School Pranks (6 page)

Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy

January, 2000

     Upon returning to school in early January after the holidays, Mr. Murphy arranged a meeting with Miss Forest in his office.  The purpose of the meeting was to further explain the remedial program designed for her “teaching improvement.”  Below is a description of that confusion:

     The hour arrived for Miss Forest’s conference with Mr. Murphy.  When she reached the entrance to his office, Mr. Murphy beckoned her inside and offered her a seat.  Mr. Murphy began dialing someone on his telephone.  Listening to his part of the conversation, the person he had contacted was friendly.  Mr. Murphy talked in codes, under his breath; he seemed to be gloating, expressing self-satisfaction.  Clearly, a common bond existed between them.  From Mr. Murphy’s end there was indication that the mission had been accomplished.  Seemingly, he was reporting he had delivered as promised.  Mr. Murphy was glad, up-beat, and jubilant.  Miss Forest didn’t like that secrecy, as though she was in the way. 

If Mr. Murphy wished to talk secretly, then reschedule his meeting with her.  After all, he was the one who did the scheduling.  He hung up and turned toward Miss Forest.  Before anything could be said Ms. Green entered with her walkie-talkie.  Was Ms. Green the person Mr. Murphy was talking with? They presented short-comings observed in Miss Forest’s teaching.  She listened to each concern and she had done them all.  Weren’t they aware of that?  Miss Forest suggested an error had occurred.  Their reply was the plan for her improved teaching had already been formulated and approved by the area office.  Such reply was not properly responsive to Miss Forest’s suggestion.  That was the standard pattern of communication with her.  Responses to her communication with them were usually categorized as: not suitable, not responsive to question or silence.  None of those responses were acceptable.  The action toward a co-worker whose aim was help in teacher improvement was opposite of intention.  Instead of helping, it was designed to debase Miss Forest.  A remedial program is for a person on the lowest level.  But Miss Forest was on the highest level (Grade “A” Certificate, superior rated.)

  The work assigned to persons of that caliber (distinction) should have been designed to an advanced program, or one they deemed highest.  If they had communicated with Miss Forest before the “plan” was decided upon, probably the error would have been avoided.  Nothing can be solved without understanding.  That’s logic, natural and that is gotten by communication.  But their dealing with Miss Forest was opposite professionalism.  Since they refused to deal with her on a professional level, they documented their unjust (unfair) attitude toward Miss Forest for the duty entrusted them by the citizens of Grande`.

     Miss Forest looked at the two administrators who were supposed to “
help
” her.  She wondered whether they were able to define Help!  “Actions speak louder than words,” as an ole saying goes.  They had designed an elaborate plan, characterized with minute detail in putting it into effect.  They pulled out all the stops to belittle her character, quality, and value.  It was evident the two administrators hated her overwhelmingly.  Glaring at her in Mr. Murphy’s office was a view of unpresented evil.  Problems causing this unnecessary assignment were plain ole cotton picking jealousy, prejudice, and the like.  Looking at them Miss Forest saw no bashfulness into their character.  They were bold. They did what they thought was necessary to get their point over to Miss Forest.  Miss Forest emphasized in her classes several activities that enhanced the quality of citizenship.  But Mr. Murphy and Ms. Green seemed to abhor them, especially:

1. Current events

2. The memorization of (learn by heart)      patriotic songs              

3. Keep classroom (school) clean (put paper in trash cans.)

     Ms. Green had recently been promoted to administrative level.  One of her first acts was to observe one of Miss Forest’s classes.  She visited the entire class period and enjoyed it.  At that time Miss Forest was not aware of the depth of the violent hostility these administrators held toward her.  Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy worked diligently to prove Miss Forest’s unfitness and documented their findings.  That was a great loss for education.  These educators who were trusted by the government were ruining themselves and were not aware of it.  They spent much valuable time trying to disprove Miss Forest’s Grade “A” Certificate and her superior performance in the classroom.  Instead of improving quality, they worked hard to disprove it.  All data gathered against Miss Forest proved it had been manufactured; therefore such information was unreliable, tainted and worthless.  In the meantime though, this data proved these administrators were detrimental to the education system.  Their over zealous act backfired on themselves causing undesired results.  While getting Miss Forest fired, citizens wondered at their reason to act so contrary to the norm.  These administrators have little respect for high academic performance.  Did they expect students to use their decision as model in classroom performance?  From this silly prank administrators have furnished students with an excuse for performing below ability.

