A teacher wrote on her blog that she thinks her students are whiners.
Even though she had neither used her full name, nor mentioned the names of the students or of the school at which she taught, the students reported her blog to the school board, who proceeded to suspend the teacher for her comments (on her blog).
How did the school board confirm the students' accusation? The article does not disclose.
Here are some ironic quotes from the blog:
"They are rude, disengaged, lazy whiners. They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying."
"The students are not being held accountable."
Who is holding the school board accountable?
Doesn't the school board fancy itself entitled to whatever it desires, such as the identity of a suspicious blogger?
Why are the kids getting blamed for emulating their elders' behavior with accuracy?
Although most will disagree with what they did, the school board has every right to do this and there are almost definitely clauses regarding this type of thing in the teacher's contract. I know there are clauses that would apply to this type of behavior in teacher contracts in my area.
Let's see how far we can get before someone mistakenly references "freedom of speech" in relation to this story. Over/Under is 5 posts.
Although most will disagree with what they did, the school board has every right to do this and there are almost definitely clauses regarding this type of thing in the teacher's contract. I know there are clauses that would apply to this type of behavior in teacher contracts in my area.
Let's see how far we can get before someone mistakenly references "freedom of speech" in relation to this story. Over/Under is 5 posts.
I'll bite. Why is freedom of speech not an issue?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey kids! Don't like rules? Tired of having your lulz censored by terrible, terrible people called "moderators"? Big fan of metal? Check out Metaln☺☺☺☺! This is probably the worst possible forum to advertise it on!
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
Like D00msday said, it sounds kind of unfair to me but it also sounds like the kind of thing that may or may not be a breach of contract. While I think it's somewhat fair because no names were mentioned or anything, I also think it's kind of strange that, given this, the students were able to identify it as hers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Virtue, Jacques, is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it..."
As far as I'm concerned the school boardhad no right, nor logical reason to suspend the teacher, for freedom of speech outside school grounds. I mean it's bad enough the woman has to put up with little ☺☺☺☺s that can't show respect or decent behavior, but know the teacher is out of a job in a really ☺☺☺☺ty economy.
If anything, the students are the ones who really need to be punished.
The first amendment says that the government can't limit your speech. Schools, employers, businesses, venues, etc have always had (and used) the ability to do so.
Radio stations can fire Imus for making racially charged comments. Schools can suspend students for swearing. Employers can limit what you can say at work or about work. Freedom of speech is only about the government's ability to restrict speech, no one else's.
She (probably) signed a contract saying more or less that she wouldn't dis her students in public. Which in my mind is a perfectly fair stipulation for a teacher's contract to have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sounds like there's going to be a legal battle here.
I'm on her side philosophically, but to publish those words in a way that can be discovered by her students who are underage ( her precautions don't sound that secure. It's not like a private diary or something ), and take it to heart personally... I have to agree that what she published was wrong. There may be ☺☺☺☺-ups, ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s with ☺☺☺☺ty parents, etc. in school, but some of her comments were cruel, and the nature of her put downs of kids and their parents crossed the line.
I think she should get off with an apology and explanation.
I don't even understand how her choice of words were anything less than objective and ture;
rude, disengaged, lazy whiners. They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying.
That sounds like something that any normal human being would right down in a progress report, an any formal institution. I find it bothersome that becuase of ridiculous policies concerning speech, that most people like her can't freely speak her mind whenever she wants and/or has a right to do so.
I'm honestly a bit bothered that people in our culture have reached the point where they hold up the first amendment as if it was supposed to mean they can say what they want without consequences.
Legally, yes, you can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you can say it without social consequences. I have no idea if the school board had the legal right to do what they did, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did have the legal right, and they certainly have the moral right to demand that their employees don't speak badly of their pupils in a public (and yes, the internet is public, even if people have to jump through a few hoops to see what you wrote).
I'm honestly a bit bothered that people in our culture have reached the point where they hold up the first amendment as if it was supposed to mean they can say what they want without consequences.
Legally, yes, you can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you can say it without social consequences. I have no idea if the school board had the legal right to do what they did, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did have the legal right, and they certainly have the moral right to demand that their employees don't speak badly of their pupils in a public (and yes, the internet is public, even if people have to jump through a few hoops to see what you wrote).
I completely agree. Freedom of Speech is not complete immunity of speech - government and private employers can still fire you if you make inappropriate comments, especially about that job. Anything on the internet is not private - especially a blog. That's why I never make comments about my work online, in any form, or identify my employer specifically.
