Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 06-20-2002, 01:15 AM

Was having dinner last week with friends when a heated discussion erupted over an incident a one lad�s Aubury secondary school a few months back.

Basically a teacher had struck a student & in the resultant furore and public outcry, was dismissed in disgrace. My friends expressed their shock and disapproval, but I was a little more cautious & asked �did the kid have it coming ?�

As it turns out, there had been ongoing verbal defiance from the 16 year old student, culminating in a threat that he was going to rape the teacher�s daughter. The student then pushed the teacher & the teacher struck back.

I�m afraid I don�t know any more details, but on this basis, I really don�t see the incident as being as black and white as my friends did.

In my book, the kid had it coming. There is a mood in schools today where political correctness has eroded discipline severely and respect is essentially a thing of the past. Apparently the teacher was a quite popular drama teacher & when sacked almost half the school boycotted in protest.

I am not a parent, but often I take responsibility for children & can I say that if a child of mine were at a school where other students could freely threaten to rape others, I would be very concerned. But further, if the student were struck for this behaviour (no not too hard & I know that�s subjective), then I could quite comfortably turn a blind eye.

I know one cannot condone violence by a teacher, however I see the need to acknowledge that there was provocation involved, and that instant and permanent dismissal is not necessarily the best course of action. In doing so, one has only further weakened the confidence that teachers have over what are often extremely difficult student problems. It is yet another example of standards being brought down to the lowest common denominator.

If between 2 adults, a court of law would recognise provocation and the anger of the moment & adjudicate accordingly. But a zero tolerance policy in the case of minors results in a potentially good teacher expelled from his profession for a moment of weakness, and all moral victory going to the student. Call me an old-fashioned prude , but 16 year olds today aren�t the na�ve children we were when we were 16.

Political correctness be damned. It�s left us with an impotent schooling system which teaches trouble-makers that they can freely behave any way they want.

99Percent · 06-22-2002, 03:49 PM

In any situation where there is a position of authority such as teacher/student no matter what the ages are, the one in authority should never resort into reacting with violence.

The teacher instead of hitting the 16 year old should have taken control of the situation and should have expelled him from the classroom or school. After all the student cannot leave on his own or expel the teacher.

snatchbalance · 06-23-2002, 09:10 AM

echidna,

In general, I think establised authority relies too heavily on violence, and the threat of violence, to maintain the status quo. I tend to support actions that lessen that tendency.

A teacher that reacts with violence to student provocation, except in the case of self defence, should be censured in some manner, IMO.

I don't know if dismissal was appropriate in this instance.

SB

echidna · 06-23-2002, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by snatchbalance:
In general, I think establised authority relies too heavily on violence, and the threat of violence, to maintain the status quo. I tend to support actions that lessen that tendency.

Certainly in the past, canings & teacher beatings were very common & I don�t support this either. (Our Physical Education teacher had a cane called Hector.) However the pendulum has swung a long long way since then. We now suddenly have a policy of zero tolerance. The inconsistency I draw, is that if such a confrontation were to occur on the street, the law would recognise provocation & that anger had clouded the behaviour of the participants.

An extreme example to highlight society�s double-standards is sporting violence. Special sporting tribunals judge over the weekly fights which break out during our weekly sporting matches. A football punch is a completely different to a streetfight punch? So a widely televised brawl is not a criminal act of violence ? Our courts don�t think so. And I�m not saying that they should be either, but I simply draw an extreme example that violence is not necessarily violence, & must be seen in its context. Too often zero tolerance is an over-simplistic approach to a complex issue.

Similarly, I�m guessing that most of us have been smacked at some time or another by parents, either in anger or as punishment. Again, the law does not have a zero tolerance position towards our parents under these circumstances. The law will tolerate that parenting situations are difficult & there are grey areas where value judgements are relevant to assessing appropriate action. Why are teachers so different ? Rejecting a zero tolerance position does not mean opening the door back open to public canings. It simply recognises that there are situations where people can be forced into where they can make mistakes.

Neither are public crucifixions of teachers constructive reactions. Just as one does not want to ban the student from any further education, one must weigh up the cost of permanently barring a teacher from his profession. The key word is �constructive�.

Quote:

Originally posted by snatchbalance:
A teacher that reacts with violence to student provocation, except in the case of self defence, should be censured in some manner, IMO.

I agree, counselling, stress leave, there are many options. I have infinite respect for those who take on the heavy responsibility of looking after children. They are not easy jobs & I think we need to support those who undertake them as much as possible. Burdening them with the expectation of moral perfection is unrealistic.

