The teacher was trying to grab the phone becuase the student was breaking a rule and the teacher wanted to stop him.
No and I have said the teacher might not have acted perfectly but we don’t know exactly what was said or how it occured.
Yes the principal could have said your mom is calling do you want to answer it and Kevin could have said no I don’t want to because I am too frustrated.
The principal tried to make amends but Francois said he was too frustrated he couldn’t answer the phone when his mother called him the second time.
Doesn’t that sentence make sense?
First off that is only a justification for this rule there can be more. Even so the rule still applies becuase he could have been providing answers for someone in the middle of a test.
Wouldn’t you think if talking to his mother is such an important issue for Kevin he would have taken steps to ensure he could?
Wait so you think the teacher should have called the cops and had Kevin arrested?
Uh no we can’t. Schools act in * Loco Parentis * of the students while they are at school.
The principal tried to make amends by allowing Kevin to talk to his mother but Francois said he was too frustrated he couldn’t answer the phone when his mother called him the second time.
FWIW…that’s the way I read the account as well. As Kevin and the administrators are in the school office area, mom calls again. An administrator answers the phone and sees if Kevin wishes to talk to mom. Kevin is “too frustrated” to talk to his mom.
Damn it’s a good thing we don’t expect folks of this age to be voting soon or living independently at college soon or joining the army soon…because as mswas brilliantly points out…he’s at “an emotional age” :rolleyes:
Not even a little bit. If Kevin had the telephone in his hand, do your really expect me to believe that his mental state actually prevented him from pressing the button to answer it? That makes no sense at all.
I can’t believe what I’m reading. Some of you are actually defending this moron of a teacher ?
I’d lay good money, if this happened in the UK, the teacher would
a) be on the front page of at least one tabloid newspaper with a rather disparaging headline on top.
and
b) be at best strongly warned and at worst fired
for displaying a level of insensitivity that is IMO beyond belief.
This teacher actually physically grabbed a phone out of a 17-year old’s hand while he was talking to his Mother on it? What the hell was he thinking?
If your son was talking on the phone and refused to get off would you a) wait patiently until he gets off the phone b) call the police and have them confiscate the phone or c) grab it out of his hand?
If a teacher physically touched me or tried to take something out of my hands the first thing I would do is get as loud as possible and draw as much attention as possible. I would tell the teacher to get their hands off of me and my stuff. If the teacher persisted, I would probably defend myself.
We have some details about the interactions between Kevin and the administrator. We have very FEW details about the initial reaction between Kevin and the teacher.
For example…did the teacher request that the phone be put away before even knowing that “mom” was on the line?
Hypothetical…
Kevin gets call on cell…heads outside for better reception.
Teacher notices him heading outside with cell. Teacher follows him outside…reminds him that you can’t use a phone during school hours, and to put it away.
Kevin blows off teacher…keeps talking on phone.
At that point, teacher takes phone.
Once teacher has phone…Kevin says “hey thats my mom, give me the phone back!”
Having already experienced defiance in this situation, teacher is not inclined to find out the details to what is happening…with another class about to start he/she refers matter to administration.
based upon the scant facts of the initial encounter…is the above hypothetical unrealistic?
It’s possible that depending on the initial encounter…the teacher could have had another course of action (and so perhaps made a less than ideal choice)…but if it happened similar to the hypothetical, I doubt it.
Based upon what happened in the office though, I don’t have much of a problem with consequences for defiant behavior, swearing and refusing to leave an office.
I’m in agreement with everyone else that the situation was handled poorly, but IMHO, more so on the part of the administration than the teenager.