I don't even understand how her choice of words were anything less than objective and ture;
Quote from Savage Idealist »
rude, disengaged, lazy whiners. They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying.
That sounds like something that any normal human being would right down in a progress report, an any formal institution. I find it bothersome that becuase of ridiculous policies concerning speech, that most people like her can't freely speak her mind whenever she wants and/or has a right to do so.
I respect that.
Initially I was definitely purely pro-teacher. But after reading the comment of the one (actually sympathetic) former student who commented:
Quote from former student in article »
One of Munroe's former students, who now attends McDaniel College in Westminster, Md., said he was torn by his former teacher's comments. Jeff Shoolbraid said that he thought much of what Munroe said was true and that she had a right to voice her opinion, but felt her comments were out of line for a teacher.
"Whatever influenced her to say what she did is evidence as to why she simply should not teach," Shoolbraid wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "I just thought it was completely inappropriate."
He continued: "As far as motivated high school students, she's completely correct. High school kids don't want to do anything. ... It's a teacher's job, however, to give students the motivation to learn."
While I too am sympathetic to her comments about students, and agree with her to some degree, have you considered how her comments lok to her students? Realize that the students are underage, impressionable, supposed to look up to the teacher as a role model, and many of whom are not necessarily the bad kids she describes.
Do you think that you'd want one of your children being taught by a "role model" who just announced her attitude towards her students this way? That she considers all her students to be "lazy, disengaged whiners" who are "just generally annoying" ?
Particularly found this to be out of line for a teacher to write in a blog (and I find her "precautions" to be a bit flimsy):
She also listed some comments she wished she could post on student evaluations, including: "I hear the trash company is hiring"; "I called out sick a couple of days just to avoid your son"; and "Just as bad as his sibling. Don't you know how to raise kids?"
That's just venting... but its very meanspirited, and has no business being written down.
It's probably more a reflection of ignorance of her medium, than pure recklessness. But if she's that jaded, I don't want her teaching my kids.
Is school meant to be a place where children learn facts, or is school meant to be a place where children feel accepted?
I don't like what the teacher said about her students.
There may well be a clause in her contract prohibiting her from making derogatory statements about her students.
Here's the thing: the school board is basically saying, "We are aware that teachers feel frustration and disappointment, and we know they want to express these feelings. We are not going to allow them to express these feelings in any public or semi-public capacity whatsoever, because we want the students to be free from the belief that their behavior is subject to personal judgment."
Is this what a school is supposed to do for our youth? How does this prepare them to live in reality?
Wouldn't it be better if the teachers could express their views in public, and, if their students heard them, the students could say, "Oh well, as long as I am learning facts, it doesn't matter what the teacher's personal biases may be?"
It is as though the school board is trying to imply that a teacher who expresses criticism cannot teach facts to her students; like niceness is a prerequisite of facts.
I fine the poll on the bottom to be the most interesting part of the article
Yes. Her conduct steps over a line and is clearly verbal abuse: 2,660 votes 3%
No. Today's students deserve some tough love: 74,714 votes 97%
That's largely a knee jerk reaction to the article (my own initial one actually).
It reflects general frustration of lazy students/parents etc. And problems with the school system, as well as how the article is written.
The poll itself is particularly unfair,offering a false dichotomy: making option B: "today's students deserve some tough love" NO ☺☺☺☺. Of course I'm all for tough love on the students, not for being soft.
A little reflection should make us remember that all or even most of her students are not necessarily deserving of that tirade, but are unfairly targeted by that tirade. That level of burnout and cynicism (really sounds like she's written a lot of students off, and holds biases against some kids who had siblings in her class before) as I said, deserves reprimand and maybe re-evaluation... But I don't consider it a firing offense.
If a cop in my neighborhood wrote this way in his blog about civilians in general, I'd be nervous...
I fine the poll on the bottom to be the most interesting part of the article
Yes. Her conduct steps over a line and is clearly verbal abuse: 2,660 votes 3%
No. Today's students deserve some tough love: 74,714 votes 97%
Those statistics
The poll is missing the option of
-a teacher should not belittle his/her students in a public forum
The general opinion in this thread is that while she had the right to think and say those things, the school board has a right to prohibit its employees from doing so.
Still though, in an opinion driven poll and for ~10,000 votes, 97% voted one way.
