I am not a believer in the adage that there
are two sides to every story.
There are countless stories where there is
only one side to be told, and only conspiracists feel the obligation to
construct another.
But then there are stories, presented as
essential truths, that are so outlandish, nonsensical, and farcical that one is
compelled to contemplate that there must be another side to the story.
Stuff
published such a story this week. It was of a 72-year-old teacher from Mt
Maunganui who was found guilty of a serious misconduct after he forcibly
removed an in-ear headphone from a student.
The student was sharing the headphone with
another student and listening to music while the teacher was conducting a maths
class.
One student was also drumming on his table
and disrupting the class.
Now, it must be said that in removing the
headphone (after the student declined to do it himself) the teacher broke it. A
verbal altercation ensued which resulted in the teacher leaving the class to
seek help.
That is the essence of the story, as
reported.
It is what happens next that compels the
two sides theory.
One of the two students complained to the
principal.
The college principal made a mandatory
report to the Teaching Council.
An investigator reported to the council’s
Complaints Assessment Committee, which charged the teacher with removing and
breaking the student’s headphone and/or failing to appropriately de-escalate
the situation after the incident.
The Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal found
the teacher had engaged in serious misconduct by removing the headphones
unexpectedly and recklessly. It said the teacher’s actions were likely to
adversely impact the student’s wellbeing, that his actions could bring the
teaching profession into disrepute, and that it was an unreasonable and
unjustified use of force.
The teacher was censured and had conditions
imposed on his employment for two years.
The teacher then appealed the tribunal’s
decision to the district court, which upheld the decision.
He then applied to the Appeal Court for
leave to appeal the decision. The Appeal Court this month declined the
application, rejecting all his grounds for appeal.
On Tuesday, the teacher said the saga had
been “farcical”, had cost him $55,000 so far and could cost another $20,000.
He promptly retired from teaching.
So, a teacher’s career has ended, and he is
considerably out of pocket, because he attempted to stop a student from
disrupting his class.
When I was 10 and in form 1, a teacher
grabbed my hair and threw me across the classroom after I mimicked his
distinctive teaching style. That was thoughtless on my part and over-the-top on
his. If his actions had become known (I didn’t tell my parents) it would have
been a sackable offence—if not criminal—even back then.
It was that egregious.
But this? How could such an event, as
reported, have such serious ramifications? And as for the charge of failing to
de-escalate the situation, I would have thought that was exactly what he was
attempting to do initially by removing the headphones.
In my view, it the whole thing defies
explanation, as it stands. Unless there is something else is at play here, the
actions of the various parties in leaving a teacher hung out to dry are
deplorable. If anything, it is those actions that have brought the teaching profession
(and judicial system) into disrepute.
