The story: Middle School Teacher In Trouble Over Presidential Photo?





Questions for debate:

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?

No. Kerry is not the president.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)

Yes. Past and Present.

It is odd that the parents against the picture claim that a photo of the president is 'partisan.' The last time I checked the constitution, Middle School children were not allowed to vote in presidential elections. So how can a picture of the person running for president who is the president be consider partisan?

Now if this was a true history/current event class, I would assume that both Kerry and Bush be presented because if a child were to watch the news, these two men are pictured everywhere. So as an educator of current events, I would make sure my students knew these men.

But then again, in Middle School, it is a struggle to get students to learn anything much less who the President is.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?

No, Kerry isn't president - Bush is. This isn't a gallery of "election 2004" candidates, it is a gallery of presidents.

I'll have to say this is probably one of the most wacky things I have heard about in a while. Perhaps these parents need to take a civics refresher or two.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)

I don't know why they shouldn't be able to. I really don't know how to answer the question other than that because I really can't see the perspective of these parents. I don't know whether they just dislike Bush so much they don't want to admit he is president or they somehow think that a picture of Bush would influence their kids to be Republicans? Whatever the explanation, it is going to be wacky.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?
Well, this just goes to show that wacky, partisan zealotry truly is bi-partisan. This question is a bit of a softball, but such is life. Under no circumstances were the parents justified in asking that the portrait be removed. Even if it was only Bush up there, he *is* the sitting President and from what I could tell, that portrait is nothing more than a respectful ackowledgement of who the current leader of this country is.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)
See above. Given the relative political illiteracy of that national populace, anything in a classroom to educate the kids (objectively, of course) about our government should be encouraged.

Doc

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?
A month too soon to even consider.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president?
Yes. I remember seeing pictures of presidents in elementary school. Can't say I remember it in middle school and high school with budget woes. Changing the photo reminds students of government continuum.

The principle caved in to the unreasonable, baseless demands.

Edit: Hell, I'd sue. This and the bumper sticker story make me wonder if anti-discrimination laws should include political beliefs for idiot employers that can't seperate political affiliation from productivity. Political affiliation isn't why Pillai-Diaz had the picture up in the classroom but it's pretty clear that's why the principle fired her.



Can she sue under existing laws?

Requests? Sounds like demands coming from irrational people caught up in final month election craziness. Nope, not justified at all.



Of course. This is supposed to be a free country. The sitting President's photo is perfectly okay to display in a classroom.

These parents need to chill out. They're not giving the kids a good example. Maybe in February they will get their wish for a photo of Kerry (as new Prez) being displayed in the classroom, and if it's not, then there might be something to harp about.

It was a montage of American presidents, not 2004 candidates. Of course they were not justified.



Sure, even if the the current president is running for re-election. I seem to remember having pictures of Clinton in my classrooms in 1996.

As to the question for debate, I'd have to agree with, oh, everyone who posted.

It's really twice as silly when you realize that it was part of a whole list of presidents (I'm assuming 1 - 43). When you go to government buildings, they only hang a picture of the current president. I used to cut through the VA hospital in Chicago twice a week (no rain, free heat and saved my walk 2 blocks) and every single time I saw Bill Clinton's smiling face. It always made sense to me - commander in chief and all.

Between this and finding conspiracy in pens at the debate, we as a nation need to step back and take a collective deep breath. Have a smoothie or something.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?

In the context of a bulletin board with other presidents, the parents are wrong. As others have said, Bush is currently president. Teachers often get materials, like presidental pictures from kits from stores that sell teacher supplies.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)

In this case, it appears there were other presidential pictures beside Bush’s. If Bush were the only picture, especially in a hotly contested presidential election, I would have some questions.



Good observation.

Ms. Pilla-Diaz is an English teacher, but in a social studies class we should also have a picture of Ralph Nader. He isn’t going to win, but he did cost Gore Florida in 2000 and could be a spoiler this time.

I would add that don’t even have a problem with students knowing this particular teacher is a Bush supporter, as long as she balances that by telling students that in this country they have a right to a different opinion. While teachers should be certain of facts, they should encourage dissent among their students regarding opinion. This, I think, is in the best of American tradition.

While students may not fully appreciate or comprehend the notion of forming their own opinions at this age, I think encouraging kids to think is far more important than indoctrinating them with mindless daily rote recitation of the "Pledge of Allegiance." Although I left Jr. High School 47 years ago, I still remember things my teachers said to me during those years.