And none of this yet addresses the far greater problem. How does one deal with a student who freely threatens to rape others ?

99, reply tomorrow I hope. There have been 2 newspaper articles since last week.

echidna · 06-23-2002, 05:40 PM

99, for a quick response, I usually cringe at the word �should�.

Moral idealism is generally quite easy to rationalise & to an extent I view Political Correctness often as being a recent form of moral idealism, a new societal absolutism, with striking similarities to its religious predecessors.

Too often, using �should� is an easy covert method of subconsciously acknowledging that there are grey areas. Substitute the words �must under all circumstances without exception� & the sentence has quite a different tone, and one which I don�t necessarily agree with.

We all know the ideal. The question is, how strongly do we react when it is transgressed ?

Arrowman · 06-23-2002, 07:01 PM

Certainly we hold teachers (and other similar professionals) to a higher standard of behaviour (and in particular, self-control) than we do the "man in the street" when it comes to this sort of incident. And rightly so. If you've got a quick and violent temper, you shouldn't be a teacher.

OTOH if the incident is as described, then I absolutely agree that the teacher should not have been dismissed. A little counselling might be in order, and perhaps even a suspension, but dismissal of a teacher who has been physically assaulted, and whose daughter has been threatened by a 16 year old thug? I don't think so.

All this is assuming, of course, that the teacher in question is expressing an appropriate degree of regret over the incident. I suspect that "the little bastard had it coming to him" might not be the best way to respond! (Not suggesting that that's what happened - just illustrating the point.)

Worst of all, this give the thug in question the impression of immunity - they get to stay at school (? do they?) and the teacher gets sacked. Great example.

99Percent · 06-23-2002, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by echidna:
99, for a quick response, I usually cringe at the word �should�.

Then you shouldn't be in this forum

echidna · 06-25-2002, 02:31 AM

To complete my rant on the woeful state of secondary teaching �

From Sunday�s Herald-Sun :

Quote:

Lack of male teachers is believed to be partly responsible for boys� poor academic performance, which is the subject of a Federal Parliamentary enquiry.

And from Saturday�s Age (1/6/02)

Quote:

Discussion about discipline was a crucial element missing this week in the debate and public outcry about why many government secondary schools are underperforming according to Taylor.

�Teachers are reluctant to talk publicly about how the behaviour of one or two children in a classroom can neutralise the learning process for the rest of the class,� he says. �There is a very serious discipline problem throughout our school system � children are much more wiling to defy their teachers and to disrupt their classrooms. It�s very difficult for individual teachers to say there�s a discipline problem because it makes the school look like a disaster.�

and,

Quote:

�It�s politically incorrect these days to indicate that families are often the starting point of all these difficulties�, he says. �The reality of the situation is that there are a large number of families who are in a complete state of disaster. The Australian working class has never given as high a priority to education as it should have � People treat education with contempt and teachers are a favourite target.�

Too often we hear the Left complaining bitterly about lack of funding as the cause of the decline in standards. True in part that the decline in teacher numbers must be pay related, but when one studies the grassroots problems in our education system, it�s clear that direction and education policy have a far larger part to play. Forget class sizes. When behaviour such as the student�s is tolerated (which it is, and only when it comes to publicity is it acted against), then one has far greater problems in delivering learning to students. This is what makes teaching so difficult.

The warm fuzziness of being unable to effectively reprimand and control this behaviour, and the impotence of Political Correctness are not helping. Further succumbing to Political Correctness and simply sacking teachers who succumb to the stress, only exacerbates the problem by further eroding already low teacher morale.

(rant over)

ManM · 06-25-2002, 06:36 AM

Hrm, just a random thought...

Which is a better corrective measure: expelling a student and possibly ruining his life or giving him a smack that only harms him for a day or two?

snatchbalance · 06-25-2002, 09:26 AM

echidna,

1. From what I can understand of the situation, the student did not initiate the violence, the teacher did. Who crossed the line first?

2. If the student was engaging in inappropriate behavior, it seems that some measures, other than violence on the part of the teacher, could have been taken. Were other corrective measures taken prior to the teacher losing control?

3. It seems like the teacher could have faced assualt charges, appearantly no such charges were filed. If the student had initiated the violence, in all likeyhood, he would have faced criminal charges.

