a reference frame. And that is inherently, inescapably, subjective for each individual.

And none of this in any way stands in opposition to anyone's rights of free speech.

Is there a way we can describe such things, so that I can empathize with an act of conscience regardless of the political colour behind it ?

Yes, it's simple. All it would mean is that, in your personal reference frame, you value the moral characteristics of an individual willing to make an act of conscience higher than you value their agreement with you on some political issue. Those are your priorities, your reference frame. Others may disagree, may have their priorities arranged in a different order.

There is nothing unprincipled in either stance. Both are principled, in accordance with the principles of the individual making the judgment.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Bonam

[wyly]

Why would you disparage a teacher with 35 years of experience...... I value a teacher with that much experience and I am NO FAN OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS!!!

i had a teacher with similar years of experience who liked to smack kids heads into the blackboard if they didn't understand something, would you value him too?

experience can be irrelevant, i've come across great young teachers and many shytte old teachers...

what it comes down to is the guy didn't do what his employer required him to do, just like any other job you can get fired for not following orders...

[socialist]

i had a teacher with similar years of experience who liked to smack kids heads into the blackboard if they didn't understand something, would you value him too?

experience can be irrelevant, i've come across great young teachers and many shytte old teachers...

what it comes down to is the guy didn't do what his employer required him to do, just like any other job you can get fired for not following orders...

what if the teacher realized that the policy was hurting students. is it better to take a stand or blindly follow orders from superintendents and principals who are only concerned about graduation rates?

[Michael Hardner]

I simply don't see this as an issue of free speech. Certainly I am a firm supporter of free expression, including expression I disagree with. But when someone expresses themselves freely, I too can express myself freely, by agreeing with what they've said, or disagreeing with it. By condemning it or supporting it.

It's not. That statement is really a model of what I'm looking for by way of a principle.

This is about trusting a professional to do what's right. The difference between the situation described by Beatrice Hall is that she supports the act of conscience without evaluating the content of the act.

If people truly believe that teachers have the full domain of the classroom then the statement may be something like: "I trust the teacher to do what they think is right for the students".

But that isn't the case. It's always qualified with the observer's overarching approval of what the teacher is doing. As an issue of professional rights, then, we're nowhere. We're supporting an act of conscience in this case, but we haven't expressed a way forward to solve the general problem, we're just cheering on our guy in this example.

We can all recognize when people are within their legal rights in carrying out an act of conscience, and when they are breaking the rules of their workplace or the terms of their contract. That's all fine, those are the facts of any given situation. But knowing and acknowledging the facts of a situation is one thing, forming an opinion on it requires one to put those facts into some kind of moral/ethical framework, a reference frame. And that is inherently, inescapably, subjective for each individual.

As long as we realize that the end result will be that this person is fired, then so be it. There's nothing unfair about it, as we've seen that there's no way to accommodate differing views in this way. The education authority, in this case the principle, has domain over the classroom.

There is nothing unprincipled in either stance. Both are principled, in accordance with the principles of the individual making the judgment.

There's no way to express it as a right, as a rule or as a principle. Effectively, you're saying "I believe that the teacher should be able to do what they feel is right... as long as I agree with it".

It's not a standard.

Back to the analogy of free speech (and it's just an analogy) you could say "I support the principle of free speech, people should be able to speak against the government... but depending on what they say... based on whether my principles agree."

That seems like an analogy to what you're proposing.

[cybercoma]

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.

All of which are against the conditions of his employment, as it breaks the policies set forth by his employers.

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

It's the wrong word. It's insubordination, not insurrection. You're insubordinate at your job because you think your ideas are better than the ideas of the people to whom you're accountable, you'll be fired too.

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!

Insubordination is what was meant and it is an offence that is worthy of termination when the policies set out are supposedly in the best interests of the education of children.

Everyone keeps talking about the man being principled. He didn't have enough principles to carry out the duties of his job, as required by his employer.

[cybercoma]

Insurrection means a revolt against authority, which is what this is - a violation of policy.

Insurrection is a revolt with the intent to overthrow. Perhaps the publicity of his "fight" is an attempt at insurrection; however, he lost. He's working for another employer and didn't overthrow anything.

