School Pranks

by Lousia Evelyn Carter

  On February 19, 2002, upon arrival at Dromedary High School Miss Forest was informed that Mr. Murphy had assigned Mr. Rasor (an assistant Principal) the duty to transport her to Ciber-Blue High School. Mr. Rasor’s busy schedule caused their late departure. Some of Miss Forest’s co-workers noted the improbability of reaching Ciber-Blue High School on schedule – and they were right. Mr. Rasor and Miss Forest departed from Dromedary High School a few minutes after class began. At departure time, Miss Forest’s class was unsupervised, further proof of Mr. Murphy’s mis-planning and negligence.

  Arrival on the campus of Ciber-Blue High School was thirty-four (34) minutes late. Therefore, a significant portion of the lesson – the beginning – was missed. Since Mr. Murphy’s “concern” was to teach Miss Forest how to teach, and he used three years to teach her, why didn’t he arrange to have her arrive at Ciber-Blue High School on time? The time he so blatantly sat. Taxpayers are paying for this slack. And why was Mr. Rasor permitted to leave Dromedary High School so late?

  Mr. Rasor was allowed to finish something he was doing. According to Mr. Murphy, nothing was as important as Miss Forest’s “remedial lesson” instruction. They (the administrators were responsible” for Miss Forest’s “remedial plan”) all voiced that “concern” or she would not be given a contract for the next term. Why did Mr. Murphy assign the observation class so early, requiring transportation during the busiest time of the day? Everything about this assignment is abnormal and strange. Their trademark in dealing with Miss Forest was nonprofessional. First, the early class assignment put an unnecessary strain on the out-of-area teacher. Next, Mr. Murphy had no respect for punctuality. Lastly, he (Mr. Murphy) left no teacher in the classroom with Miss Forest’s students. (Note: the fact that Miss Forest was an outstanding disciplinarian is proven with Mr. Murphy leaving her students unsupervised). Indirectly, he trusted, had confidence in her classroom performance. If her students were “out-of-control” Mr. Murphy would have had a teacher in the classroom of Miss Foster. But he did not because it was not necessary! None of the teachers in surrounding classrooms made any complaints against Miss Forest’s students. Remarkable!

  The History class at Ciber-Blue High School was taught by Ms. Pearl James instead of Mrs. Short, who was out on sick leave. Were Mr. Murphy and evaluators aware of this change? If they were, then why wasn’t Miss Forest informed? She expected Mrs. Short. Had either of the evaluators observed Mrs. Short or Ms. James’ teaching? Why didn’t Mr. Murphy or one of the evaluators accompany Miss Forest to Ciber-Blue High School to observe Mrs. Short to make sure her teaching met their standard? (Note: They knew Miss Forest’s classroom work ranked above the ordinary.) Miss Forest was required to write a summary of the observation. The purpose of the summary was never explained.

  Ms. James’ class was small, seventeen (17) advanced (AP), and well-disciplined students. The lesson: chapters twenty-nine (29) and thirty (30), method: Discussion. The themes blended with current events. Two mini films were viewed and discussed. Ms. James taught students to be specific. “Don’t assume listeners know what you are talking about;” she said. Students were given an exercise sheet for homework.

  Ms. James is one of the best! The class was relaxed, free-spirited and friendly. But according to Mr. Murphy, Ms. Green, Mrs. Lewis, and Mr. Reece, Ms. James’ teaching would have rated unsatisfactory for lack of the following which they required of Miss Forest:

  No objective was written on chalkboard.

  Teacher did most of the talking.

  Only a few students talked.

  Students’ work not visible.

  Comparison of Teachers

  Teacher Level Size Lesson Demography

  Ms. James advanced 17 Discussion: Larger

  AP Two chapters More industry

  Films, current

  News

  Miss Forest Multi 34 Terms, questions Smaller

  Special Ed. Discussions.

  To CP One chapter, section Poor

  Daily (one chapter

  Weekly) current events.

