Teacher placed on leave

[MA_PE]

No, I dont know her, and yes I am being judgmental, just like the two school boards that fired her, which were right in doing so.

For the record, if you read the article, she was never "fired", she asked for leave from her current job and she was "suspended" from the previous job. I interpret the concensus as not being judmental or saying she is unfit to teach, but rather due to the inherent nature of teenage kids and sexual development it makes a complicated situation to place her in a position of authority like a teacher.

badal, you're cetrtainly entiltled to your opinion. As far as expensive private schools are concerened...you ever hear of the "pumpkin man"*? I'd rather have my kid being taught by a pron star.

* - google - pumpkin man and Phiilips Academy, Andover, MA

 

[roadwreck]

opcorn:

I think both sides of this discussion have very valid points.

 

[goodal]

No, I dont know her, and yes I am being judgmental, just like the two school boards that fired her, which were right in doing so.

For the record, if you read the article, she was never "fired", she asked for leave from her current job and she was "suspended" from the previous job. I interpret the concensus as not being judmental or saying she is unfit to teach, but rather due to the inherent nature of teenage kids and sexual development it makes a complicated situation to place her in a position of authority like a teacher.

badal, you're cetrtainly entiltled to your opinion. As far as expensive private schools are concerened...you ever hear of the "pumpkin man"*? I'd rather have my kid being taught by a pron star.

* - google - pumpkin man and Phiilips Academy, Andover, MA

And she wasn't a prostitute, she just had sex for money. Thanks for entitling me to my opinion, which is what I thought this was, an opinion board. Also did I say expensive? I don't have my children in an expensive prep school. It's a small school run by my church that my wife, mother and other friends and family have helped out at in the past. So I have a pretty good idea who is influencing my children. Notice I didn't say they were perfect, or that I know all details of all their past, but I do know them personally and have faith in those in charge of my children for 1/2 their waking hours.

 

[FusionWhite]

I see a couple general trends in peoples thinking concerning this.

One is the effect on the kids; kids will find out shes **** star (mostly teenagers), go look up her videos and they'll be corrupted, not listen to her, blah blah blah. I can actually see some validity in this as it is an arguement to protect kids to stuff that they should not directly be exposed to. I dont think its as big of a deal as most people blow it up to be but I can agree that generally its bad to encourage kids (even if its only stroking their own curiousity) to look up ****. Overall though I think this arguement is pretty weak. **** and teenagers go together like peanut butter and jelly with or without this teacher.

The other arguement seems to be punative. She did **** so back to the trash heap with her. I think this is just terrible. Its been argued above pretty well, but she didnt break the law, second chances blah blah blah, which I agree with completely.

 

[MA_PE]

I see a couple general trends in peoples thinking concerning this.
One is the effect on the kids; kids will find out shes **** star (mostly teenagers), go look up her videos and they'll be corrupted, not listen to her, blah blah blah. I can actually see some validity in this as it is an arguement to protect kids to stuff that they should not directly be exposed to. I dont think its as big of a deal as most people blow it up to be but I can agree that generally its bad to encourage kids (even if its only stroking their own curiousity) to look up ****. Overall though I think this arguement is pretty weak. **** and teenagers go together like peanut butter and jelly with or without this teacher.

I don't see any "corruption" here, but her authority as a teacher is compromised as she's exposed to junvenile taunts, etc. as described by DV above. Her effectiveness at maintaining control of the classroom, is diminished to the point where I think it's easier to just let her go, then try to make it work. Kids, especially high school aged kids, do not need "encouragement" to look up pron, they just need a computer and internet access or movie tickets.

The other arguement seems to be punative. She did **** so back to the trash heap with her. I think this is just terrible. Its been argued above pretty well, but she didnt break the law, second chances blah blah blah, which I agree with completely.

This "arguement" stems from a puritanical/moralistic point of view that belongs in the dark ages and why the catholic church remians in turmoil especially here in the Boston area. Heck some people think it's "right" to picket funerals of returning dead soldiers because the military fights for the rights of homosexuals.

 

[humner]

badal's constitution is strong. I don't believe even a 2d20 could make him waver.

D&D reference, I sense 3, 3.5, or even 4.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

(even if its only stroking their own curiousity) to look up ****.

If they are looking up ****, it's not their curiosity they will be stroking.

 

[IlPadrino]

IlPadrino:So because there are bad examples out there I should put my impressionable child in front of them to get them ready for the real world. Please that logic that has more holes than a block of swiss cheese. We keep a pretty tight guard on our kids, go to church all the time, they attend a christian private school with less than 50 kids total and they still come home talking about things we wish they hadn't heard. So they will get plenty of the "real world" without me placing bad examples in front of them.

By your logic, shouldn't you be looking for another school? I recommend homeschooling, assuming you're available to teach or you're happy with your wife's impressions.

 

[goodal]

I would recommend homeschooling as well. I was homeschooled for grades 7-10. As to the other point, our goal is to protect them as much as possible without knowingly placing them in the care of others that do not hold to the same belief system or morals that we do, at least for as long as we can in their youth. My wife is well capable of schooling them and if it comes to that, we will attempt it.

To keep us on point, are you saying you'll let any Ol' John or Jane teach your children as long as they regret their poor life choices?

 

[IlPadrino]

To keep us on point, are you saying you'll let any Ol' John or Jane teach your children as long as they regret their poor life choices?