The word I believe you're looking for is insubordination.

[cybercoma]

That's an interesting take on it. It's still basically says that you are applauding act of conscience that you deem to be worthwhile. People following this axiom would still likely only support these so-called stands if they agree with the actions. Is there a way we can describe such things, so that I can empathize with an act of conscience regardless of the political colour behind it ?

I'm asking honestly here. I keep going back to

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This is a clear separation of the act of free expression, with the content of that act.

Meanwhile, what does their agreement matter. It's if they believe it causes less harm. What if the school and board's policies were backed by research that shows not giving out zeroes is actually the less harmful approach for students? In fact, it's quite likely that this is the case, otherwise I can't see why they would have implemented it. It's possible that it's not backed by research, but my instincts is that they must have something supporting this approach. So what does it matter if people believe that the opposite approach is better, when there is empirical evidence to the contrary? Populist beliefs are useless in this case.

[cybercoma]

what if the teacher realized that the policy was hurting students. is it better to take a stand or blindly follow orders from superintendents and principals who are only concerned about graduation rates?

Realized through his unscientific anecdotal experience?

[Michael Hardner]

The word I believe you're looking for is insubordination.

Well, I did intend to use that word, but you're right insubordination is better.

Don't blame me, I have a science degree !

[Michael Hardner]

So what does it matter if people believe that the opposite approach is better, when there is empirical evidence to the contrary? Populist beliefs are useless in this case.

It's an arguable position, though. I'm sure those who agree with this stance can find evidence to support it. At the very least, they'll fall back on the "good ole country boy common sense" and appoint themselves experts on what should be done.

[Wild Bill]

All of which are against the conditions of his employment, as it breaks the policies set forth by his employers.

It's the wrong word. It's insubordination, not insurrection. You're insubordinate at your job because you think your ideas are better than the ideas of the people to whom you're accountable, you'll be fired too.

Insubordination is what was meant and it is an offence that is worthy of termination when the policies set out are supposedly in the best interests of the education of children.

Everyone keeps talking about the man being principled. He didn't have enough principles to carry out the duties of his job, as required by his employer.

Enough principles? Sometimes we can see the validity of an argument if we look at its converse.

If you and Michael are right, then authority must be accepted as always correct! Obedience therefore must be blind and trust in authority must be absolute.

This is of course, absurd! We live in a fallible society of fallible human beings. What's more, sometimes the channels for correcting mistakes can be clogged, drastically stretching out any time needed for corrections.

In a school, that time can result in many years of students being harmed by negative approaches to their education.

Dissent is a negative feedback mechanism. It allows for corrections in a system that is not perfect. It should never be so easy as to stop all progress but it should also never be so hard that no correction is possible.

The teacher took a principled stand and accepted the consequences. He was fired. A private school that shared his principles and valued them promptly hired him. Good for them!

Meanwhile, hopefully the principal in question will have his own actions examined in the court of public opinion and if necessary the boss above him. Up the line it should go and as quickly as possible.

The lives of the next generation truly depend on it!

Edited September 27, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

Enough principles? Sometimes we can see the validity of an argument if we look at its converse.

If you and Michael are right, then authority must be accepted as always correct!

That's wrong. The authority has a duty to listen and change needs to be managed and planned for.

[Wild Bill]

That's wrong. The authority has a duty to listen and change needs to be managed and planned for.

So is it your position that the principal and school board in question always 100% fulfilled their duty?

That we can always accept that fact as a given?

[Michael Hardner]

So is it your position that the principal and school board in question always 100% fulfilled their duty?

No - I haven't read the details of the story enough to say that that is so.

That we can always accept that fact as a given?

Of course not.

[kraychik]

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.

Right, and those Nazis that tried to assassinate Hitler were traitors, because they broke "the rules". The message here is clear: the "no zeroes" policy is ridiculous, and should be changed. Although considering Canada is packed with folks like Michael Hardner and bleeding heart, that's not likely to happen.

[kraychik]

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?

