School Pranks (5 page)

Allen Reece

Evaluator

     Mr. Reece was appointed an evaluator during the 2001-02 school years.  On what basis was he chosen to serve?  Were there any questions asked of him to determine whether he was bias in this assignment? Or, had the “committee” known in advance of his “appointment” that he would be ideal for its conspiracy, thus using him was a form of procedure just a “going-through-the-motion” type of action?  Little effort was used to disguise or conceal the committee’s intent.  It (the committee) was unrestrained!

     As fore stated, Miss Forest taught one of Mr. Reece’s children.  No expression of complaint concerning her teaching was reported. In his role as Teacher Evaluator, her work was still enjoyed.  His attitude toward Miss Forest’s work in the classroom remained positive.

     Mr. Reece’s observation of Miss Forest began with her first class, Civics.  This class was made up of students whose academic levels included elementary grades through grade ten (10).  Visits were routine.  He would enter the room at the beginning of the class.  He seated himself on the north side of the room, watch class procedure, smile, and take notes.  He never spoke with Miss Forest concerning what had been observed.  He came often.  He enjoyed the classes, but never said anything to the students nor their teacher, Miss Forest.

     One time an incident happened which merited his involvement, but he did not intervene.  The event happened as follows:  During the lesson, a word which was not included on the word list was used and students were unable to define it.  After it was determined they could not define that word, Miss Forest told them to get a dictionary from the bookshelf and define it. (Note: There were 12 copies of this edition.  Some students owned individual copies.)  The students did not move.  They were vigorously urged to look up that word.  Students continued to sit.  Miss Forest told the class that the lesson could not continue unless that word was defined.  They had been taught definitions determine understanding, the key to effective reading – a skill many students lacked.  After a short while, four (4) students walked slowly to where the dictionaries were shelved and defined that word.  The lesson resumed.  Mr. Reece smiled throughout the incident.

     How could a person who had served as teacher, headmaster, and who had adopted the theme “Children’s Interest Comes First” not involve himself while watching students disobey their teacher?  He was sending the wrong message to those students.  Mr. Reece was approving improper conduct instead of showing disapproval, thus contributing to the “below standard” rating of the Dromedary High School.  A show of disapproval would have produced a more favorable response from most of the students.  By not using this scene positively, Mr. Reece “blew” a chance to show those students, majority from single-parent homes, the correct image of a father, a relationship some never knew.  Knowing the type students he was coming to observe, he should have come to class prepared with a few “tricks – up – his – sleeves.”  Instead, he expressed joy at this pre-crime act, adhering to his prominent role of helping to dismiss Miss Forest from her teaching position. 

     Had those students been told to disobey their teacher?  Negative action of the students against their teacher in the presence of a high – ranking male administrator was not duly normal.  Disobedience should not have been tolerated.  But, instead, it was officially approved of by an area administrator.

     Had Miss Forest been in Mr. Reece’s position that smile would have disappeared after learning those students’ intention – to disobey the teacher and not do their class work.  Miss Forest would have given the class a strong reprimand and a clear consequence if they continued acting in that pattern.  But instead, the teacher was the one who was reprimanded and threatened, and with Mr. Reece’s help, the teacher was fired!  Mr. Reece is still working in the system, with an increase in salary!

Close-Up of Class

     The Civics class was made up of multi leveled students ranging from elementary through tenth (10
th
) grade.  These students had little, academically, in common.  A wide interval of interest existed among them – elementary, junior high, and senior high grades.  Discipline, a major problem, was the major attribute these students had in common.  Disobedience was the pattern of conduct of most.

     Discipline continues as one of the major problems.  Some parents were incapable of disciplining their children at home.  A few sought Miss Forest for help.  A few times a mother and stepfather sought her help with their son.  That young man was just about “out-of-hand.”  Hearing Miss Forest was skilled in discipline matters, the parents decided to come to Dromedary High School and seek her help.  Seeing their distress, Miss Forest willingly obliged them.  And yes, the student improved.  There was a great change for the better.

     Assigning a teacher for the civics class described in this section is but one example of the thoughtless acts the Evaluation Committee used in its relationship with Miss Forest.  The committee expressed its inability to form a class of students and its inability to appoint a teacher suitable for specific tasks.