4. Yes, violence is specific to the context. IMO, it does not belong in the student/teacher relationship.

sb

06-20-2002, 01:15 AM	#1
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Political correctness and the teaching profession Was having dinner last week with friends when a heated discussion erupted over an incident a one lad�s Aubury secondary school a few months back. Basically a teacher had struck a student & in the resultant furore and public outcry, was dismissed in disgrace. My friends expressed their shock and disapproval, but I was a little more cautious & asked �did the kid have it coming ?� As it turns out, there had been ongoing verbal defiance from the 16 year old student, culminating in a threat that he was going to rape the teacher�s daughter. The student then pushed the teacher & the teacher struck back. I�m afraid I don�t know any more details, but on this basis, I really don�t see the incident as being as black and white as my friends did. In my book, the kid had it coming. There is a mood in schools today where political correctness has eroded discipline severely and respect is essentially a thing of the past. Apparently the teacher was a quite popular drama teacher & when sacked almost half the school boycotted in protest. I am not a parent, but often I take responsibility for children & can I say that if a child of mine were at a school where other students could freely threaten to rape others, I would be very concerned. But further, if the student were struck for this behaviour (no not too hard & I know that�s subjective), then I could quite comfortably turn a blind eye. I know one cannot condone violence by a teacher, however I see the need to acknowledge that there was provocation involved, and that instant and permanent dismissal is not necessarily the best course of action. In doing so, one has only further weakened the confidence that teachers have over what are often extremely difficult student problems. It is yet another example of standards being brought down to the lowest common denominator. If between 2 adults, a court of law would recognise provocation and the anger of the moment & adjudicate accordingly. But a zero tolerance policy in the case of minors results in a potentially good teacher expelled from his profession for a moment of weakness, and all moral victory going to the student. Call me an old-fashioned prude , but 16 year olds today aren�t the na�ve children we were when we were 16. Political correctness be damned. It�s left us with an impotent schooling system which teaches trouble-makers that they can freely behave any way they want.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2002, 03:49 PM	#2
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	In any situation where there is a position of authority such as teacher/student no matter what the ages are, the one in authority should never resort into reacting with violence. The teacher instead of hitting the 16 year old should have taken control of the situation and should have expelled him from the classroom or school. After all the student cannot leave on his own or expel the teacher.

06-23-2002, 09:10 AM	#3
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	echidna, In general, I think establised authority relies too heavily on violence, and the threat of violence, to maintain the status quo. I tend to support actions that lessen that tendency. A teacher that reacts with violence to student provocation, except in the case of self defence, should be censured in some manner, IMO. I don't know if dismissal was appropriate in this instance. SB

06-23-2002, 05:40 PM	#5
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	99, for a quick response, I usually cringe at the word �should�. Moral idealism is generally quite easy to rationalise & to an extent I view Political Correctness often as being a recent form of moral idealism, a new societal absolutism, with striking similarities to its religious predecessors. Too often, using �should� is an easy covert method of subconsciously acknowledging that there are grey areas. Substitute the words �must under all circumstances without exception� & the sentence has quite a different tone, and one which I don�t necessarily agree with. We all know the ideal. The question is, how strongly do we react when it is transgressed ?

06-23-2002, 07:01 PM	#6
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	Certainly we hold teachers (and other similar professionals) to a higher standard of behaviour (and in particular, self-control) than we do the "man in the street" when it comes to this sort of incident. And rightly so. If you've got a quick and violent temper, you shouldn't be a teacher. OTOH if the incident is as described, then I absolutely agree that the teacher should not have been dismissed. A little counselling might be in order, and perhaps even a suspension, but dismissal of a teacher who has been physically assaulted, and whose daughter has been threatened by a 16 year old thug? I don't think so. All this is assuming, of course, that the teacher in question is expressing an appropriate degree of regret over the incident. I suspect that "the little bastard had it coming to him" might not be the best way to respond! (Not suggesting that that's what happened - just illustrating the point.) Worst of all, this give the thug in question the impression of immunity - they get to stay at school (? do they?) and the teacher gets sacked. Great example.

06-25-2002, 06:36 AM	#9
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	Hrm, just a random thought... Which is a better corrective measure: expelling a student and possibly ruining his life or giving him a smack that only harms him for a day or two?

06-25-2002, 09:26 AM	#10
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	echidna, 1. From what I can understand of the situation, the student did not initiate the violence, the teacher did. Who crossed the line first? 2. If the student was engaging in inappropriate behavior, it seems that some measures, other than violence on the part of the teacher, could have been taken. Were other corrective measures taken prior to the teacher losing control? 3. It seems like the teacher could have faced assualt charges, appearantly no such charges were filed. If the student had initiated the violence, in all likeyhood, he would have faced criminal charges. 4. Yes, violence is specific to the context. IMO, it does not belong in the student/teacher relationship. sb

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.