I didn't want to have to bring up that obvious point. The entire argumentation from Michael Hardner and his leftist entourage is one massive strawman. Everyone here understands why he was terminated, but what only a few of us understand is that the policy the teacher violated was a ridiculous rule that harmed educational outcomes.

[Michael Hardner]

Right, and those Nazis that tried to assassinate Hitler were traitors, because they broke "the rules".

Hyperbole. On the other post you criticized me for saying that the experts should have had better communications for some reason, then appeared to agree that experts are still needed as part of the system - but that parents need more control.

I don't understand - you just seem to be disagreeing with everything I say to be disagreeable.

Although considering Canada is packed with folks like Michael Hardner and bleeding heart, that's not likely to happen.

At least we respond to your posts, and try to build an argument. You're clearly just being disagreeable, and responding "when you feel like it". Not productive.

[kraychik]

Hyperbole. On the other post you criticized me for saying that the experts should have had better communications for some reason, then appeared to agree that experts are still needed as part of the system - but that parents need more control.

I don't understand - you just seem to be disagreeing with everything I say to be disagreeable.

I understand you're confused. It's hard for you to actually understand that there are conservatives in society like myself who don't want to transfer more of our individual sovereignty over to a bunch of social masterminds to direct our lives. Masterminds you describe as "experts". Some of us aren't so inept as to pine for our lives to be directed by a social conductor ("expert").

At least we respond to your posts, and try to build an argument. You're clearly just being disagreeable, and responding "when you feel like it". Not productive.

Right, you're so interested in honest and serious discussion that you think we shouldn't participate until we have sufficient educational "experts" to comment on the stupidity of a "no-zeroes" policy. Who knows, maybe there's someone with a Ph.D out there in "educational psychology" that supports such a destructive policy. What ever will we do then? At that point, as soon as someone with fake credentials comments on the matter, it's cased closed, right?

[Michael Hardner]

I understand you're confused. It's hard for you to actually understand that there are conservatives in society ...

Nothing to do with the discrepancy I pointed out. I was actually criticizing these experts but you criticized me for it. You declined the opportunity to state that these people should be eliminated.

Right, you're so interested in honest and serious discussion that you think we shouldn't participate until we have sufficient educational "experts" to comment on the stupidity of a "no-zeroes" policy. Who knows, maybe there's someone with a Ph.D out there in "educational psychology" that supports such a destructive policy. What ever will we do then? At that point, as soon as someone with fake credentials comments on the matter, it's cased closed, right?

I asked you point blank if you wanted to eliminate such experts and you didn't reply. What else am I supposed to think if you don't communicate clearly.

Stop being over-dramatic. Every discussion isn't the final battle between good and evil, you know. Most of these discussions are about fairly trite and procedural topics, but you're coming at them with hell fire in every sentence. It becomes quite boring, actually.

[kraychik]

Nothing to do with the discrepancy I pointed out. I was actually criticizing these experts but you criticized me for it. You declined the opportunity to state that these people should be eliminated.

I asked you point blank if you wanted to eliminate such experts and you didn't reply. What else am I supposed to think if you don't communicate clearly.

Stop being over-dramatic. Every discussion isn't the final battle between good and evil, you know. Most of these discussions are about fairly trite and procedural topics, but you're coming at them with hell fire in every sentence. It becomes quite boring, actually.

I understand that the broader issues involved when discussing "trite procedural topics" are lost on you. This is why you're so confounded all the time. You can't see the forest for the trees. You don't see what's at stake. I get that.

[Michael Hardner]

I understand that the broader issues involved when discussing "trite procedural topics" are lost on you. This is why you're so confounded all the time. You can't see the forest for the trees. You don't see what's at stake. I get that.

And with this response... you again step over the opportunity to discuss issues, and go after me personally instead.

I'll ask again: do you want to eliminate educational experts from the provincial ministries of education and school boards or not ?

[Mr.Canada]

A teaching certificate isn't required to teach in a private school.

[GostHacked]

what if the teacher realized that the policy was hurting students. is it better to take a stand or blindly follow orders from superintendents and principals who are only concerned about graduation rates?

Are you having a change of heart now?