This is also a good observation. Middle school age kids ar at perhaps the most awkward age imaginable.



Very true, but opinion formation begins early in life, in fact much earlier than middle school. So, teachers should be objective in presenting opinions, as was apparently the case in this instance.

Hopefully Ms Pilla-Diaz doesn’t have the strong anti-union bias some conservative Republicans find so attractive. In fact, she’d better have a strong local, state and national teacher union in her corner. She may need it.

No, they sound nuts to me.


Of course a teacher should be able to hang a picture of the current President. Having parents try to coerce a teacher into hanging Kerry's picture alongside the Presidents crosses the line. People really need to chill out.

It is a nice photograph of President and Mrs. Bush; it's not going to change the mind of anyone who can vote, for pity's sake.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's
photo justified in their requests?

Absolutely not. This is yet another example of America and it's political
correctness (no pun intended) and hyper-sensitivity. It's high time people
developed some thicker skin.



Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current
sitting president?

Yes, of course. Photos of our past and present presidents are a part of history
and history in-the-making.

If we go through life expecting nothing to offend us we will be very disappointed.
It's disappointing to see stories like this one becoming commonplace.

This is beyond stupid, this is in a league of its own. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but he is the president, that is an undenyable fact. Kerry is not, nor has he ever been a president. Why would his picture be on a wall dedicated specifically to presidents? Why should only his picture be on the wall? Why not Nader also? Or, how about EVERY SINGLE NUT JOB that tries to run for president, including all the write-ins? This is dumb on so many levels.

I believe we have hit an all-time high in Election '04 stupidity with this article. This just goes to show that anything is possible in this country of ours. What I want to know is the conversation with the 3 parents had before they confronted her about hanging a picture of Kerry. How could they possible come to any rational conclusion that Kerry should be on the Wall of Presidents? It's mind boggling really.

i thought the all time low was when people were stealing the political signs children were holding and ripping them in front of the children.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's
photo justified in their requests?

Although we seem to have a rare consensus that the parents in this case were wrong, it may not matter. In many schools principals tend to side with parents whether they are right or wrong.

There are some definite parallels between this thread and the bumper sticker thread we had a few weeks back. While that one involved private property as opposed to public property in this one, they both reek of intolerance and heavy handedness.

I don't think we've heard the end of this one.

This is so crazy that I am thinking that maybe the story is not true. I would like to hear the Principal and teacher interviewed. If it is true, then the Principal should be fired without severance pay, immediately.

Wow!!!

Unanimity at America's Debate. The circle is complete, three moons are high, and the cows are howling at the center blue moon. Surely Ragnarok/Armaggedon/the Apocalypse is upon us.

Yep- I condemn this one equal of the bumper sticker controversy- they both ought to have financial consequences of thier actions if it results in loss- say, if the teacher actually lost the job- as with the bumper sticker issue.

Just goes to show you that conservatives are the only intolerant stupid poeple LOL

Hate to break up the happy party, but I have information that may change a few views. Hey, if we all agree it means all the facts haven't come out. There had to be a reason so I went digging.

Did any of you, by chance, look at the picture she put up of the President. Well, it just so happens that it isn't the standard 8 x 11 presidential picture. No, it is the Campaign picture of George and Laura giving us their "best wishes" That was enough right there for me to say "yeah that needs to come down", but there is more from this source

In it we find that


also....



oh and oh let's learn a little about her



So what we really have here is a Bush campaign worker and teacher, putting up campaign material inside of school. Which is why a parent would say put up a picture of Kerry beside it... as a compromise. This wasn't a memorial to presidents, it was a memorial to the President George W. Bush. Of course don't let the right stop the distortion. I'm sure they are spinning the half-truths right as we speak. did you see the part about the stuffed elephant

Side note:
HMMMMM.... I wonder why the ol' liberal media spun this thing just so "right?" Could it be more proof that "liberal media" is just a mythological creature

No....it just reinforces the belief of many that the media is inept. By claiming that the media was spinning the story 'right', you would be implying that they had two sides to the story. When the story broke, we all only had the teacher's statement, not the school's.

I read the same information earlier this morning, and if it is indeed the truth, then the photo should have come down. Tributes to any candidate, official or political party has no place in the government school system. Now if we could just get the NEA to agree to those same standards, I wouldn't be choosing between home or private schooling in the next couple of years.

