School Pranks

by Lousia Evelyn Carter

  The history teacher of Dromedary High School is Miss Forest. She has been teaching for forty-nine years. Her method of teaching includes current events and the school textbook. The current events that we present everyday help the student better understand the textbook. She encourages her students to keep up with the news. In her class, she has the students to present chapters and sections from the textbook. This gives the students the chance to be able to present things in front of the class. This teacher makes learning fun with her ways of making students respond. She teaches her students to be honest. She lets the students decide on grades the students should get based upon the way the student acts (performs) in class. The teacher should encourage other students to enjoy learning.

  During the past couple of months I would say that my history teacher has been kind, enjoyable, exciting, and for the most part hard on the students. I like that because when she gets on students it makes them do better and encourage them to do more which would make them successful. My history teacher is also intelligent. She can tell me something that happened last year that will change our lives. She knows more things than everyone in our class put together and more. I would love for her to teach me next year because I know I’ll enjoy it again.

  THE END

  What If…..

  Contributions to society made by citizens of Grande` compare favorably with contributors throughout the world. This trend is expected to extend itself into the future. But with a negative attitude toward excellence, (Grade “A” Certificate, Superior rated teacher), school pranks shows that the future of public education is dangerously hampered. Should the process used to dismiss Miss Forest be adopted by our nations? Before answering these questions consider major shortcomings in three essential areas from documents used by the administrators to determine her dismissal.

  They are:

  Excessive Loss of Time:

  Negative

  Nearly three years were used to complete the process of her dismissal. That was much too long! A veteran teacher should have been dismissed as soon as administrators determined that performance was below standard. The long wait is evidence of malfunctioning of evaluators. The major reason for that long, expensive wait was insufficient evidence. Everything was documented administrators deemed advantageous to their cause. This evidence was carefully collected because one of the best teachers was involved, so serious charges were needed which required substantial documentary proof.

  From their documentation I was able to expose credibility gaps liable to endangering the public school education system if adopted.

  Positive

  But if evaluators had concerned themselves with seeing that no child was left behind (those three years Miss Forest was under observation) students, undoubtedly, would have shown satisfactory improvement in problem areas (reading and writing). This could have been easily been accomplished by using considerably less time than they spent collecting “evidence” for dismissal, which instead exposed their insufficiency without rigidity, students could have been taught the beauty, the importance and the effectiveness of grammar through the use of oral and written communication. Students could have been constantly reminded that the application of education, common sense, and good conduct in daily living produce good health, beauty, and wealth. This logic has been used successfully throughout Miss Forest’s career. (See student evaluations 1987-2002).

  Assignment –Unreasonable:

  Negative

  Assignment making was not in the best interest of neither the teacher nor the students. Assignments revealed a “don’t-care spirit”; no effort was made to hide that fact. “Teacher-improvement” assignments were excessive, irrelevant, and trivial. One assignment contained nearly one thousand (1,000) pages, adding more stress to a profession known for stress. Student classes were complex and multi-leveled. Thirty –four (34) students were enrolled in one of the classes, which consisted of four (4) academic levels; above average, average, below average, and special education. Although all students used the same text book, the teacher was required to make assignments suitable for each level. Lesson plans were supposed to show evidence that students needs were met on each level. But the out-of-area class Miss Forest was assigned to observe for her “teacher improvement” was different from her classes at Dromedory High. The observed class was small (17) and uni (1) leveled (advanced, AP). Much different! Why did those administrators assign a class for observation so different from the class they assigned Miss Forest to teach? Did such a class exist? That problem needs to be investigated immediately!

  Prior to the out-of-area observation assignment, many “teacher improvement” conference were arranged by Mr. Murphy and evaluators to “help” improve Miss Forest’s teaching skill. There was a “concern” with her “progress”. During one of these conferences she suggested they come to her classroom and demonstrate their expectation of her, using the strategies they spoke of so highly. All refused. The ladies orally admitting their inadequacy in history; the men with an attitude of indifference. The refusal to demonstrate their expectation with her students makes a multi-statement. These out-of-the ordinary assignments had to be done or else Miss Forest would be denied a contract for the next year. But, their refusal to demonstrate their expertise in teaching skill and classroom decorum, using students they assigned her to teach – whom they were so deeply “concerned” about-was intentionally denied their model ship!!! Miss Forest was unable to determine what these educators wanted; did they know what they wanted? Yes!

  Unfortunately, good teaching was not on the agenda of this public school system. The demonstrated an obsession of “collecting enough evidence to make firing justified”. After all, their top administrators in the public school system were in the “driver’s seat” of this situation. But in dealing with Miss Forest, their action is opposite the norm. So, when the occasion called for the use of the “accelerator” (good teaching) this group jubilantly applied the “brake” (firing), happily disregarding high qualification, and superior classroom performance. Why this blunder? Because they were aware of the fact that she was as good as any teacher in the system, whose reputation they carefully guarded.

