Let’s see,
My Mom’s in Iraq and I know she can only call me when it’s conveinient for her.
I also know that the school has a policy where I can not use my phone during school hours.
I can
Let the school know of this situation and see what they can do for me.
or
Leave my phone on anyway, wait till she calls me, pick up the phone knowing it’s against the rules, hope I don’t get caught, try to explain myself after the fact or during the call, throw a tantrum when someone catches me using the phone that I’m not supposed to be using.
Given what ended up happening (the kid couldn’t answer the phone when his mother called back, remember), what makes you assume that the school had any interest in doing anything for the student?
You’re a teacher. A student has just told you that he’s talking to his mother, in Iraq. Do you:
Recognise that if he’s telling the truth, then this is not a situation the rules were designed to cover, and wait until the call is over, then, having shown that you are willing to be reasonable, work out a solution that both lets the student talk to his mother and leaves plenty of good order laying about for you to congradulate yourself about.
or:
Delight in your chance to enforce your will on a lesser being,and attempt to grab the phone away from him, showing that you have no interest in mitigating circumstances or even his right to his own property whatsoever?
Teacher doesn’t sound so bright to me.
Also, as has been pointed out, either the kid is a kid, and his shouting should be brushed off as a childish tantrum, or he’s an adult, and he should have been given the benefit of the doubt. Again, by what standard can you treat someone like a child, and then be upset when they respond in kind?
I’m sorry what should the teacher have done again? First you said that they should have allowed him to answer the phone but now you are saying they should have answered it and talked to the mother. I am a bit confused.
Here is what happened according to that report:
Kevin was speaking on the phone in violation of school policy
A teacher instructed him to stop and he refused saying it was his mom in Iraq
The teacher somehow took the phone causing it to disconnect
The teacher and Kevin go to the principals office where Kevin becomes beligerent
The principal offers to work with Kevin
Kevin becomes defiant and disorderly
Sometime in this episode his mother calls back but Kevin doesn’t answer becuase he was “too frustrated”
Kevin was “defiant and disorderly” with three assistant principals
Kevin recieved a 10 day suspension.
Knowing all the facts the teacher should have let Kevin speak on the phone but the teacher didn’t know the facts. When the administration found out all the facts they offered to work with him but Kevin’s defiance and disorderly conduct prevented that from happening.
How can you be outraged at the teacher who was just following the school’s policy? How can you be outraged at the administration when they tried to work with Kevin after finding out the facts? How can you be outraged at the suspension without knowing how disorderly Kevin got?
And lets stop calling Kevin a kid he is 17 years old and knows better than to throw temper tantrums.
Every Mom in the history of the world has scolded their son that doesn’t make every son terrified of their mother.
Kevin is 17 years old and is a big boy. He should know that he can’t just break the rules willy-nilly, curse at teachers and then become disorderly and defiant to assistant principals. This entire situation could have been avoided if he went to the administrators before hand and explained the situation or had he not thrown a temper tantrum.
** Fear Itself **-
I don’t know exactly what happened but I read this:
I parse it as the principal allowed him to answer the phone but Kevin said he was too frustrated to answer the phone.
Likewise, the situation would have been a non-issue had the administration exercised a modicrum of thought before enforcing the rules (which, I note again were designed to prevent another form of cell phone use entirely).
Moreover, if he’s a big boy, then the school should have assumed that he had a valid reason for being on the phone in defiance of the policy, especially as he, I dunno, told them so?
Again I ask, if he’s a big boy, why take the phone? If he’s just a kid, why get upset over the tantrum?
I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.
The principal said that he tried to work something out with the student. However, the student was too frustrated, because he couldn’t answer the phone when his mother called him a second time.
Unless you are claiming that the cause of Kevin’s frustration which stopped him from answering the cell phone was caused by Kevin’s frustration with his inability to answer the cell phone, as a result of his frustration, of course.
Also, there is the little fact that according to the article, Kevin had already given the cell phone to the principal.
Treis
So if someone in the movie theater is talking on their phone, I am allowed to take it from them because it’s against the rules of the movie theater? The Usher is allowed to physically take it from them? The theater manager? No, they escort the person out, they don’t physically assault them.