I think we need some more facts here.

Obviously, the school district isn't going to admit fault. To do so would be to open themselves up for a lawsuit.

The teacher is also not going to admit that she did anything wrong. I saw her interview on O'Reilly last night and she seemed credible and claimed that she never discussed politics in class and that she halted any attempt to do so by the students, since she was a Literature teacher.

The vague insinuations by the school district do not necessarily trump what she said.

The jury is still out on this one.

I think there are 2 distinct issues here:

1. Either way, this teacher was justified to have the picture up, if she had other Presidents up as well. Even if she didn't, Bush is the current President. I don't particularly like him, but he is still the President. Kerry is not. Yet.

2. If in fact she did make comments about political parties and discuss her political views with students or call "Democrats" names (not sure how you can be a "Democrat" or "Republican"in middle school when you are still several years away from voting), then she should be fired. That is completely independent of the picture incident.

For those who say that the school always gives in to the parents, remember there were only 3 parents complaining. That means that hundreds found no problem with the picture. The vast majority are probably on the side of the school. The fact that the school thinks that the bigger risk of a successful lawsuit comes from those 3 parents, rather than firing the teacher, might suggest that the teacher was in fact a little more "guilty" of other things as well.

The last paragraph from the Shool Board's release:



I wonder if, after her claim on O'Reilly that she in fact stopped political discussions in her class, some parents of kids who had apparently complained of exactly the opposite previous to this story, will get their statements into the media. I wonder if they will get interviewed by the Bully?

There are two sides to every story. It shouldn't take a statement from the 'other side' to remind us of that. I think that for a lot of people, their partisanship is invisible to themselves - they really lack the ability to see themselves and their actions objectively. This woman may have honestly felt she was being nonpartisan in her classroom - but that doesn't mean she necessarily was being so.

Something tells me this story will fall off the map before we learn the truth.

I remember in 2000 when I was a junior in high school and my US history teacher had a vote Bush sign on his podium. No one really cared about it but in retrospect that was a bad thing to do. I think that a teacher can mold the poltical ideology of their students. We had a mock election in our class as well and out of like 30 kids only 5 voted for Gore and for Nader and I am pretty sure my teacher had something to do with it. Back then in 2000 "whoever wins it doesnt matter" had struck the country so I guess no one cared. This in retrospect was something that the school body should have approached.

As for this current issue?

It doesnt make sense. Like him or not Bush is our president and his portrait SHOULD be hung with the other presidents this nation has had. Kerry isnt president. The parents and school body are wrong.

There's no substitute for fleshing out a story, I'd say.

Having the picture of George and Laura Bush, I'd think, would still be okay if she hung the picture next to those of the other Presidents. But a one-sided political bulletin board is partisanship that should not be expected in a school, at least in grade school. In addition, the remark "You should be ashamed to be a Democrat" is entirely inappropriate.

When will the absurdity end???

I really haven't the foggiest idea how anyone can argue partisanship in reference to pictures of our presidents. Elementary school children are neither voting nor swaying the votes of their parents. When will zealots stop??

Kudos to this teacher for not caving into the pressure of these liberal zealot parents and the obviously spineless school representation.

Calling O'Reilly a bully? Will he interview the parents that requested that the picture be taken down or Kerry's added? I wish he would... I wish these parents would appear on national television and allow the world to ridicule them on a grand scale. What next? Anti-Reagan-ites will be asking that he be taken down?
I CAN'T STAND ABE LINCOLN... TAKE HIM OFF! hahahahaha...

Partisanship or not, pictures of Presidents should include both George Bush(s). If this teacher had pictures of the current president on every wall in her classroom, partisan or not, it surely wasn't noteworthy. The story came when parents of young children turned this into something comical. What will come next.... people will start renaming children previously named George? *laughing out loud*...

Let's review the new information shall we aevans? Perhaps you should re-read droop's post.



Now, with that out of the way... If this information is accurate then that basically means that this teacher was trying to pawn her beliefs off on students during class. This wasn't simply a case of having a poster of George Bush up as originally claimed, there is a whole lot more to the story.

Teachers have absolutely zero place trying to impart their political beliefs on their students, and doubly so for telling them that they should be ashamed that they are a member of the other party. I would be saying this regardless of who this teacher supported, whether it was Bush, Kerry, Nader or the communist party.