     First, the inability of the Evaluation Committee to form a class is clear.  A multi leveled class was organized with students barely having anything in common except discipline problems.  This act (forming multi leveled class) can increase this problem.  These problems are varied.  These problems can be long-lasting ones, and even worse, some permanent problems might develop.  For example, students performing furthest beneath grade level have a tendency to feel inferior to their peers.  Civics and History are two of several courses in the Department of Social Studies.  Teachers at Dromedary High are certified Social Studies teachers, except Miss Forest.  She is certified in History.  The evaluators required perfection of Miss Forest, but this art was overlooked in their assignment making.  Most of the students enrolled in Civics were male.  Therefore a male teacher would have been more appropriate.  With a class of students whose conduct being so antisocial such as those, a male teacher would have been ideal.  Those students were asking for such help!  They were asking for a positive male teacher, an image many did not have in the home.  Most came from single-parent homes.  These students were refused a request that had been paid for by the government. Instead, tried to divert attention of their inadequate academic performance to their “tough bully” status, showing fellow class mates how “cool” they are, causing distractions in class during lesson.  A class thus described requires a teacher with multi-skills.  In other words, such a class must have a teacher who has been evaluated a
specialist
by peers, students, community, and administrators.

     But such classes were formed and assigned to be taught by a teacher labeled “incompetent” by the Evaluation Committee.  Those classes were complicated, and difficult, and involved, completely out of the realm of incompetence.  This type teaching assignment lasted three years.  If the evaluation committee considered Miss Forest incompetent, then what was the purpose of that obnoxious assignment?  The most difficult circumstance require the attention of the best. 

Miss Forest has demonstrated admirable work throughout her career.  She had assisted headmasters with some of the most difficult students.  She appreciated each one and encouraged each to feel worthy.  On her classroom walls were terms such as: responsibility, obey, truth, integrity, patriotic, Golden Rule.  Nonsense was not tolerated, but students enjoyed a feeling of relaxation.  Many of them wrote her personal notes expressing these thoughts. See Student Evaluation section at the end.

     Would such classes like the ones the Evaluation Committee organized for Miss Forest to teach be commendable to the education profession?  It is doubtful!  Then, did it occur to any member of the committee this prank might damage their reputation beyond repair?  Students were aware of treatment of Miss Forest.  One came late to class one morning and asked Miss Forest whether she wanted him to return to the office to get a permit (excuse) to enter class.  He then announced to his fellow classmates, the assistant headmaster said “if Miss Forest makes a request of a student to get an office permit, they (administrators) just laugh.”  This class was designed for anti-success.

              So the bottom line: The Evaluation Committee deliberately formed a class of multi-leveled students whom they were confident Miss Forest was unable to manage. 
But
she
did
!  The only fact proven by that committee was its inability to organize a class and make appropriate teacher assignment. Documented!

Mr. Stone Murphy: Headmaster

     The school year of 1999-2000 began with a great deal of excitement.  The Education Board had recently hired impressive administrators whose goal for the area public schools seemed in harmony with the citizens – quality education; Dr. Clark Regent, supervisor, and Mr. Stone Murphy, Headmaster, Dromedary High School.

     When students arrived, they met in their assigned classroom for registration.  Mr. Murphy visited Miss Forest’s classroom during this activity.  Students were quiet and orderly.  After a while, Miss Forest looked up from registration and noticed Mr. Murphy was still there, just watching proceedings in an unusual way.  He seemed to be sizing her up, forming an uncomplimentary opinion.  She continued with registration, and after a short stay he slowly exited the classroom.

     When the newness of Mr. Murphy’s employment “wore off” with the student body that year, an aura of indifference, confrontation, and sullenness was detected.  This group of students was more difficult to motivate.  Due to lack of teachers, many classrooms were crowded.  Two of the three classes under Miss Forest’s instruction were made up of more than four academic levels; most students had a shorter attention span.  Not doing homework seemed to be a “badge of honor.” Teacher inquiry of students about whether homework had been completed was often met with “I didn’t do it”.  That was the “in thing” to say.  These facts were reflected during grading periods – such as short honor rolls and incompletes.

     Teachers were required to be on duty throughout each school day.  “Trade-marks” of the student body were loudness, loathsomeness, and littering.  Mr. Murphy often reprimanded students who were causing problems, however improvement only lasted short periods of time.  During student assembly programs, participants could be barely heard.  At one time, Mr. Murphy allowed only involved students the privilege to attend assembly.  He seemed disturbed at the ease students used falsehood in their communication; so casual, almost effortless.  “Some of these students will lie while you are watching them” Mr. Murphy has said many times.

     Discipline in the classroom has generally been a minor problem throughout Miss Forest’s career.  Several headmasters have sought her assistance in bringing unruly students under control.  She considered order in the classroom paramount.  Students were expected to focus on instruction.  Distraction was not tolerated.  When the need for discipline took place, her discipline bank containing a rich variety of learning exercises was used.  During such times, she took the opportunity to demonstrate distinct traits of high quality, such as patience, persistence, and perseverance.  These discipline encounters were used as tools to teach students lasting lessons in as many categories as were applicable.