Ms. Green: Evaluator

    
The pattern of forcing educators into retirement used by Dromedary school system is degrading and detrimental.  Teachers in senior citizen range are capable of performing as well as and sometimes better than younger teachers.  After all, “Experience is the best teacher.”  Everything is an art.  A teacher who wants to teach past retirement age has to have a love of teaching.  Only a few have a love of that kind.  As long as desired results can be produced, a Class “A” teacher should be allowed to determine the retirement date.  Those persons and their years are truly golden, priceless.  A special delight, a gem!  

     Legal action was taken by Miss Forest to stop this ruthless fate.  This action was taken to accommodate teachers from being forced out of the profession by thoughtless administrators – at will.

     From the transcript of the deposition of Pearl Green, case: Dr. Clark Regent vs. Mary Forest 07-12-02, Ms. Green responds to an evaluation she made of Miss Forest the year before.  Ms. Green admits “I was wrong to sign this (perfect evaluation score sheet) of Miss Forest.  Ms. Green hinted she rated Miss Forest
Perfect
to be cooperative.  There were two evaluators of Miss Forest; Ms. Green and a co-worker.  She blamed her error of scoring Miss Forest
Perfect
due to her flaws of shyness, and timidity.  Listening to her explanation, it seemed she had a feeling of being intimidated.  But neither of those terms – shyness, timidity, or intimidated can be associated with Ms. Green.  It’s not known whether she desired to be as she described herself or not.  But that conclusion can be determined from the presentation of additional information in her (Ms. Green) role as an evaluator of Miss Forest. 

     Ms. Green proved she was plainly out-of-it by stigmatizing Miss Forest’s teaching.  She objected to lecture.  By linking lecture to the past, she saw no use of it in the present.  Her dissatisfaction of Miss Forest’s use of lecture documents her lack of knowledge of the past.  One of the oldest and best methods of instruction is by lecture.  This method of teaching has qualities associated with age, wisdom and long use.  The lecture method is timeless.  Ms. Green was very careful not to say that that method was a failure, because the year before she evaluated Miss Forest’s teaching
perfect
.   Her co-worker was so enthused with Miss Forest’s teaching that Ms. Green thought her objection to the score
perfect
would cause confusion.  Therefore she went along just to get along.  The co-worker resigned at end of the school year.  If a method being used is successful, then why change it unless another method is more successful?  Or stated another way – Is method better than result?

     From Ms. Green’s stereotyping of Miss Forest, one sees prejudice firmly embedded in her character.  She recognizes none of the individuality of Miss Forest; instead her teaching is compared to teachings of ancient times, which Ms. Green implies is worthless in these modern days.  Not so.  Many citizens disagree with Ms. Green.  One-sentence statements from two student evaluators and one administrator are recorded below:

1. Student 5-29-87 ”She keeps your interest”
   
2. Student 3-11-02 “First you are a good teacher”
   

1. Administrator “Outstanding.”  (lesson plan -superior rated)
   

     Early in her career, Miss Forest was aware of the “dull” course she was assigned to teach.  Therefore, from the beginning she involved students’ participation.  Students were encouraged to evaluate their teacher.