The problem is that the teacher physically assaulted him. If he was out of line, she had no reason to get physical with him. She had plenty of time LATER to suspend him, or give him detention if that was warranted. It was the teacher exacting their will physically that was the problem. That is an abuse of authority. Who would get in trouble if the student had pushed the teacher back? Why it would be the student, even though it was the teacher that had begun the physical altercation in the first place.
That’s why I think the teacher should have assault charges filed against her. It would show teachers that they are NOT prison hacks and need to comport themselves in a little different a manner. They do not have overarching priviliges to violate the student’s sovereign physical space. That type of abuse of authority is what offends me most here.
Is the teacher supposed to be able to discern the entire circumstances from its my Mom and shes in Iraq? We don’t know exactly what happened or what was said at that moment. Perhaps the teacher was in error perhaps he wasn’t. If he was in error it certainly seems to be a minor mistake that the administration was trying to correct. Either way would this have made the news if Kevin hadn’t gone ape-shit and gotten himself suspended? Would it have if Kevin had gone to the administrators earlier? Not very likely.
The way I see it the teacher might have screwed up or might not have. If he did it was an easily correctable screw up. Kevin on the other hand neglected to go to the administration for an exemption which would have prevented this whole incident and he escalated the incident by throwing a tantrum instead of dealing with it like a reasonable person.
No, adults would have gone to the administration to get an exemption rather than just break the rules and throw a tantrum afterwards.
Since when do kids avoid punishment for throwing tantrums?
Sorry buckeroo when you add a word and a couple commas you change the meaning of the sentance . For example:
But Francois said he was too frustrated, he couldn’t even answer the phone when his mother called him the second time.
I’m assuming Kevin wasn’t very far from the principal becuase I believe it was at this time he was throwing his tantrum and swearing at them.
I disagree. Under your interpetation it would seem that Kevin was being cooperative until the 2nd call at which time he went apeshit. However Kevin was already swearing when he went to the office. It seems to me that he was already pissed off and the trigger was not missing the second call.
Am I the only one that it is reading it to mean that Kevin was offered to answer the phone but was too mad to do so?
If someone were talking on the phone and then refused to stop or leave your right the manager probably wouldn’t use force to stop him. He would call the police and have the person arrested. I don’t think thats what anyone wants to happen. I dare say if that did happen there would be a pit thread on how the stupid school had a kid arrested for talking to his Mom in Iraq.
I disagree completely. All the teacher did was grab a phone out of the students hand when he refused to give it up. Teachers and administrators assume the role of parents (There is a fancy latin term for it) when the students are in the school. Grabbing something out of a students hand certainly falls under that authority. What is the alternative in this situation? Call the police and have them confiscate the phone?
Absolutly. Teachers are responsible for maintaining authority in the classroom and schools. Certainly grabbing a phone out of a students hands falls under reasonable use of that authority. Its ridiculous to think that grabbing a phone out of someones hand is grounds for arrest and assault charges.
What’s to be confused about? The sentence you linked is ambigous. Either they have possession of the phone and are watching it ring or they are watching Kevin, who is too frustrated to answer the phone.
Either way the phone needs to be answered in order to defuse the situation and either way, they are in possession of Kevin…whomever answered the phone was within their control…but the phone needed to be answered.
When I went to school teacher’s made exceptions for students all the time. It seemed like they recognized the fact students were people too, and just because they lost their cool doesn’t mean they deserve to lose 10 days of their education.
I remember lots of instances in my HS when kids from more “troubled” families were given passes on certain things because teachers understood where they were coming from and that they had a huge amount of stress on them.
Hell, it wasn’t uncommon for teachers to blow up in class when they were particularly stressed, I’d think students shouldn’t be unduly punished for the same type of thing.
It’s all situational though. Personally if I was a teacher I’d deal with 95% of problems without ever taking it to the administrator, especially if the admin was someone who was prone to unflinchingly punish people by the book with no regard to situational circumstances.
To be clear on my position. It doesn’t seem like the teacher handled this in the best way possible but I don’t think his actions were egregious. The administration seems to have acted fine in this situation and depending on exactly what happened in the office the suspension isn’t outrageous.