Let me ask you this aevans, if your child was in school and came home and said that his/her teacher told him/her that "Republicans were evil", "Bush was a bad president" and "s/he should be ashamed to be a Republican" - How quick would you be on the phone calling for that teachers job?

Just because the teacher has the same poltical beliefs that you do does not in any way make them correct nor does it give her the right to "teach" them to her class.

To answer the question directly, I would be on the phone calling if the teacher made comments in a negative manner, denouncing our nation's leadership publicly. I also wouldn't defend her if she had made fun of Kerry, put up negative pictures, or made overt comments to students of voting age.

However, these were simply pictures up in an elementary school classroom, and the parents were asking implictly that either she take the pictures down or put up pictures of Kerry. What do small children know/care?

If there were pictures up of Mr. Clinton during his tenure, I'd feel no differently (other than wonder what kind of role model Mr. Clinton really was...lol). Afterall, he was the president. Simply put. if she made comments about republicans being evil, etc... that would be completely different. This woman has party affiliations, as many of us do. What harm did it really cause? The harm came to the school district, causing polarization. The harm came in making an elementary classroom national news. These children ultimately were the ones that suffered from zealot parents making menial demands... the teacher really hadn't caused any problems prior to the parental intervention.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests?

Absolutely not. This is just as dumb as the woman getting fired for having a Kerry bumper sticker. Kerry is not a US President (at least, not yet ), so why would his picture be included in a group of pictures of US Presidents?

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? (I know this one sounds goofy but it is the gist I am getting from the story)

The story's not real clear about how many presidents' pictures were up. If all of them were, then W's is a logical addition. If there are only Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln or something like that, then W's addition does look a little odd, but still not out of line, in my opinion. I don't see the problem with having the sitting president's picture posted(unless of course, it's a political exhortation i.e. Vote Bush!!)

Edited to add:

Well, I guess that'll teach me for not reading the entire thread before posting!!!! I rescind my support for the teacher displaying the picture. Political campaigning (not to mention denigrating students) in middle school should definitely be grounds for dismissal.

Ok then, so how does the quote - "you should be ashamed to be a Democrat" strike you then? What if I replaced Democrat with Republican?

I think that you have conceded my point here. The second this story became something other than a picture of president Bush, the teacher was wrong and I think everyone knows that, even if they don't want to admit it.

I'll admit the teacher made a mistake. The teacher must remain bias and a commentator directing the discussions of the group, not interjecting personal view points into the debate. The teacher must also correct mis informed facts from both sides of the argument.

However the question remains, do we fire someone because of this? The teacher was fired from her position at the school.

And to clarify it was 'middle' school not 'elementary' school students. There is a difference in abilities to dissecting current events between fifth grade and eighth grade.

Were the parents demanding that Kerry's picture be put along side Bush's photo justified in their requests? It's hard to say without knowing more information. Obviously, if they demanded that Kerry be included as president, they were out of line, but it sounds as though the teacher had some sort of campaigning for Bush billboard up, in which case the situation is different and the parents would be justified with such a request.

Should a teacher in a classroom be allowed to post pictures of the current sitting president? Yes, of course. Current and past, but strong political statements are completely inappropriate in the classroom.

Edited to add: The teacher has not been fired as of yet, let's remember that. If she continues and defies the request to refrain from strong and overt political commentary, she should probably get the ax, though. There is a line that teachers should not cross in their classrooms. Remember the anti-Iraq war commentary.

I'd say that "mistake" is sugar coating it a little bit Yehoshua. If you think it was simply a "mistake" then just ask yourself how you might react if your kid came home and told you that a teacher said these things.

Now whether or not the teacher should have been fired, that isn't really something any of us can really debate without knowing what kind of contract the teacher signed when she was hired at the school.

But she certainly did deserve to be punished in some way for her actions. Had her comments been about religion instead of politics (and I think that the situation is exactly the same here), I highly doubt that anyone here wouldn't as a parent be calling for her resignation.

If the issue is whether she deserves to be fired, than there is no issue, because she wasn't fired. However, I do believe the teacher when she says that the principle told her to get her stuff and get out. You see this teacher was the cause of the disturbance in school and when she was told to take down the things that were central to the disruption she refused. However, while I feel this may warrant a suspension, I do not see a dismissal as warranted.

