Teacher suspended for giving a zero grade for zero work

This is what caught my eye:

"Mr. Dorval gives the example of a student who transferred to his class from a non-zero class. The student completed six of 15 assignments for his previous teacher and, since he was only graded for what he did, had a 63% average. Mr. Dorval made it clear to the boy that missed work meant zeros on his watch."

This is a kid who, even just graded on the work he completed, had, at best, a D- (and in many grading systems here, an F). The kids skipping assignments are not likely the kids who are going to be getting good grades in the first place. Unless there is some evidence that these kids get better grades when they do all the work, I would posit that these kids have actually made a reasonable decision - if I am barely passing, why should I do more work? That would be like putting in more hours at your job for no increase in pay, no prospects for advancement.

Here is a different example, from my kids' high school days - there is a policy at the high school that basically says if you have an A going into the final, you are exempt from the final. Obviously those kids are at the other end of the spectrum, but it is the same principle. Don't do the work (i.e. the final exam) and still get credit for work done. It's basically the "golden parachute" approach. Since as a society, it seems to be condoned for the top tier, why is it any different for those at the bottom? All of his examples in the article are what you might see at the bottom of the economic scale ("Don’t submit the job application and you won’t get the job. You get a zero. Skip work, tell the boss to shove it, neglect to file your taxes, miss a mortgage payment, bounce a cheque or get a speeding ticket, and what happens? You pay for it."). But if the CEO runs the company into the ground, he may still get out with a multi-million dollar deal? How many times did Donald Trump go bankrupt (answer - 4, most recently 2009). If you or I went bankrupt 3 years ago, would we be able to live like the Donald today?

I'm not necessarily supporting the school's "no zero" policy. But I think there is a big gap in how we as a society treat the top and the bottom. And I am big fan of consistency in expectations.

I can defend his suspension, but not the policy as stated with the facts given. Yes, from the few facts that were given, I think it's an asinine policy and thus utterly shameful to have it, much less sacrifice a lifelong outstanding teacher for it.

But every story also has several sides. I'd be interested in knowing why the school adopted this policy in the first place, and why it's such an important one that it needs defending to the point of suspending a lifelong teacher.

Has the teacher ever been censured for anything else?

As for the suspension itself--every organization in the world is the same in this regard: they have policies (or principles of organization). You break them, you bear the consequences. You don't like the policies? Fight them, or join another organization. Canada's a free country.

You seem to be saying that since the top can get away with bad work, the bottom should also be able to.

I would suggest that both the top and the bottom should do their best work, and if not, that both should suffer the consequences.

I am still undecided on the whole affair. But as TriAya pointed out, the guy deliberately violated the express written policy of the past 18 months, despite repeated warnings. So his actions would be hard to defend.

As I've said on other threads, the school district in the neighboring district to ours has the worst record in the state, and one of the worst in the country, for getting kids out. And (not coincidentally), the town is officially now the poorest in the country, beating out Flint, MI by a narrow margin. So to me, the problem is not whether or not kids should be getting zeros, but how to get them invested in society at large, so they can eventually contribute to the economy instead of being a drain on it via welfare and prison. 

If the kid's "best work" is only going to get him a 63 average, maybe trying to get him to fit in the square hole of high school is not really to anyone's advantage. Vo-tech, apprenticeships, or some other form of hands-on work is probably going to more for him in the long run than taking HS physics from a man so close to retirement age that being fired is not really a disincentive for him.

Well, the kid getting an F has made the same calculation - he isn't going to pass anyway, why should he do more work? 

And of course, when I was in college, I often figured out the lowest score I could afford to get on a test and keep my "A". Trust me, it was never going be zero - I still had to take all my finals. I might only have needed a low 60's, but the final outcome still was going to be affected if I were to skip an exam. (Not that I wouldn't have loved to do so).

The kid didn't complain in the article. The only one who seemed to be complaining were the teachers who objected to the policy. I suspect the kids were used to failing, which is why they didn't bother to do assignments, and which would be a reason the policy was implemented in the first place.