     Ms. Green complained by deposition 7-17-02, that needs of special education students were not being met while under Miss Forest’s instruction.  “There was no distinction being made between them and regular students in the classroom… “pp28, 29 (note: Mr. Murphy made no distinction 2-19-02 while sub-teaching in Miss Forest’s classroom.)  Evaluators did not assign special education students for Miss Forest’s observation, a
help
they failed to provide.  Below is an exchange between Ms. Green and an attorney from deposition expressing her concern for lack of distinction between special education students and normal students:

Q.                 So you expressed those concerns to the administrator, not to Miss Forest?

A.                 I also talked with Miss Forest’s about these concerns too.

Q.              But they did not appear in writing?

A.              No… Ms. Green continues with “The only thing that changed, that was with course syllabus.  There was a requirement in Miss Forest’s course syllabus that all the students had to do a certain memorization thing.

     This negative attitude toward Miss Forest continues throughout. Next is a statement from Data Collection Form: from III Professional Preliminary Evidence: evaluators state, ‘Teacher seems to stand alone in her method and strategies of teaching history and maintains that memorizing “songs are still important…” What was the memory work about?  Failure to identify it is an indication of something amiss.  Referring to the memory assignment as
Things
and songs without giving the
titles
shows an incompleteness of the report and testimony, thereby making the information insufficient evidence in making the right decision.  Why was the memory assignment so painstakingly unidentified?  That question still remains unanswered.  It mystifies the cleverest minds in the nation of Grande`.

     Mr. Murphy promised to keep Miss Forest’s teaching record on file permanently in the education department in Dromedary.  The purpose of this record keeping was not revealed.  The deliberate omission of important information which he and Ms. Green so vehemently rejected to is confusing.  Future generations are wasting time in consulting that file when it is obvious some information was intentionally left unidentified.  What is their purpose of research?

     That memory mystery was one of several tools Miss Forest used to teach this (dull) course.  One was through the use of patriotic songs.  Students’ memorization bank contained Grande` (akin to My Country ‘Tis of Thee; America, the Beautiful; Battle hymn of the Republic, the Star Spangled Banner; Lift Every Voice and Sing and one address akin to Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.)  Beginning with the song Grande (My Country ‘Tis of Thee) teacher and students discuss the message of the song and its value to good citizenship.  Memorization is assigned.  Within two weeks students will have recited, sung, or written Grande.  Some special education students perform as well as others.  When necessary, adjustments were made to accommodate them.  The other songs were assigned as needed.  Through the use of the memory bank students were taught appreciation of their country, character, heroes, and word usage.  Miss Forest considers this bank as part of our defense system – good for the health of our nation.  This approach was successful, the results outstanding!

     But Mr. Murphy and Ms. Green had a different viewpoint.  They were the only educators who ever complained to Miss Forest about using memorizing patriotic songs as a tool in teaching history.  Their disapproval was not disclosed in writing, it was done verbally.  Here’s how they did it:

One day midway through her lunch break Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy entered her classroom.  They immediately got to the purpose of their visit.  Neither liked the memory arraignment.  Each suggested an alternative; Ms. Green, the spokesman, suggested students do something different but didn’t identify that different something!  Mr. Murphy thought one verse would be enough.  Seeing their disapproval, Miss Forest withdrew the assignment altogether, complying with their desires.  The two left Miss Forest’s classroom smiling as though something great had been accomplished.

     When students learned they were not required to do the memory work, they, as well as their teacher were confused, mixed up.  That act alone causes one to question their (administrators) patriotism!  Can one who loves and respects his country not want to sing or recite words from the minds of those inspired by the Devine Being? But actions speak louder than words.  They both did.

     But Mr. Murphy had still forgotten something!  On August 28, 2000 he sent a list containing ten additional expectations added to Miss Forest’s “improvement plan”.  Number nine (9) stated “You should communicate high expectations for achievement to all students that you teach…”   Then why didn’t Mr. Murphy communicate high expectations when in communication with Miss Forest and her students?  He did the opposite.  The assignment “Patriotic Memorizing” expressed Miss Forest’s high expectations of her students.  Withdrawing the memory assignment at the request of Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy is opposite high expectations!  They needed to take their own advice.

