School Pranks (8 page)

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:

1. 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.
   
2. Failed to get Miss Forest to observation class on time. 
   
3. 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 (10
th
) 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:

1. Focused on reading and writing skills.
   
2. Required the use of book.
   
3. 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:

1. An objective was not written on the chalkboard
   
2. Did not use text.
   
3. Wide range of material covered.
   
4. Reading and writing skills were omitted
   
5. He did most of the talking
   
6. 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:

1. Books were in use – in teacher’s absence.
   
2. Students were orderly.
   
3. 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:

1. Teacher’s prep – Certificate A; Superior rated
   
2. 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:

1. Lateness to classroom
   
1. Mr. Murphy was late to Miss Forest’s classroom
   
2. Mr. Murphy caused Miss Forest’s lateness to observation class.
   
2. Lack of Preparation
   
1. Mr. Murphy had to ask students’ the course being taught. Thus,
   
2. He had no preparation
   
3. He had no substitute teacher for first hour.
   
3. Different Presentation
   
1. Mr. Murphy’s presentation of lesson was different from his requirement
   
2. 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 progress 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:

1. A copy of 2001-2002 classroom discipline plan.
   
1. 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.

1. Proof of Parental Contact: Documentation
   
1. 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

1. His Intent
   
1. 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!

     When citizens of Grande became aware of Miss Forest’s dismissal more than 1,800 signed a petition protesting that action.  The petition is worded:

Miss Mary Forest was denied a teaching contract, and denied an opportunity to speak with the board.  She was evaluated unfairly and we would like for her to be reinstated immediately!  As citizens of Grande we want to put a stop to this type of injustice.

Education SOS! 

     Students enrolled at Dromedary High School perform academically below their ability. Mr. Murphy and administrative evaluators seem to approve of substandard performance.  Mr. Murphy had an opportunity to use his Dromedary High School Reading and Writing Initiative with these students but didn’t; like so many, many times he failed to do so.  In other words, he blew it!  It is evident that reading and writing improvement of these students never entered Mr. Murphy’s mind.  If he had thought otherwise, he would have reminded them (11
th
and 12
th
graders) to write the assignment (criticism of their teacher, Miss Forest) using skills taught by their English teacher(s).  But instead of improving their work, Mr. Murphy continued contributing to this severe problem by accepting messy work – scribbled writing, scratched-out words, and incorrect grammar.

     Most Dromedary High School students come from homes without a father.  Without the father image, these youths, some are parents already, will continue a family cycle which is harmful to society.  Mr. Murphy’s treatment of Miss Forest is typical of most men’s attitude toward women and senior citizens; they disrespect (rude, mean, and heartless.)  Aside from academics, Mr. Murphy failed to teach the students a lesson in ethics – obey those in authority; himself and Miss Forest.

Legal Work:

Discipline

     Books are basic to education.  Much of the education budget is used for books.  Each child is issued a book for every registered course.  Miss Forest expected students to bring their book to class each period.  Without that expectation some students would come to class every day expecting Miss Forest to supply them a book! Their reasoning is:  the government has plenty money.  Just ask for it!  Some students would not attend school if a law didn’t require attendance.  Since Miss Forest could not legislate this action (requiring books to be brought to class) she motivated students to do this by using reasoning and common sense.  But two students would not adhere.  She sought Mr. Murphy’s help.

The Background

1. Date: May 10, 2002; course: History; Grades: 11
   th
   and 12
   th
   ; number of students: 34: Level: multi. Mr. Murphy, over intercom, cautioned teachers not to permit students to idle although the end of the school year is near.  Two students had been written a discipline referral for not bringing their book to class.  Mr. Murphy returned the referrals.  On one he wrote “administrative conference held.”  In Mr. Murphy’s letter to Miss Forest on 5-13-02 he mentions six students were removed from her class.  Other referrals were also returned; their offense was talking.  That was puzzling.  Each referral was quadrupled – a copy for parent, for student, for teacher, and for administrator (office).  Mr. Murphy did not convey his opinion on students bringing books to class to her in the 5-13-02 letter.  Instead, on 6-13-02 an attorney of Mr. Murphy’s questioned her about that incident.  *From transcript of the Deposition of Mary Forest, June 13, 2002 question and answer session is recalled between an attorney and Miss Forest, P. 158:18.
   

1. In some of these discipline referrals you had written children did not bring materials to do work or come to class without his book.  Do you think those kinds of students should be referred to an administrator?
   

Note: Two students came without a book.

Documented.

1. If they’re going to be in class, I feel they should have material because the material was given to them.  Otherwise they can’t do what is required.
   

1. There are about 1,400 students at this school, is there not?
   

1. Sure
   

       Q.  And if 200 of them do not bring their textbook to class or bring materials to class,

             Do you think those students should be referred to an administrator?

1. I can’t say.
   

1. Why?
   

1. Because I have not thought about that.  It seems to me they should have the material.  Otherwise they can’t do their work if they don’t have the material.
   

     Miss Forest looked from the attorney to Mr. Murphy.  That was her first time hearing that.  So, Mr. Murphy didn’t mind students coming to class without their books.  Then why didn’t he notify Miss Forest?  Evidently he told the students.  When he and Ms. Green complained to Miss Forest concerning requiring students to memorize patriotic poetry (songs, etc.) the assignment was immediately withdrawn.  She would have permitted students to come to class without books, if she was aware Mr. Murphy approved of it.  She was always cooperative.

     Miss Forest has given much thought to questions that the attorney asked.  And her answers have not changed.  These Dromedary High School students, at writing, score at or near the bottom on standardized tests, but their intelligence is not abnormal.  So, the person who was “concerned” with teaching Miss Forest how to teach ignored her by failing to communicate with her it was alright for students to come to class without books.  It wasn’t until after the 2001-2002 term ended that the information was indirectly conveyed to her through his attorney.

     It is evident Mr. Murphy and his attorney considered the act of students not bringing books to class trivial.  More time was needed to answer that question because if Miss Forest had been in Mr. Murphy’s position that problem would not have occurred.  On this issue of bring books to class, their viewpoint is opposite.  It never entered her mind that he thought different from her.  Miss Forest expected her students to bring their book to class.  It was required.  That policy was successful, only those two students Miss Forest refer to on 5-13-02 had a habit of disobeying that rule.  Evidently they were aware of his view.  Then Miss Forest should have been informed also.  Instead, Mr. Murphy, along with the students, ganged up against Miss Forest, making a difficult task more difficult.  Starting over the intercom his expectation of teachers toward students and conniving with students against their teacher is confusing.  In a class of thirty-four (34) only two (2) students failed. To bring their book to class while knowing the Head School Master did not mind them not bringing their book.  This is proof Miss Foster got across to those students the importance of the textbook.  Two out of thirty-four is outstanding under this dire circumstance.  And that fact is documented!  August 28, 2000 Mr. Murphy states …”you should communicate high expectations for achievement to all students that you teach…”  And he calls this act “high expectation”!

     Mr. Murphy had “limited concern” with academics.  Why? That confounds the highest intellect!  There is an adage-one rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel.   The same principle applies with students and books regardless of the number, whether two or two hundred.  Test scores of the students are proof.

Different Perceptions

     The purpose of public school is to make education available to all students.  It is a gift of the nation.  All students should have been given this privilege and encouraged to perform on their highest level.  Miss Forest agrees with this theory.  But Mr. Murphy‘s thinking was opposite.  When his career performance is scrutinized much evidence is uncovered.  A review of the incident which happened on May 10, 2002 show much double-dealing.