  One story from upfront

  (Student news magazine)

  Were the evaluators aware of the level and size of the assigned class? Apparently not. Then why didn’t they know? Since the purpose of the assignment was to teach Miss Forest how to teach, her students should have been considered. Ms. Green expressed her concern about needs of special education students that were not met while under Miss Forest’s instruction; then why such a class was not assigned for her observation? Was Dromedary High School the only school with such classes? Evidently Ciber-Blue High did not have such classes. But improvement never entered the mind of any of these administrators. If that statement is disputed, then why wasn’t Miss Forest assigned a class to observe similar to students under her instruction? It appears that by not allowing Miss Forest to observe on campus (Dromedary High School) protected some of her co-workers from these unjust evaluators. Clearly seen in observing the work of this committee in its relationship to Miss Forest is a picture of un-organization – of the lowest.

  Mr. Murphy allowed himself more than enough time in dealing with Miss Forest. For example, lesson plans had to be submitted to his office one week in advance of instruction. And he required her to notify him forty-eight (48) hours in advance if she was unable to furnish her transportation to Ciber-Blue High School for observing the history class for her improvement. Much is lacking on the part of the committee. Essential ones are:

  Miss Forest’s lesson plan was ignored. Her observation was scheduled on the day the students were scheduled for “weekly testing at Dromedary High. Thus off-setting classes the entire week. They had her lesson plan prior to scheduling.

  Failed to get Miss Forest to observation class on time.

  No teacher was left in her classroom.

  These three examples show serious lacking in the committee’s creditability in dealing with Miss Forest. It required professionalism of Miss Forest. But its clumsy, batched up, inept action toward her can only be labeled amateurish.

  Mr. Murphy’s Teaching

  Mr. Murphy taught Miss Forest’s first period class while she was on assignment at Ciber-Blue High School, February 19, 2002. He came to class late and left early. Students spent the remaining part of the period, approximately thirty (30) minutes, in Coach Green’s classroom. Twenty-one (21) students were present. Level ranged from elementary to tenth (10th) grade. Length of period: 1 hr. 30 min; course, civics.

  When Miss Forest returned, she found the chalkboards written up by the person who had taught civics. She left the writing undisturbed on the chalkboards until the following day, when she was able to question the students about their teacher the previous day.

  One February 20, 2002, Miss Forest asked the students who was their teacher the previous day. They joyously said “Mr. Murphy” “What was your objective?” (Continued Miss Forest, “We didn’t have one,” they jubilantly said. Then Miss Forest said, “I’ll tell you what, write a description of Mr. Murphy’s teaching. Use for your first sentence – “We did not have an objective.” They were thrilled! That assignment took about ten (10) minutes to complete.

  According to the students, the first thing Mr. Murphy said when he entered the classroom was “Put up your books.” Beginning with the definition of civics, several topics were discussed – voting, economics (an economic cycle), government (three branches and law). Mr. Murphy did not use Miss Forest’s plan. Why? In absence of the regular teacher, her plan was more in keeping with his lesson requirements. For example, her lesson plan was in keeping with his requirement. It included:

  Focused on reading and writing skills.

  Required the use of book.

  Used activities which required students to think and obey.

  Mr. Murphy’s teaching was contrary to the outline he required of his teachers. Why didn’t he follow his required, six (6) part lesson plan? He alleged Miss Forest was not teaching effectively. This was an opportunity to show Miss Forest what
good teaching is about. He, titled “Teacher of the year” took the liberty to leave, in his handwriting, his plan.

  This is another exhibition of his clever demonstration of preaching one thing and doing another. Documented! Mr. Murphy discarded required activities from his teaching which he demanded of Miss Forest. From the plan that Mr. Murphy left, he did not meet his standard. In violation were:

  An objective was not written on the chalkboard

  Did not use text.

  Wide range of material covered.

  Reading and writing skills were omitted

  He did most of the talking

  Special Education students’ needs were not met.

  The students loved Mr. Murphy’s teaching! One student wrote…It was fun learning with Mr. Murphy and I wish he taught all my classes.

  So, it was fun as long as they didn’t have to use their books in class. Didn’t have to write and read (which rank below average); didn’t have to copy objectives for their notebook. In other words, don’t have classroom responsibilities.

  (A term on the classroom wall.)