I disagree with many here that think her words warrant a dismissal. First, we don't know the context. It was said that the kids would say things to her like "you like Bush, He's killed people" and maybe the teacher responded with a quip like "You should be ashamed to be a Democrat" My point is, we just don't know the gravity of the situation to accurately judge whether these things said were appropriate enough to warrant the woman getting fired. Was she joking, was she reprimanding? To others it won't, but to me it does make a difference. I agree completely with yehoshua on this



They are young but not that young that they can't have ANY political discourse. We should learn more from school than just what is in textbooks.

I think the teacher should have simply took down her memorial when asked, that is my only complaint.

One last thing, I think it is important for some people to remember that while G.W. is the current President, he is also the Republican candidate for President, which mean there is a very, very thin line between honoring the president and campaigning for candidate.

It is odd that she is not fired but as the article puts it "School officials would not talk on camera but insist nobody here has been fired. To that, Ms. Pillai-Diaz asks what does it mean then when your boss asks you to hand over the keys and kicks you out of the building?"

How is she suppose to work?



Memorial? A copy of the Declaration Independence, A picture of George and Laura Bush embracing with the generic signature underneath. This was not an issue of a shire where all the children were forced to kneel every morning and pray to the President, but a simple display. The problem was not enforced until three parents came into her classroom after school hours and demand she take it down.

How is taking down the 'shrine' suppose to stop political discussions in her class?

Sugar coated? I blame her for being bias? What is so sugar coated in that?

Said what things? "Ok then, so how does the quote - "you should be ashamed to be a Democrat" strike you then? What if I replaced Democrat with Republican? Where did this come from? I did not watch her interviews.

But let assume you have a good source to the quote, do i considered this comment to be "inflammatory politics" as described by Principal Jim Warfel? No. I should be ashamed to be a Republican? Nope. I should not. My kids should be ashamed of their beliefs? Nope. And when I was in middle school, I stood up for my beliefs against everyone. Its the age.

Now here is psychological view of Middle School teachers. There is something wrong with someone who wants to teach Middle School. It is the most awkward age and you deal with out of control, hormonal challenged children. 30 in one room for an hour or so. This to me is something I could not do. And these children are challenging parents, school, society, they are rebelling against everything. I think you have to have some sort of strange quark to be able to keep your sanity with Middle School students.



I am with you on punishment. She should have never engaged yourself into the topic of the debate or issues. She should have remained unbiased regardless of what she believed. Punish.

It is right here in this thread Yehoshua, please see Droop's post on the first page.

This debate hasn't been about the fact that she had a "picture of Bush" in her classroom for a while, it is about the actions she took in her classroom.

Condede your point? I find the quote "you should be ashamed to be a democrat" no where in the ABC story found on this board. Where did you get that?
I still contend that this woman didn't do anything particularly out of the norm.
Here's an excerpt from the story:

Pillai-Diaz ultimately removed the entire bulletin board and says School Principal Jim Warfel told her she disrupted the school with her "inflammatory politics". She says he then ordered her out of the building. While she says she is a Bush supporter in her personal life, Pillai-Diaz says she keeps politics out of the classroom.

With that in mind, as I stated before, the children are the ones that ultimately suffered from this mess. These parents and administrators should've had enough sense to handle this in an adult professional manner... The class is without a teacher,etc.

The parents asking to put Mr. Kerry up was only a near-sighted/zealot liberal move. I don't see Mr. Kerry in the white house. That's the point. Had it been Mr. Clinton, no one would've ever uttered a word.

Preview, preview, preview, it is a good friend. Check out the post directly above this one. You'll find a link back to a post on the first page of this thread and that should answer your question.

How is she suppose to work?

Hmm I don't have keys and seem to have to work everyday. I'm not saying that the principal did not speak in anger and tell her to get out. I'm simply saying whatever was said was not official and she is not fired. Can we agree there??

Memorial? A copy of the Declaration Independence, A picture of George and Laura Bush embracing with the generic signature underneath.

Hey let's not forget the picture of the dog!! (bark!! bark!! grrrrrhh) Seriously, call it what you will, as long as we dispel this myth that it was something to do with the Presidents of the U.S. The problem started when the few parents came with complaints, i agree. But isn't that how most problems occur. Somebody complains....

If she would have left her little pictures on her desk facing her, maybe there wouldn't have been a problem, but nooooo she just had take "shaggy and scooby" and put them up on the bullentin board. So "yike's scooby, wee've got our self a problem" You don't say... Scooby W.(dooby) doo.

To which I said she made a mistake. She should never had interjected her own personal views or engaged in debates with these children. So how is that sugar coating or not using droop's original post?