Here’s what I got out of it…
[ul]
[li]If the teacher reacted solely to this being an infraction of the rules (after hearing his explanation), then I don’t understand what would have been a big issue out of her answering it or asking to see if his story was legitimate. One would think that if that truly was her reasoning, why would she bother with listening to an explanation at all?[/li][li]Considering that some adults forget they have left their baby in the car when they go to work, I could understand how someone that is 17 might not have simply thought of all the ramifications of his situation before hand. So, perhaps it never even occurred to him that there might be a problem, rule or not, to specifically clear permission or make adjustments for. I mean, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.[/li][li]It would seem to me that regardless of how “frustrated” he was, that the same boy who bucked the system in the first place and refused to hang up the phone on his mother, would neglect to answer the second call under any circumstances. Unless of course, he was no longer in possession of it and therefore not allowed.[/li][/ul]
Last of all, to treis, who I am by no means picking on, but have an honest question. There appears to be a discrepancy on how you read the particular sentence about the latter call, emphasizing that, due to how you could place the punctuation, reads differently. Obviously, as previously stated, it is ambiguous. But having read your posts in this thread, I haven’t noticed that you don’t use them overmuch yourself, making many of your ideas hard to parse correctly. However, I feel that I grasp the general tone and ideas of your writing. Is it much different in regards to this situation? Certainly when taken in context?
I hope that doesn’t sound pissy, because I really don’t mean it to be (and I have no problem understanding you – your very clear), I just would like some clarification on what separates the two please. Thanks.
Is there no shades of grey in your world at all? Does everyone have to be either totally obedient or completely defiant?
Why couldn’t the teacher have acted reasonably and sensitively, as in the following (imaginary, borne of wishful thinking) scenario:
<teacher sees student on phone>
T: Hey, Kevin, what are you doing talking on the phone during school hours. Hang up.
K: It’s my mom in Iraq, I’m not about to hang up on my mom
T: Oh, how’s she getting on? Here, let me have a word with her (thereby making sure he’s telling the truth and not talking to test-takers or whatever the rule was put in place for)
K: OK then.
T: OK, you were telling the truth. Here you go. Glad to hear she’s alright.
(obviously, I’m assuming Kevin would have co-operated had he been pleasant about it instead of acting in the sort of heavy-handed, almost ‘power-tripping’ way that robertligouri mentioned (and it sounds to me like he was). Is that such an unreasonable assumption to make?) treis: If I had a son, I’d like to think that I’d take the circumstances into account rather than demanding unquestioning obedience. If he was talking on the phone, I told him to stop, and he replied that his best friend had just been rushed into hospital (or some other such “special case”), I’m damn sure b) or c) wouldn’t even cross my mind.
No, I read it with the same interpretation as you did the first ten times I read it. But seeing as robertliguori and others were so emphatic that it meant something else, I went back and read it yet again … and I can see their interpretation as well. I think it’s very poorly phrased in the article. Very unclear. I pit the author of the article.
You have no problem leaping to judgement and lambasting a teacher based on an “imaginary, borne of wishful thinking” scenario?
Wow.
As I pointed out…we don’t really know how the intial interaction between Kevin and the teacher went. But don’t let that stop you from calling the teacher a “moron”.
And to clarify…in case it’s not clear, my “imaginary…wishful thinking” remark is directed at your notion that Kevin acted the way you think he did in the initital incident with the teacher…that he didn’t act dismissive…that he reasonably tried to explain himself.
Did you deliberately misunderstand that which you quoted or do you just not get it?
Just in case, The “scenario” I describe was how I felt the situation should have been handled. The lambasting of the moron was based on the report linked to from the OP.
OK hold on a minute (that second post of yours wasn’t there when I posted my last one).
Based on the Associated Press report, the only source of information any of the participants of this thread have:
The first part of the “scenario”. Of course we only have Kevin’s word to go on that he did indeed communicate the importance of the call to the teacher as described.
The second part is how I suspect the encounter would have played out were the teacher to act reasonably instead of heavy-handedly. You’re free to doubt that of course and I’m sure you will.
I get it…but you are IMAGINING how the initial scenario with the teacher went. THAT’s my point.
Did you read my hypothetical in my earlier post?
If the initial encounter went that way (and who is to say it did or didn’t based on the scant facts?)…was the teacher STILL in the wrong in your mind? IOW, if Kevin acted defiantly/dismissively toward the teacher BEFORE telling him/her the nature of the call…does the teacher still owe Kevin a nice calm discussion about the nature of the call?
?