  But, Miss Forest was complimented somewhat. Wrote one student, “… I really enjoyed Mr. Murphy’s teaching yesterday not to say I don’t like yours. I think you do very well…” (Thank you, young lady, you are very smart! They all are!)

  If Miss Forest’s lesson plans were similar to the one Mr. Murphy had on the chalkboards February 19, 2002, she would have been dismissed immediately. He had sent her to a school out of the area to get a lesson in teaching. Overcome with joy, he mistakenly erred, as so many time he and her evaluators have done – left evidence of his true teaching style, nothing akin to what he required of Miss Forest, on her chalkboard! Material left on chalkboard by Mr. Murphy should have demonstrated the precision of his plan, since he, so often stated his concern about her classroom inadequate skill. Was he concerned about her? Was he concerned about students’ problems in their reading and writing skills? The answer to both questions is – It is doubtful. With Miss Forest, the lesson plan would have been as he required; with students’ books used.

  Saying “Put up your books” to students on the bottom rung of the education ladder is mind boggling! That statement implies Mr. Murphy’s lack of genuine concern for improving reading and writing skills for Dromedary High School students as indicated in his Initiative Plan written for student improvement in these two areas. On the contrary, that statement compliments the teacher he was substituting for – Miss Forest. So, unconsciously Mr. Murphy complimented her teaching and classroom management skills. Remember, students were left unattended. It was amazing! The teacher labeled incompetent by the Evaluation Committee was unbeknownst to Mr. Murphy, its main critic, actually complimented her with his statement “Put up your books,” indicated:

  Books were in use – in teacher’s absence.

  Students were orderly.

  Students were engaged in improving reading and writing skills (his recommendation.)

  Promoting his improvement plan was a big “concern” of his, but he let too many opportunities just “slip – through – his – finders.” For example: coming into such a positive classroom environment merited an audible and written expression of gratitude from Mr. Murphy, to students for being on the job and to their teacher for quality teaching.

  Demonstrated here is a worthwhile value. With the use of her civics class Mr. Murphy has helped her prove that. The conduct of students reflects the teacher’s preparation. In this case:

  Teacher’s prep – Certificate A; Superior rated

  Students’ Conduct – on task (while unsupervised) Excellent

  Apparently Mr. Murphy and evaluators saw no connection between teacher preparation and students’ conduct, resulting in Miss Forest’s firing.

  The students enjoyed Mr. Murphy’s teaching on February 19, 2002 and Miss Forest enjoyed reading each of their writings; so innocent, so pure and sprinkled throughout with unadulterated love. One student wrote “…we did not have a teacher until a woman came to the room and asked us did we have a teacher.” This student figured the lady went to the front office and told Mr. Murphy because he continues with “…a couple of minutes later Mr. Murphy shows up. He asks us what course this is and we told him civics…” But, Miss Forest wonders who that mystery lady was? Was it one of her evaluators? If that lady had not “shown up” would Mr. Murphy have come to Miss Forest’s classroom? Had Mr. Murphy forgotten the out-of-area assignment he made for Miss Forest – the remedial one? Why didn’t Mr. Murphy have a substitute in Miss Forest’s classroom, he required teacher supervision of students while on campus. Why didn’t Mr. Murphy, know the course students were studying that period, he had Miss Forest’s schedule and lesson plans? Deciphered from this information are pertinent facts concerning professional ineptitude used by her evaluators in dealing with Miss Forest. Examples of this are exposed from the out-of-area assignment. Some are listed below:

  Lateness to classroom

  Mr. Murphy was late to Miss Forest’s classroom

  Mr. Murphy caused Miss Forest’s lateness to observation class.

  Lack of Preparation

  Mr. Murphy had to ask students’ the course being taught. Thus,

  He had no preparation

  He had no substitute teacher for first hour.

  Different Presentation

  Mr. Murphy’s presentation of lesson was different from his requirement

  He dismissed students thirty minutes earlier; causing interruption in two classrooms-Miss Forest and a co-worker.