We are debating what we are debating.

I agree that she is not fired.
I do not agree that she is not official. We have a he said she said and with out solid proof from either side we have nothing more then agreed fact and disagreed statements.



I FULL agree that her situation had absolutely nothing to do with the President of the United States.
I FULL agree that her problem started with someone complaining about something.



I thought we agreed that her situation had nothing to do with the pictures. Her situation has to do with the way she conducted herself in the classroom among the
students. It didn't matter what the picture was, it matters how she engaged the students in debates even after the assumed (he said/she said) warning.

I don't know what it is you are arguing anymore Yehoshua. If you'll go back and read my original post on the topic, I stated very clearly that the parents who were complaining because a picture of President Bush was seen alongside presidents were out of their minds.

Later on Droop gave us more details on the story and showed everyone that the parents weren't really complaining about the picture of Bush (even though it was in a laundry list of items and a perfect example of how a story can be "spun" by the "liberal" media), they were in fact complaining about the teacher's actions and her statements during class about how "Democrats should be ashamed of themselves" etc. At which point I changed my position (you can also see that in this thread) and stated that a teacher should never make an endorsement of any candidate like that regardless of who they are.

However, it seems to me you keep arguing that the picture of Bush isn't a big deal. Well I agree with you, but the problem is you stop there and suggest that is the only thing going on and therefore the parents are crazy.

So perhaps you should clarify your position here once and for all because it is extremely difficult to respond to your posts if I can't even understand where you stand.

And as far as calling what this teacher did a "mistake", again I ask you how forgiving would you be if it was your child? Furthermore, when does it cross over from being a mistake to being deliberate? This whole situation came to a head because the teacher continued to make comments even after people complained, I would hardly call that a mistake. If that is a mistake then Charlie Manson sure made a lot of "mistakes" in his life.

Very well. My position:

1. The teacher never should have engaged the students in a debate.
   
   
   
2. It is hard to truly know what has happened without proof. It seems more so that we have a heated debate in the middle of a heated election in the middle of a Middle School. I believe neither the parents, teacher, or the principal.
   
   
   
3. The picture was the final straw. The teacher was asked to remove her picture, she didn't, words were exchanged and now she is on Good Morning America.
   
   
   
4. The picture of the president has abosultely nothing to do with the teacher, parents, or principals actions. The actions are due to the heated election.
   
   
   
5. The picture did not start the problems, the teachers on willingness to engage the students in political debates started the the problems
   
   
   
6. The teacher has not been fired, but has been told to get out by the principal.
   
   
   
7. The teacher should be punished but not fired.
   
   
   

I hope that clears the air.



If this was my child, I would be asking for punishment of the teacher and holding the school accountable. But then again I would never have waited to back to school night if my child came home and claimed his teacher had offended him. As a parent, my child, the principal, the teacher and myself will be holding a meeting about what should and should not be said. But I never would have let the situation escalate to it's current status. I believe in putting out campfire before the spread to forrest fires.

Mistake vs. deliberate. According to droops post "Following receipt of complaints from parents, the Assistant Principal met with Ms. Pillai-Diaz and cautioned her not to engage in partisan political discussions in her Language Arts classes....As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove...In the ensuing days, parents expressed increasing concern about the teacher’s classroom behavior, the misuse of classroom instructional time and the personal bulletin board. The level of concern resulted in a classroom confrontation between some parents and Ms. Pillia-Diaz at the Back-to-School night program. It was at this point that the school administration decided to intervene again." So correct me if my timeline is wrong but:

1. Parents complain to AP.
2. AP meets with teacher: "cautioned her not to engage in partisan political discussions in her Language Arts classes"
3. Teacher removes photo.
4. Parents complain to AP again.
5. Parents confront teacher.
6. AP meets teacher again.

So she is cautioned, she removes the photo and probably curbs her discussions in the classroom. The parents complain about the bulletin board after the teacher had removed the bulletin board, how could we be assured that the parents complaining about conduct was not a 'post' caution and stop response.

You see the parents confront the teacher at the back to school night which is one of the first and only times most parents meet with the teacher. Could not these parents have held on to their views about the 'political debates' until that night?

I do not feel she deliberately did this. What makes you think she did Cube?

aevans176,

You are wrong on two counts.

First, this happened in a middle, not an elementary school.