  Positive

  Did Mr. Murphy and evaluators consider the assigned work impassible to complete? Evidently! Yet she was held accountable. What was required of her? That was never determined, fully. Since assigners were not demonstrating assignments, now making one available for her observation, as in this situation, results should have been paramount, foremost, rather than strategies. Lessons should not have to be taught a certain way if desired results are achieved. Well-meaning administrators often get-in-the-way of good teaching. Success with Miss Forest’s students was not impossible, even without administrative backing. For the best results, let the teacher teach! She had demonstrated good teaching forty-six (46 years) in Grande` prior to Mr. Murphy’s employment as principal of Dromedary High. This work is strewn throughout with evidence verifying that fact (see student evaluation section). From an honor graduate June 1, 1990 the following message of gratitude was written to Miss Forest:

  “…. You’ve had a great influence on my high school career. In so many ways you are responsible for the symbols of honor around my neck…. I’ll always remember you. Love……”

  Later in that decade, during a graduation ceremony an honor student again addressed the audience. Miss Forest was not in attendance but several persons who attended the ceremony excitedly described to her what they considered about the address that made it different from the norm. Their account is: During the address, the speaker recognized a teacher responsible for the achievement of that graduate with warm gratitude without revealing that teacher’s name. At the beginning of the speaker’s description of that teacher an excited buzz was heard throughout the audience with such words as “That’s Miss Forest “and similar words of approval and recognition of her teaching. From those two honor graduates one discerns students were exposed to quality of teaching while under her instruct
ion. During legal proceedings an attorney called attention to the fact that fourteen hundred (1400) students were enrolled at Dromedary High School; more than eighteen hundred (1800) citizens signed a petition protesting her firing – more than one for each student. Democratic principles of our nation’s founders were ignored.

  Discipline

  Negative

  Administrators showed little support in discipline matters concerning Miss Forest. Many students were aware of that policy. Students were permitted to enter her classes late and no action would be taken when the teacher reported it. One morning a late arriving student announced that policy to his classmates. After his late entrance he asked Miss Forest whether she wanted him to return to the office for an excuse. Then, facing his classmates he bragged; “…They are not going to do nothing but laugh anyway….” That was common – coming to class later. On May 10, 2002 six discipline referrals were returned to Miss Forest, intact. For in-depth description of this action the reader is referred to Mr. Murphy and Discipline p.55.

  These students were not bad! Their innocence was obvious. Miss Forest’s discipline problems were minimum, even without full administrative support. Sufficient handling of these students required a teacher with fulltime focus to the task. The students were typical; some gifted, others were average, below average, and special education students. When students became informed of Miss Forest’s unfavorable standing with Mr. Murphy some were deliberately insubordinate. One of these acts was leaving the classroom without asking permission. One student committed this act regularly. When that act was reported students were permitted to return to class without reprimand. This act continued; it was routine. Time spent from class was short, just leave and return. Miss Forest concluded this act was a game used to disrupt her teaching. She thought their aim was annoyance. Did those administrators suggest to students disobedience of their teacher? It is obvious. Two incidences which happened during the largest class make Miss Forest skeptical. One was a test of her endurance level.

  Class begins with a check on student attendance. At the beginning of roll call a soft, humming noise began. The teacher ignored it. Gradually the humming became louder, more intense. In other words they were doing a crescendo. Suddenly Miss Forest realized their intention. Her endurance level was being tested. Without parting their lips identifying the noisemaker was impossible. So she challenged the class with a deal. If, she proposed they wished to make noise that entire period and Mr. Murphy gave written permission to commit such an act, then they would be graded on noisemaking. She continued by telling them she has ability to blot out all the noise all of them (students) are able to make. “If you don’t believe it, try me.” They (students) looked at Miss Forest and at each other in surprise, wonderment, and awe. The lesson continued in an orderly manner.

  Another ordeal happened with the same class while Mrs. Lewis, an evaluator, was observing Miss Forest’s teaching skill. A writing assignment had been written on the chalkboards. More than one third (1/3) into the assignment a young lady questioned Miss Forest about some of the work. She was loud and abusive. Identifying the part in reference, she said she was unable to read it. She continued in her loudest voice with “you ought to write so people can read it.” All eyes in that room were firmly fixed on Miss Forest. She knew what was on their minds: How was she going to handle that delicate situation. First, Miss Forest, smiled at the inquisitive student and then to the others. Then she walked to the desk of the student with the problem and quietly asked her to identify the work which gave her the trouble she was having. Quietly it was identified. Miss Forest then softly read it to the student when ask whether she understood the work, her answer was “yes ma’am” “Let me know if more help is needed”, said Miss Forest. “All right”, said the student. Students quietly continued the assignment. That student had acted so rude! Was she doing that because Mrs. Lewis, evaluator, was present? Was that a set-up to expose Miss Forest’s “lack” of discipline skills? Miss Forest was satisfied, elated with the results. Using a class which was difficult and different as the one under observation, that student called Mrs. Lewis attention to the fact only one student out of thirty-four (34) had a question about the assignment. That episode also brought out the fact that Miss Forest represents her certificate – Grade A. One out of thirty-four is almost perfect showing she was in control of a class which Mrs. Lewis refused to tackle when Miss Forest invited her to demonstrate the style of teaching the “team” of evaluators required of her (Miss Forest) demonstrates superior rating.