If your boss implements a policy you disagree with, and you deliberately violate the policy because you are used to doing things differently; and you get warned several times about your insubordination, you should expect to be fired. And that is exactly what the article is describing. It seems the teachers are not modeling very well what to expect if you repeatedly and deliberately violate your company's policy.

The school superintendent has posted an open letter defending the policy. In part, he states that the goal of high school is prepare students to graduate, and that giving a zero is basically just the easy way out - the point is not to simply give credit for work not done, but to work with the kids and figure out their obstacles - just like if a boss tells you to work on a project with a deadline and you find the deadline is not realistic, you would try to work with the boss on either modifying the parameters of the project or change the deadline.

In addition, the Edmonton Journal has letters posted by several teachers basically pointing out the same thing - that a zero does not teach consequences and accountability. It simply lets kids who are slacking make the calculation I described above - that it is not worth doing the work, and "I'll just take the zero". If we want to teach kids to get work done, we have to make them get work done, not say "Here's your zero" and move on.

I would be more likely to disagree with the policy if there was some evidence, even anecdotal, that the policy was leading to kids working the system - e.g. busting tail for the first assignment to get an "A" or "B", then doing nothing else and coasting on that first grade. But the only case cited in the article suggests that all it does is punish the kids who are already marginal, and more likely to need hands-on assistance in meeting expectations, not the kids who are already likely to be responsible. I don't know how many 15 year olds you personally know, but I can tell you from my experience working with them over the past 20 or so years that some of them are not at all ready to be treated like little adults. And conversely, the ones who are doing well are unlike to be skipping out on assignments.

People should be allowed to succeed as well as fail. Hiding failures/losses/mistakes/etc from kids will not help them to become capable human beings.

But then, creating capable human beings may not be the purpose of many schools (systems) in our culture.

The no-zero policy is yet another example of the growing nanny state mentality.  Everyone wins.  Let's give everyone a trophy.  Let's not keep score.  Here's 99 weeks of unemployment.  It's not your fault, it's the world's.

I'm glad the teacher stood up for his principles.

Nicely worded!!

As a teacher for at-risk students, I'll chime in.

I do believe that if you aren't even trying, then you're grade should reflect that.  If you are trying and a 63% average is all you can do then I'll see what I can do to help.  Sometimes it's trying to place a round peg into a square hole.  That is why I teach alternatively.  Sometimes it's the way I'm teaching and I need to re-examine how to best help ALL students.  Differentiation. 

I have had students that have left their traditional schools because the teachers haven't helped the students connect the dots between curriculum and real life.  Some students need that connection to see the importance.  I ENJOY creating lesson plans that make that connection.  Don't get me wrong, we still take traditional type test (MC, short and long essay {I teach English}, and short answer), but I also intersperse it with projects.  For example, in Sophomore Literature, we were reading a story about a boy going on vacation (BOOORRING).  Instead of taking a regular test (after answering the questions throughout the story and at the end) the students picked somewhere in the US that they had never been before, researched it, compiled all the info, and created a travel brochure. 

Another example, in British Literature (Seniors), we acted out MacBeth.  At the beginning they were given a list of 10 possible mental disorders to research with no other information given.  Again, we answered various questions from the book and some that I asked.  Took quizzes.  At the end, I had them take out the mental disorder that they researched, choose a character that had those traits and convince me that that character was ....   For those of you who don't remember this from high school, most students HATE Shakespeare.  My students had a good time with it.

I'm not saying that all of my students have passed.  Some have failed, BY THEIR OWN CHOICE!  I give them every opportunity to be a success, it is up to them to want to be a success.

I agree.  But I say that not turning in assignments = not trying.  Do you not agree?

I agree that if you aren't turning in assignments, then you are lazy and deserve the grade you get!  My boys could have all been straight A students, but settled for being B-/C+ because they refused to turn in homework.  Aced all the tests and such, just didn't do the homework.

I had this policy as well, and I think it makes sense.  The reason for having a final test is to see if the student grasps the concepts that were reviewed over the semester.  If you have an A in the class, it should be assumed that you have met that requirement.  I think it would be quite different if a student was told they didn't have to complete a paper or could skip out on a the last couple of chapters.

100% agreed. 

Hope you don't teach English