  Mr. Murphy and Discipline

  The day was May 10, 2002, near the end of the term. Mr. Murphy announced over the intercom at the beginning of class that school was not over. Teachers were reminded to continue with lessons. “Don’t let students idle,” he cautioned. Miss Forest’s students were assigned individualized work. After a short while, a few students began talking softly. They continued talking after being warned several times. One male student began talking with a young lady excessively, interrupting her work. She was obviously annoyed but answered him anyway. Miss Forest quietly suggested not answering him; Miss Forest said “Just let him talk, I’ll take care of him.” Instead of obeying Mr. Murphy and Miss Forest, by doing the assigned work, they became bolder, more defiant, talking louder. Miss Forest wrote each student a discipline referral and notified the office. Mr. Murphy and the school policeman came to the classroom, both smiling. Students were quiet, orderly, and were engaged in their assigned work. Miss Forest quietly explained the problem to Mr. Murphy. She requested different treatment for the young lady. A reprimand was suggested. Miss Forest only wrote her up in order to keep peace in that multi-level (large, 34 students) classroom. Mr. Murphy acted as though there was mutual understanding between the two of them. He said, “Alright,” and ushered the students from the room.

  In a memorandum dated May 13, 2002, Mr. Murphy returned the six referrals and a criticism statement of Miss Forest written by each student. No action against student misbehavior was taken. But a strong course of action was taken toward their teacher by requesting her to present documentation of parental contacts on or before May 15, 2002. The purpose? She had been denied a contract nearly two months earlier. Information requested was just as useful as the “Remedial Plan.”

  The subtle lesson taught was: That teacher doesn’t have to be respected; Mr. Murphy has given them his backing. This fact is expressed in those students’ statements of May 10, 2002. Exception being the statement of the young lady mentioned earlier. She wrote “…Finally, I really don’t like this class. I just like the way she teaches.” That statement shows dissatisfaction which could have been avoided. But, in spite of a class such as described here, Miss Forest’s teaching was enjoyed. Other students in that deliberately formed, multi leveled, large (34 students) class had the same opinion as the young lady quoted in this paragraphs. The administrators – Mr. Murphy and evaluators – in this situation, knowingly hindered (got in the way of the progres
s of these students. Mr. Murphy allowed students to criticize against Miss Forest. She had no objection against criticizing – truthful, that is. Then why didn’t Mr. Murphy permit the students to criticize him? Over the intercom he was interested in students not idling in class, yet students causing discipline problems in class that day (5-10-02) were allowed to idle outside class the entire period, without punishment. When in his presence, backbiting was permitted. He allowed those students to criticize Miss Forest. Each student’s evaluation was placed in Miss Forest’s teacher’s mail box. Why didn’t Mr. Murphy discuss with students, their criticisms of Miss Forest with her? He could have been talking with a future ambassador. Miss Forest permits student evaluation of her, not of a co-worker. She never had a chance, Miss Forest that is.

  The memorandum to Miss Forest dated 5-13-02 was filled with his disgust for her, his impatience with her, and his loathing of her. In the first paragraph of the memo he lets her know that she (Miss Forest) was responsible for the discipline problem in her classroom.

  In the second paragraph, Mr. Murphy asks for several items such as:

  A copy of 2001-2002 classroom discipline plan.

  She used Mr. Murphy’s Plan.

  Miss Forest’s classes are always under control even when she is not in class. References have been made demonstrating her excellent discipline patterns. But Mr. Murphy’s discipline action taken 5-10-02 usually will cause discipline problems, rather than prevent them.

  Proof of Parental Contact: Documentation

  Miss. Forest was born here

  She lives in this area. More than 1800 citizens disagreed with Mr. Murphy’s decision to fire her.

  The third paragraph he states

  His Intent

  To support Miss Forest’s efforts to maintain control of her classroom

  That statement is easily refuted by his returning of the discipline referrals. A discipline referral has four copies, one each for – the student, the parent, the teacher, and the school. In number two, Mr. Murphy is asking for proof of parental contact: Document. By returning those referrals to Miss Forest he has shown that the parents did not receive notification of student misconduct, therefore documents were not available. Seldom did Miss Forest have problems with students about discipline. It just did not happen!