That's crazy! Is something wrong with the question and I'm missing it? (other than the lack of a 3rd option)
Still though, in an opinion driven poll and for ~10,000 votes, 97% voted one way.
That's crazy! Is something wrong with the question and I'm missing it? (other than the lack of a 3rd option)
Almost EVERYBODY agrees with this statement wholeheartedly: "Today's students deserve some tough love"
*I* agree unequivocably with that statement. The survey doesn't ask if her actions qualify as "tough love" ( In what way do they come close to qualifying as "tough love"? ) It's just venting and belitting her students. I'd 100% agree that "Today's students deserve some tough love"... but the poll doesn't ask if her comments qualify as "tough love".
The other choice is arguable either way: "Her conduct steps over a line and is clearly verbal abuse"
I think it's over the line, but I'm not sure it's "clearly verbal abuse" since it wasn't meant to be read by the students. Either way, I feel much more strongly that "Today's students deserve some tough love", so I'd have checked that box even though I think she was wrong to do what she did.
False dichotomy, and very poorly designed choices. Polls are all about how you word them.
That's quite little worth, seeing as how internet polls usually are not printed. Perhaps "the pixels they're displayed on" would be more apt, in this day and age.
Almost EVERYBODY agrees with this statement wholeheartedly: "Today's students deserve some tough love"
...
False dichotomy, and very poorly designed choices. Polls are all about how you word them.
This sounds more plausible than the IP spoof theory.
Originally posted by Taylor
Still though, in an opinion driven poll and for ~10,000 votes, 97% voted one way.
That's crazy! Is something wrong with the question and I'm missing it? (other than the lack of a 3rd option)
What's so crazy about it? Common sense would dictate that calling your students rude, lazy, selfish, mis-behaving brats is perfectly normal, honestly I'd be surprised if more people answered that opposite.
What's so crazy about it? Common sense would dictate that calling your students rude, lazy, selfish, mis-behaving brats is perfectly normal, honestly I'd be surprised if more people answered that opposite.
I am shocked that given a sampling of random humans so many answered the same way.
A teacher wrote on her blog that she thinks her students are whiners.
Even though she had neither used her full name, nor mentioned the names of the students or of the school at which she taught, the students reported her blog to the school board, who proceeded to suspend the teacher for her comments (on her blog).
How did the school board confirm the students' accusation? The article does not disclose.
Here are some ironic quotes from the blog:
Who is holding the school board accountable?
Doesn't the school board fancy itself entitled to whatever it desires, such as the identity of a suspicious blogger?
Why are the kids getting blamed for emulating their elders' behavior with accuracy?
Let's see how far we can get before someone mistakenly references "freedom of speech" in relation to this story. Over/Under is 5 posts.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
I'll bite. Why is freedom of speech not an issue?
Added bonus: we're holding a songwriting contest in march with a registry drive going on right now! Check it out, plus the opportunity to earn $50!
If anything, the students are the ones who really need to be punished.
The first amendment says that the government can't limit your speech. Schools, employers, businesses, venues, etc have always had (and used) the ability to do so.
Radio stations can fire Imus for making racially charged comments. Schools can suspend students for swearing. Employers can limit what you can say at work or about work. Freedom of speech is only about the government's ability to restrict speech, no one else's.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
She (probably) signed a contract saying more or less that she wouldn't dis her students in public. Which in my mind is a perfectly fair stipulation for a teacher's contract to have.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sounds like there's going to be a legal battle here.
I'm on her side philosophically, but to publish those words in a way that can be discovered by her students who are underage ( her precautions don't sound that secure. It's not like a private diary or something ), and take it to heart personally... I have to agree that what she published was wrong. There may be ☺☺☺☺-ups, ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺s with ☺☺☺☺ty parents, etc. in school, but some of her comments were cruel, and the nature of her put downs of kids and their parents crossed the line.
I think she should get off with an apology and explanation.
That sounds like something that any normal human being would right down in a progress report, an any formal institution. I find it bothersome that becuase of ridiculous policies concerning speech, that most people like her can't freely speak her mind whenever she wants and/or has a right to do so.
Legally, yes, you can say whatever you want. But that doesn't mean you can say it without social consequences. I have no idea if the school board had the legal right to do what they did, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did have the legal right, and they certainly have the moral right to demand that their employees don't speak badly of their pupils in a public (and yes, the internet is public, even if people have to jump through a few hoops to see what you wrote).