Second, I think you grossly underestimate kids. It seem obvious that some of the kids absorbed enough to go home and tell. Core personalities, opinions, etc. begin forming at an early age.

If the school system's report is correct, the teacher is clearly out of line.

I don't see that as the correct sequence of events Yehoshua. Here is how it appears to me that things went down by piecing together the reports.

1. Mrs. Diaz uses her Language Arts class (which should have absolutely nothing to do with politics) to discuss the election, have debates with students, and make partisan statements to them saying things like "I'm glad you can't vote" and "you should be ashamed you are a Democrat".
2. Parents complain to the school
3. School presumably talks to Diaz... Mrs. Diaz responds by turning the "curriculum related bulletin board" (again this isn't a debate class, a politics or government class) into a person shrine to Bush and the GOP.
4. School does nothing and parents show up to back-to-school night (whatever that is) and see the bulletin board after having complained about Mrs. Diaz which causes parents to complain again to the school.
5. School officials decide to tell Mrs. Diaz to remove the personal stuff from the bulletin board.
6. The school does not fire her but the implication that if she didn't comply she would be fired is certainly there. Mrs. Diaz storms out of the school like the mature person she is.
7. Diaz contacts the media, her union rep etc and starts crying wolf saying she was fired, when in fact she wasn't. Diaz takes down the bulletin board items and sulks out again. This is the point where the story that started this thread was probably written.

That is the way things happened initially. The parents didn't "go to the AP" as you suggested to begin with, they asked the school to handle things. They certainly may have talked to the AP at this point though. Once again you can read all of this including the school's official statement from droop's original link.

Furthermore, it looks like Diaz has since lied about exactly what happened.

Okay time for the disagreement:

1. Mrs. Diaz uses her Language Arts class (which should have absolutely nothing to do with politics) to discuss the election, have debates with students, and make partisan statements to them saying things like "I'm glad you can't vote" and "you should be ashamed you are a Democrat".
   Language Arts does have something to do with politics. The ability to write a pursuave argument, mastery of words, debate, see contradiction, etc. Or at least ths is what my language arts class in Middle School was about. I was introduced into debating through my language arts class. What better to beate then the up and coming elections. Though I DO agree the words she choose never should have been spoken. And who knows, maybe she said "i am glad you can't vote" to a person who would vote for Charles Manson? I mean these are middle school students, who know what comes out of their mouths.
   
   
2. Parents complain to the school
   School, AP, it is all the same.
   
   
3. School presumably talks to Diaz... Mrs. Diaz responds by turning the "curriculum related bulletin board" (again this isn't a debate class, a politics or government class) into a person shrine to Bush and the GOP.
   What about the part in the report released by the school where it reads "As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove the stuffed elephant because of student comments." I think the 'shrine' was there before school started. Just because it comes after the above statements doesn't mean it was not there before. The 'shrine' wasn't built to stick it to the students for debating. In Fact the report claims that "In addition, she placed a stuffed elephant on a classroom cabinet, which generated student reaction and discussion about partisan politics." You see it was the elephant, not the bulletin board that sparked the debate. So how could she be guilty of placing the items in the classroom against the students when the elephant sparked the debates?
   
   
4. School does nothing and parents show up to back-to-school night (whatever that is) and see the bulletin board after having complained about Mrs. Diaz which causes parents to complain again to the school.
   Back-to-school-night is an occusion when teachers and parents meet to discuss what the students will be learning and allows the parents to see the class room. So on this night parents would have seen the bulletin board, but not the elephant, because that has been removed. It mentions that the teacher was confronted "...parents expressed increasing concern about the teacher’s classroom behavior, the misuse of classroom instructional time and the personal bulletin board. The level of concern resulted in a classroom confrontation between some parents and Ms. Pillia-Diaz at the Back-to-School night program." It was more then just the bulletin board and the issue that sparked the debates was the elephant.
   
   
5. School officials decide to tell Mrs. Diaz to remove the personal stuff from the bulletin board.
   Yes.
   
   
6. The school does not fire her but the implication that if she didn't comply she would be fired is certainly there. Mrs. Diaz storms out of the school like the mature person she is.
   Mrs. Diaz storms out of the school like the mature person she is. Is this really called for? The teacher was just told that she isn't a good teacher. If your boss came to you and told you to change something or you would be fired what would you do?
   
   
7. Diaz contacts the media, her union rep etc and starts crying wolf saying she was fired, when in fact she wasn't. Diaz takes down the bulletin board items and sulks out again. This is the point where the story that started this thread was probably written.