     A difference in relationships became more noticeable.  Without doubt, something was amiss here.  Something just was not right.  A few days before Christmas break that something became identified.  That “something” was a
prank
!  That prank was designed by administrators of the area, to be used against Miss Forest.  It, the prank, was introduced by Mr. Murphy in the following way:

     December, 1999, three days before the beginning of Christmas holidays, Mr. Murphy and the Leader of the Social Studies Department came to Miss Forest’s Classroom.  Mr. Murphy explained that the Leader would cover her class while he and Miss Forest met briefly in the Leader’s Classroom.  Mr. Murphy was uncomfortable.  He explained to Miss Forest his need to rush was caused due to his wife’s sickness; but before leaving campus he wanted her to be aware of recent happenings.

     He began by alleging a parent had visited Dromedary High with a complaint about her classroom performance.  The Dromedary Area Office had been informed of that complaint.  A remedial teaching plan had been designed for her.  That plan had been approved by area educators.  It would be in operation after the holidays.

     Just like that!  She wondered was there actually a complaining parent or was the situation like the last time when a parent was asked to make a complaint against her, but refused?

     Unpleasantries happened often.  Beginning early in the 1999-2000 school years, approximately two weeks into the term a co-worker warned Miss Forest of a scheme in progress by the area office against her.  This person was asked to participate in that hideous prank but rejected it.

     But how did the area education leadership allow itself to fall so low in character?  Clearly, hatred had completely wiped out their ability to reason.  Prejudice had taken control.  Prejudice against Miss Forest was brazenly used in all areas of her employment.  Nothing was done to camouflage their desire.

     Mr. Murphy and members of the Evaluation Committee acted outside the realm of reality in relating to Miss Forest.  In their relations with her they would use the proverbial method of putting the “cart before the horse.”  When this method is used success cannot happen.  It is evident the desired results were expected. They seemed confident.  It was fool-proof!  They had designed a teaching program much too difficult for Miss Forest, making failure
sure
.  And if anybody doubted their evaluation, documents would be available to validate their action.

     Mr. Murphy and committee considered success inevitable.  But the fact is contrary to their logic.  The horse represents power; the cart refers to carriage.  The horse has life; a cart is lifeless.  In proper functioning the horse pulls the cart; while the cart caries goods.  When persons (educators in particular) insist the role of the horse and the cart be reversed, and go to great length to design a plan to show just how it could be done, then this act needs attention.  Miss Forest presents her observation of this finding as follows:  After thoroughly investigating their claim that the roles of the horse and the cart can be reversed, she is more adamant than ever in her convection.  This idea is not feasible.  It is not possible; Miss Forest sympathetically expressed her concern for their unfortunate state of confusion.  But they seemed more determined.  They considered themselves correct!

     Casting aside logic, common sense, and other components of wisdom they diligently proceeded with carrying out the hideous prank specifically designed for Miss Forest.  She observes the mishandling of the problem in question as follows.  On the day of disclosure Mr. Murphy states:

1. Parent
   Complain
   t
   against
   Miss Forest
   

This statement confirms the fact that Miss Forest was not informed of parental visitation to Dromedary High School with a complaint.  Without knowledge of the problem, did the committee expect the problem to be corrected?  It is not clear.  By not imparting knowledge to Miss Forest concerning a parental complaint, evidently they expected a problem to be solved without knowledge one existed.  The committee acted as Miss Forest’s teacher yet failed to impart knowledge of the parent’s complaint.  A negligence like that makes their evaluation of Miss Forest questionable.

1. Mr. Murphy informs area office
   .
   

By not conferring with Miss Forest concerning the problem it is evident all information pertaining to the said problem was not considered in decision-making.  This makes their job function unreliable.

1. Remedial
   teaching
   plan
   designed
   .
   

Remedial is the lowest level academically.  Miss Forest – advanced, Grade “A” Certificate; rated superior in classroom performance, yet placed in a
required
r
emedial
program
designed by Mr. Murphy and administrators.  This act documents proof that excellence is regarded in low esteem.  That is confusing to all, except remedial planners.

     The fact demonstrated by the Evaluation Committee in this section is mind-boggling: 

1. No contact was made with Miss Forest when the committee concluded her work was “below standard”.

2. Failure to make contact with Miss Forest shows they did not allow her opportunity to make defense, clarify herself. 

3. This remedial plan made failure in education a sure thing at Dromedary High School by rejecting a teacher of excellence.

     Parent-teacher conferences were encouraged and expected.  The education organ of the area was in agreement with that idea.  But Miss Forest was excluded from the meeting when Mr. Murphy, area administrators and the Evaluation Committee discussed the complaint made by the parent against her, which determined the future of her career.  Miss Forest was totally unaware.  She sought answers to important questions.  She had a reputation of cooperation.  Why was there such a rush to judgment?  Why was she omitted from important meetings?  Those questions and others were met with silence.  Miss Forest noticed that silence was a tactic they all used in dealing with her.  Such acts are disturbing.