I'm saying that I send my child to public school and I'm content to let anyone teach him that is doing so within the guidelines established by the school district, regardless of their morals. I don't want certain convicted felons, for obvious reasons. But my morals are no more "right" or "entitled" than the next guy's.

Further, I'm *VERY* confident that my child has been raised well enough to know right from wrong and he won't be unduly swayed by teachers regardless of the their morals.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Sorry to rant but this is a pretty sore point for me. Without good examples for our children to look at during their formative years, they WILL develope into an even worse generation than we are. Don't we want our kids to be better than we turned out? Justifiying this woman to excuse our own behaviour doesn't make it right or excuse her life choices. So to sum up my argument, she may be a fine person, that I could and would forgive if she were in my life, but just like a lying lawyer, an inept doctor, or bribed official she has disqualified herself from this particular industry. That's all I was trying to say. Oh, and I've tried to get all the punctuation in there for you grammar nazis.

*develop

 

[goodal]

To keep us on point, are you saying you'll let any Ol' John or Jane teach your children as long as they regret their poor life choices?

I'm saying that I send my child to public school and I'm content to let anyone teach him that is doing so within the guidelines established by the school district, regardless of their morals. I don't want certain convicted felons, for obvious reasons. But my morals are no more "right" or "entitled" than the next guy's.

Further, I'm *VERY* confident that my child has been raised well enough to know right from wrong and he won't be unduly swayed by teachers regardless of the their morals.

So, the impass between us is that you do not know right from wrong and I have a set standard for them. I'm afraid there is no getting past that.

Have a nice life.

 

[navyasw02]

To keep us on point, are you saying you'll let any Ol' John or Jane teach your children as long as they regret their poor life choices?

I'm saying that I send my child to public school and I'm content to let anyone teach him that is doing so within the guidelines established by the school district, regardless of their morals. I don't want certain convicted felons, for obvious reasons. But my morals are no more "right" or "entitled" than the next guy's.

Further, I'm *VERY* confident that my child has been raised well enough to know right from wrong and he won't be unduly swayed by teachers regardless of the their morals.

This is really the key here. Parents should be your children's role models, not teachers, athletes, or actors. As a parent, you are responsible for teaching your child moral values, not dump them off at school and hope for the best.

 

[IlPadrino]

So, the impass between us is that you do not know right from wrong and I have a set standard for them. I'm afraid there is no getting past that.
Have a nice life.

You're free to set what you call "standards for right and wrong" (morals, yeah?) ... but surely you don't think you, personally, should be setting morals for the public?

Thanks for the "have a nice life", especially if it's really heartfelt. Somehow, though, you don't come off as a live-and-let-live kind of guy. Which I'm sure works just fine if you're sufficiently insulated.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Sorry to rant but this is a pretty sore point for me. Without good examples for our children to look at during their formative years, they WILL develope into an even worse generation than we are. Don't we want our kids to be better than we turned out? Justifiying this woman to excuse our own behaviour doesn't make it right or excuse her life choices. So to sum up my argument, she may be a fine person, that I could and would forgive if she were in my life, but just like a lying lawyer, an inept doctor, or bribed official she has disqualified herself from this particular industry. That's all I was trying to say. Oh, and I've tried to get all the punctuation in there for you grammar nazis.

*develop

FLBuff..Grammar Nazi!!!

 

[goodal]

So, the impass between us is that you do not know right from wrong and I have a set standard for them. I'm afraid there is no getting past that.
Have a nice life.

You're free to set what you call "standards for right and wrong" (morals, yeah?) ... but surely you don't think you, personally, should be setting morals for the public?

Thanks for the "have a nice life", especially if it's really heartfelt. Somehow, though, you don't come off as a live-and-let-live kind of guy. Which I'm sure works just fine if you're sufficiently insulated.

Sorry, that was my lame attempt to end the argument. I should have tried a more amicable approach. This is no use in us arguing for the reasons I will list below. I plan on this being my last comment on the matter.

This went from discussing the hiring practices of a school board to, spatting about moral preferences. You and I can not discuss this without a benchmark (to use an engineering term) and we have none. It would be like me trying to talk to an ancient egyptian. We don't speak the same language. Without somewhere to start (a belief in right and wrong) there will never be an end to this conversation. As to your last point, I am not a live and let live kind of person, which I'm sure you will crucify me for. That will only point to hypocrisy on your part. I should be more tolerant but you won't tolerate me, please tell me you see the irony in that. Americas moral decline is partly due to the "live and let live" attitude that is so prevalent today. I'm sure that kind of attitude, combined with no right and wrong, makes for a very convenient life, but I simply cannot ignore that there is right/wrong, judgment/reward. I regret to say that the extent of my actions to combat this are to sit behind this key board and type the occasional entry on a message board, but if you will look back through my past comments, even these are rare.

So as I said before, have a nice life. I hope it works out for you.

...and go UK!!!!

 

[Master slacker]

^^^ You had a good argument there until that very last line. At that point you lost ALL credibility.

 

[willsee]

...and go UK!!!!

grooooooaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[roadwreck]

 

[roadwreck]

Okay, I've edited my first response, because it just won't do any good. Let me just say, badal, your righteous hatred of millions of people scares me.

aaaaaahhh, now my subsequent post makes no sense at all. I refuse to edit it though because it makes me laugh.

And yes I know I'm a horrible person.