Kevin on the other hand clearly handled this as poorly as you possibly could. He should have gone to the administration to get an exemption. He should have worked with the administration after the teacher forced him off the phone. What he absolutely should not have done was launch a profanity laden tirade. He turned a relatively minor situation into a full-blown major confrontation. That decision is what led the the suspension and this thread and he should be held responsible for it.
I answer your first question with another question. Given that there was a stated reason for the no-cell-phones policy, and that the current use of the cell phone had nothing to do with said use, why was the teacher trying to grab the cell phone at all?
Would it have made the news if the teacher had thought, “Gee, it’s his mom, and she’s in Iraq. Maybe I shouldn’t try to grab the cell phone away from her?”
I say again, given the present information, why would you assume that Kevin would have gotten an exemption?
The phrase you’re looking for is ‘…so frustrated, he couldn’t…’ I say again, read what is actually written. The ‘too frustrated’ clause referrs to the failue to work something out with the prinicpal, and resulted from his inability to answer the phone when his mother called the second time.
I’m sorry, is there a point here? If he didn’t have the phone, than his frustration would have been a non-factor regarding the ability to answer the phone, even ignoring above semantics.
You are not. If you can cite actual grammatical rules that support your interpretation, I will be impressed and concede the point.
Also, so what? If a teacher had just made me hang up on my mother, with me knowing that this may well be the last time I can speak to her for a month and very possibly ever again, and did so for no reason at all other than to enforce a rule with no justification in this specific instance, I’d swear, too.
But that’s not what happened, because your hypothetical manager displayed more sense than the teacher did.
I believe we must simply agree to disagree in this case. I see no cause for trying to grab something out of someone’s hand, except when it is obviously harmful and threatening, like a weapon, and even then, it’s usually a bad idea. (When wrestling for possesion of dangerous weapons, the person with the handle always wins.)
One could say the exact same thing about workplace conditions. If you work somewhere where you can expect the management to grab things from out of your hand, then I suggest you find alternate employment prospects or try to cash in on the settlement when the inevitable lawsuit happens.
It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement on what kind of behavior is acceptable. Let’s turn the tables; if it were established that the teacher was in the wrong (say, once they had gone to the principal’s office), the student should have been fully justified in grabbing it back, yes?
Yeah, and if I was a cop I’d be a renegade and shoot bad guys on the street in my off-duty hours. Generally speaking, a teacher HAS to go through the administration to solve even remotely serious problems.
The kid broke the rules. The teacher screwed up a little. (Although I’d be interested to read a more detailed description of what went on).The punishment was (arguably) harsh (although not particularly so, in my opinion; let face it, the idiots calling for the teacher to be sued would also be first in the line to sue anyone who “verbally abused” them whilst at work). Big deal.
And finally, I heartily concur with the idea that we stop wrapping this “kid” in cotton wool. 17-year-olds, in my experience, are perfectly capable of sorting situations out in a reasonable manner; they can even calmly argur their point when they are the victim of a perceived injustice. This young man chose to act like a baby. Fine; go home for a couple of weeks and have a tantrum. Bet he doesn’t do it again.
I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and speculate that his poor grades are not because he’s been an angel, behavior wise. School discipline actions are often cumulative. If the kid has ALREADY had discipline issues (which the school probably can’t reveal…and I’m guessing Francois wouldn’t choose to do so either)…then in the context of that track record…10 days for defiant behavior, including refusing to leave an office (hello trespassing…that IS actionable by the police) could easily seem appropriate.
I have a general rule any more about these kind of stories involving "evil administrator"s: If the story involves student behavior, I tend to NOT automatically believe the accounts that make the papers. The accounts are the spinned version of the student or the helicopter parents…privacy concerns often prevent the full context of the story from coming out.
School discipline actions are often cumulative. If the kid has ALREADY had discipline issues (which the school probably can’t reveal…and I’m guessing Francois wouldn’t choose to do so either)…then in the context of that track record…10 days for defiant behavior, including refusing to leave an office (hello trespassing…that IS actionable by the police) could easily seem appropriate.