Disrupt, dispute, disrepute—a sorry saga

 

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.