     Being against the memorizations of songs or cutting back to one verse, as Mr. Murphy suggested, contributes to low academic performance and low expectation.  It says to the student “just do enough to get by.”  And that’s the attitude of many students.  Low classroom performance is not determined solely on race, gender, and economic conditions but primarily on values, such as the values found in the assigned patriotic songs.  Miss forest advised the students to pass those values on to their children.  But it came to halt under Mr. Murphy and Ms. Green.  

     Ms. Green assigned Miss Forest a task, which was out-of-the-ordinary.  She expected Miss Forest to “effectively and efficiently address the needs of Special Education students in a way that their identity would be kept confidential and yet be successful in their work.”  Miss Forest found that assignment to be impossible.  So, in a letter to Ms. Green, Miss Forest sought help.  Ms. Green’s reply on January 24, 2000 was unclear.  While in conference with Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy, Miss Forest invited Ms. Green to her classroom to demonstrate the January 24
th
reply at Ms. Green’s convenience.  The invitation startled Ms. Green.  Quickly recovering composure, Ms. Green sheepishly expressed limitation in the area of history and graciously “declined.”

     When the reason for Ms. Green’s declination of Miss Forest’s invitation to demonstrate her assignment in Miss Forest classroom was revealed, Mr. Murphy was upset.  Her reason for decline: 
She
didn’t
know
how
!  When that information was made known to Mr. Murphy, he seemed to have felt her embarrassment and possibly felt Miss Forest had caused him to “let her down.”  After all, he was there to protect Ms. Green.  Pure prejudice!  If he intended to treat both of them alike, he would have arranged a meeting with the same group responsible for that “Remedial Plan” designed for Miss Forest and had that group to write a “Remedial Plan” for Ms. Green comparable to Miss Forest, page-for-page and just as messy and worthless, applying the same pressure to Ms. Green as to Miss Forest.  But nothing was done.

     Keeping the identity of Special Education students confidential was just as probable as theirs (Mr. Murphy, Ms. Green) in concealing the motive of the Remedial Plan for Miss Forest, despite their careful planning.  Both were easily identified:  Special Education students for weak scholarship.  Mr. Murphy and Ms. Green, for their weak morals – prejudice.  Neither Ms. Green nor Mr. Murphy could do the work they assigned Miss Forest.  Then why did Mr. Murphy continue to persist that Miss Forest must do it?  Irrational!

Postscript

     The refusal of evaluators, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Green, to identify the songs Miss Forest required students to memorize is a cheap shot at her values. They attempted to slander her by implying the songs assigned were inappropriate, unfit.  In trying to ridicule her, they also belittled some of our greatest artists – whose work is worth memorizing.  Miss Forest thinks her evaluators share her opinion, but are too immature to admit it.  How about the evaluators?  Were they familiar with the music and the poetry of these great artists?

     The act of disapproval of memorization of patriotic songs from the history classes taught by Miss Forest is evidence of a failure to recognize quality; therefore they (Mr. Murphy and Ms. Green) could not evaluate quality, either.  And they documented that fact!

     Ms. Green’s calling an assignment of Miss Forest a “memorization thing” is inaccurate.  She was fully aware of what was assigned to be memorized.  Then why did she choose not to identify the assignment?  Was she saying she was not patriotic?  That’s what the songs were about, standard national (patriotic) songs.  Her refusal to identify the assignment reeks with a “don’t care attitude” toward her nation.  The emotion “Love” is omitted!  These songs expressed love for one’s country.  They were written by persons who loved, supported, and defended their country.  Miss Forest assigned the memorization work to instill patriotism into each student.  Most of all the students were appreciative of that assignment.  It helped develop their moral maturity.  When informed that it (the assignment) was discontinued they were disappointed and confused.  Some asked the reason for its discontinuance; Miss Forest could only say the administrators did not approve of it.  There was puzzlement throughout the classes.  Their teacher shared their emotion.