Crying Wolf? Did not all this happen? What is crying wolf? She left because they told her to take down the picture of Bush, that is still true.


How?

So we disagree about the purpose of language arts class, that is fine it isn't relevant to this debate anyway. What is relevant is the fact that she said the things she did to her students. What kind of a response is "the kid might vote for Charles Manson" anyway Yehoshua? You never tell a student "well it is a good thing you can't vote".

So in summary you basically agree with me, good lets move on.

It is absolutely not the same, not even in the same ballpark. If Mrs. Diaz hadn't escalated things further in her classroom as I go into in other points we'd probably not even be debating this story because it never would have been printed. The first step the parents should have taken was to notify the school of their complaint, and they did that. It is nowhere near the same thing as telling the AP.


Going back to the source I posted earlier from Droop which contains the office school statement - this partisan paraphenalia started coming out after the initial complaints by parents. I had actually missed the part about the elephant, but that means that by putting this stuff out it was not only an act of defiance but it escalated the problem in her classroom.

She did not remove anything voluntarily according to the school statement.

Yes, the parents saw the stuff on the board and they complained again because it was clear the school had not addressed their complaints. So, I'm not quite clear whether you agree or disagree with me here.


Sure it is. She already has quite a few strikes in my book by verbally attacking her students. But if you completely divorce yourself from the "politics" of the situation I think that you'd in fact see that storming out of the building when your boss tells you to do something isn't very mature. Would you do that at your job? I know that I wouldn't.

If my boss told me to do something or I'd be fired I'd do it. But a better answer to that question is that I'd never get myself into a situation like that with my boss in the first place.


Yes, crying wolf that is how this story got out that she was "fired" because of a picture of president Bush. She communicated to her union reps that she was fired, asked to leave, choose your word, and she is backing that up in interviews.

And in answer to your last point, she has lied by making up her own version of the events that happened that evening with being fired, her intent with the photograph, what she discussed in her classroom etc. She is trying to play a victim. Read the school's statement and her interviews and what the parents are saying. Someone is lying and I am willing to bet money it isn't the school.

Difference number two. Dealing with middle school age children is far different then anything else. First off you don't engage the student in a debate. Secondly, if you ignore the first, you don't allow the hormonally challenge to feel justified in voting for Manson. This isn't a 'child' pursue a small minded open eyes bright to the world child. This is a hormonal deranged, pubescent, street punk that is challenging the establishment. I know I was one.

She never should have debated because these middle school children have away of crawling under your skin and making a sane adult mad and say things that later (once the media and you have a hold of it) will distort and turn something as innocent as an off handed reprimand to a downfall of a child psyche. I am sure the student she said it to brushed it off, went home told his parents how cool it was and his parents thought, 'my poor baby, that evil teacher' (as I would have) and decide to confront he in the not best way (the best way being my way as described before).



I've been through the statement a couple of times and do not see where the partisan paraphernalia was put up after the initial complaints by parents. Quote it please



According to the school statement she did. "As the issue grew in intensity, the teacher herself chose to remove the stuffed elephant because of student comments."



Yes I agree, three parents (now keep in mind, in middle school you have 7 class, give or take, with 30+ students so this equals 180 students (one free period t0 prep) Lets say half showed to the back to school night and therefore 3% were complaining) 3% of the total parents who take an active interest in their childs education had a problem with the teacher and choose to deal with it in the wrong way. We want to take care of a problem you have with a teacher in the school, you sit down with the student, teacher and principal to correct the problem. That is the way it works. You can't call the school and go "everything is fine now."



I am my boss, so i don't dare get on his bad sad . But yes I can't afford to be adolescent, but then again I don't deal with adolescent. This goes along with with my views of middle school teachers, they are quark.

Though she is a invoice and ill prepared to handle adolescent. Your boss doesn't send you into the factor and say make something without first showing you how to make it. Unfortunately with the condition of teachers in the US this is what we do.



Isn't this what we all do? We all have a "version of the events that happened." And if we felt justified, based upon our own bias perception, then we would strike out against it. This is what she did. It isn't a lie when you perceive something different then someone else.

Believe whatever side you want, it is still a he said/she said scenario that does not hold up in any court of law. I think as judges of the situation we have to take into account that both sides are bias and will spin their issue there way, school and union. (because you know the driving force behind this is the union)