  On May 10, 2002 Mr. Murphy reminded teachers via intercom the term had not ended and expressed his objection to student idling. (See page 55, Mr. Murphy-Discipline). A few students did not adhere to Mr. Murphy’s request; they began talking while working on the assignment. They became louder, interfering with their classmates. Miss Forest’s effort in dealing with the problem was ignored. To prevent class disruption (34 multi-level), Miss Forest thought it was best in the interest of students doing their work to refer the disorderly ones to Mr. Murphy. After all, they were disobeying their principal and their teacher. Referrals written by Miss Forest resulted from Mr. Murphy’s strong objection to student idling. Although denied a contract with the system for the next term she continued performing as usual – first class!

  Discipline is a major problem at Dromedary High. It is included in the curriculum. The discipline classroom was planned for students whose conduct was deemed unfit for regular classes. A policeman was hired for campus safety. This problem is intense.

  Below is a review of the action taken by Mr. Murphy in solving the problem submitted by Miss Forest:

  Mr. Murphy’s Action

  He listened half-heartedly to Miss Forest’s description of students’ misconduct.

  Escorted students to his office.

  The incident was discussed.

  Students wrote an evaluation of Miss Forest. These were placed in teacher’s mail-box.

  Referrals were placed in teacher’s mail box – no action taken.

  Students did not return to class.

  Mr. Murphy’s action raised many questions concerning his interest in school improvement. Was his interest honest, sincere, or genuine? Students were permitted to evaluate their teacher under unfavorable circumstances. And what basis did students evaluate? Did students ask Mr. Murphy his consideration of a good teacher? Did he (Mr. Murphy) tell them (students) his definition of good teaching? The answer to these questions is “hardly”. Without correct answers to these questions, students were given a lesson in backbiting from one of the highest school officials, the principal. The teacher evaluation assignment revealed his disapproval of Miss Forest and his support of student misconduct. Thus, instead of helping solve the discipline problem at Dromedary High, he showed himself as being a major part-the instigator!

  Miss Forests’ Action in Role of Principal

  After receiving notice six students were insubordinate in the classroom, she would have come immediately as Mr. Murphy had done, but without the policeman. (Note: Mr. Murphy and cop entered the room jubilantly, both countenances instantly fell after finding no problem – students working individually).

  Looking over the classroom, finding it orderly, students working, she would have concluded the season of the year (spring) had much to do with behavior. The young man who kept interfering with the young lady was trying to show his masculinity but she seemed uninterested in his feeble display. The others were just plain sassy; didn’t like school. But law required attendance.

  She would ask the teacher to come with her outside the classroom so that their conversation would not interfere with students’ work. Miss Forest would have praised the teacher for her orderly classroom. Stating this is what was expected of teachers when she announced earlier prohibiting idling. Then she would have asked the teacher to describe the incident(s) which led to writing the referrals:

  Actions

  Students escorted into hallway.

  Expressed her disappo
intment of their improper conduct (disobeying principal, and your teacher).

  Given students a sharp reprimand and strong consequence (in case they had in mind a repeat of action).

  Expressed confidence in their ability to do the assignment. Recognized student progress this (present) term.

  Require students to submit finished work to principal’s office (after the teacher had graded it).

  Quietly escorted students back to class to finish the assignment.

  Informed teacher of actions B and C.

  Praised the teacher for superior managerial skill with such diverse class.

  Yes, firing was appropriate. But lo and behold, the wrong one was fired. As usual, so dramatically demonstrated throughout school pranks, administrators and evaluators declared up much of their home made evidence showing their anti-education stand, and how dangerous their presence is in the classroom. From this so-called-evidence, anyone can read-between-the-line their strong confession of incompetence, which they never seemed to understand they had. They should have fired each other instead or did whatever they desired on doing to Miss Forest. Her work approaches impeccable.

  Meet the Author

  Dr. Edna L Calhoun was born in South Carolina to farming parents during the height of the Great Depression period. Her parents were Christians and instilled Christianity in their children. Edna is the fourth of five children.

  Yet, the depression was great and it was challenging, but it was not fatal. This “Hard Time” period motivated her to achieve her best. In education, she has completed Lester Elementary, Marlboro County High School, and a Bachelors at Claflin University and a Masters at New York University. She was enrolled when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made his “I Have a Dream” speech. She then went on to California Coast University where she received her Doctorate. She is certified on the secondary level in the field of History and music education. Her South Carolina teaching certificate is Grade A.