I completely agree. Freedom of Speech is not complete immunity of speech - government and private employers can still fire you if you make inappropriate comments, especially about that job. Anything on the internet is not private - especially a blog. That's why I never make comments about my work online, in any form, or identify my employer specifically.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Initially I was definitely purely pro-teacher. But after reading the comment of the one (actually sympathetic) former student who commented:
While I too am sympathetic to her comments about students, and agree with her to some degree, have you considered how her comments lok to her students? Realize that the students are underage, impressionable, supposed to look up to the teacher as a role model, and many of whom are not necessarily the bad kids she describes.
Do you think that you'd want one of your children being taught by a "role model" who just announced her attitude towards her students this way? That she considers all her students to be "lazy, disengaged whiners" who are "just generally annoying" ?
Particularly found this to be out of line for a teacher to write in a blog (and I find her "precautions" to be a bit flimsy):
That's just venting... but its very meanspirited, and has no business being written down.
It's probably more a reflection of ignorance of her medium, than pure recklessness. But if she's that jaded, I don't want her teaching my kids.
I don't like what the teacher said about her students.
There may well be a clause in her contract prohibiting her from making derogatory statements about her students.
Here's the thing: the school board is basically saying, "We are aware that teachers feel frustration and disappointment, and we know they want to express these feelings. We are not going to allow them to express these feelings in any public or semi-public capacity whatsoever, because we want the students to be free from the belief that their behavior is subject to personal judgment."
Is this what a school is supposed to do for our youth? How does this prepare them to live in reality?
Wouldn't it be better if the teachers could express their views in public, and, if their students heard them, the students could say, "Oh well, as long as I am learning facts, it doesn't matter what the teacher's personal biases may be?"
It is as though the school board is trying to imply that a teacher who expresses criticism cannot teach facts to her students; like niceness is a prerequisite of facts.
Yes. Her conduct steps over a line and is clearly verbal abuse: 2,660 votes 3%
No. Today's students deserve some tough love: 74,714 votes 97%
Those statistics
It reflects general frustration of lazy students/parents etc. And problems with the school system, as well as how the article is written.
The poll itself is particularly unfair,offering a false dichotomy: making option B: "today's students deserve some tough love" NO ☺☺☺☺. Of course I'm all for tough love on the students, not for being soft.
A little reflection should make us remember that all or even most of her students are not necessarily deserving of that tirade, but are unfairly targeted by that tirade. That level of burnout and cynicism (really sounds like she's written a lot of students off, and holds biases against some kids who had siblings in her class before) as I said, deserves reprimand and maybe re-evaluation... But I don't consider it a firing offense.
If a cop in my neighborhood wrote this way in his blog about civilians in general, I'd be nervous...
The poll is missing the option of
-a teacher should not belittle his/her students in a public forum
The general opinion in this thread is that while she had the right to think and say those things, the school board has a right to prohibit its employees from doing so.
That's crazy! Is something wrong with the question and I'm missing it? (other than the lack of a 3rd option)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
*I* agree unequivocably with that statement. The survey doesn't ask if her actions qualify as "tough love" ( In what way do they come close to qualifying as "tough love"? ) It's just venting and belitting her students. I'd 100% agree that "Today's students deserve some tough love"... but the poll doesn't ask if her comments qualify as "tough love".
The other choice is arguable either way: "Her conduct steps over a line and is clearly verbal abuse"
I think it's over the line, but I'm not sure it's "clearly verbal abuse" since it wasn't meant to be read by the students. Either way, I feel much more strongly that "Today's students deserve some tough love", so I'd have checked that box even though I think she was wrong to do what she did.
False dichotomy, and very poorly designed choices. Polls are all about how you word them.
----------Blinking Spirit-----------
-----------Your Head-------------
That's a lot of IP's to spoof for more or less no reason on a minor internet poll.
They also must have made a statement generator too, since only people that voted "no" left a comment.
This sounds more plausible than the IP spoof theory.
I too voted 'no.'
What's so crazy about it? Common sense would dictate that calling your students rude, lazy, selfish, mis-behaving brats is perfectly normal, honestly I'd be surprised if more people answered that opposite.
I am shocked that given a sampling of random humans so many answered the same way.
In the same topic as the OP, what do people think of this article:
Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior
☺☺☺☺ing Amy Chua. I believe Cracked had the best rebuttal (warning: Cracked). See especially reason #1.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Possibly linked to the poll by a popular blog on the subject, or something.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.