Exactly.
You’re eager to call the teacher a moron (among other things) based on HIS account alone.
Forgive me for not rushing to automtically assume that everything that comes out of Kevin’s mouth is gospel.
I’m going to back up a bit here as well.
My FIRST reading (and the one that seems to “best fit” the situation for me) went the same way.
Reading it through a different perspective, I can also see the different meaning as well.
I agree that the phrasing is ambiguous at best.
I stand by my stated opinion unless new information comes to light that the chain of events in the linked report is wildly inaccurate (and I don’t mean just perhaps Kevin being a little dismissive of the teacher at first, considering the importance of the call).
I cannot rule out this possibility, of course, but at present my interpretation of and therefore my strong feelings on this story is at least based on the words contained in a newspaper report, yours appears to be based on little short of ageism.
Is it that Kevin is 17 and therefore not to be trusted, beagledave, is that what it comes down to?
I guess the difference is that I am expressing my opinion whereas the statement in question is one of fact. In this case, at least to me, both situations are equally likely. I can see Kevin being really pissed off and not answering the phone and I can see the administration not allowing him to answer. If we do look at the clues surrounding the statement it seems that the administration was trying to work with Kevin.
Principal: Kevin its your mother do you want to answer the phone.
Kevin: No I am too mad
What is so hard to understand about that scenario?
-
That it is completely unsupported by the chain of events reported in the article.
-
It is not reasonable that Kevin would refuse to answer the phone when he knew it was probably his mother, no matter how angry he may hae been. Simply does not make sense. He desperately wanted to talk to her moments earlier, but now he is “too mad”? Nah.
Well, in my opinion, based upon the ACCOUNT that we all have read of the story. The teacher was wrong, and I am talking about the conceptual teacher in the ACCOUNT that we all have read. Not the real teacher, because I don’t know the real teacher.
Anyway, I think many people are lambasting the student for bad grades and have very little empathy in this situation. Humans are not mechanized robots that are defective if they don’t follow the rules. It’s nice to have rules sometimes, but as often as not they get in the way of actually living life. To think that his behavior is inexcusable, and to mention his grades is just petty. Maybe the fact that his FATHER IS DEAD, and he is living with a guardian with other kids while HIS MOTHER IS SERVING IN A WAR, contributed to BOTH his bad grades, AND his tantrum? Of course since many of you are not actually human, you are mindless machines that follow the rules all the time, I don’t necessarily expect you to understand where I am coming from on this.
Many adults over the age of 17 throw tantrums for infractions far more minor. Cite.
In this particular instance the rules are of far lesser importance than this child’s right to speak to his mother. The reason he would want to speak to his mother is because of an emotional bond that he has with his mother. For those of you that are machines that follow the rules ALL the time, emotions control practically every aspect of the actions of us humans. The best way I can describe this to a machine would be to put it in terms of water sloshing around and moving back and forth, like inertia. We have some control over the direction in which we move, but these things called emotions sometimes tip us in one direction or another. So, in this particular instance, the inertia created by the trauma of having a dead Father and a Mother fighting in a war, combined with the fact that human beings have emotional bonds with their parents, might have dictated his actions, and caused him to elicit any number of behaviors that would earn him bad grades, or cause him to mouth off to the machine running the school.
Evidence in this story suggests that the teacher in question is a human, thus necessitating the power struggle. Had the teacher been a machine, the teacher might have taken a more logical course, and rather than trying to FORCE his/her will on the child physically, would have gone to the machine in administration, and lodged a complaint, thus initiating the process for when the child got off the phone, and moved from there, rather than causing a big scene with a clearly emotionally distraught child.
Now we as humans believe that we are the purpose for existing at all, and rightly so, which is why we created machines. Unfortunately, sometimes our programming of such machines is shortsighted, and circumstances bring us to situations outside the parameters of the machine’s limited logic, and that is what causes systemic breakdowns. But, the human beings, as the master of those machines take precedence over the faulty programming of the machine, if not then serious repercussions happen, as without the existence of the human beings, the machines have no purpose for existence themselves.
Hopefully this will upgrade your logic structures slightly, so that your service to humans can occur more efficiently and with fewer lapses such as these.
Erek
That it just isn’t reasonable. The part of the article that covers this aspect could be clearer, admittedly, but the interpretation of robertligouri and Fear Itself of the statement regarding “too frustrated he couldn’t answer the phone when his mother called him the second time” seems to me so much more likely.
This is why:
(bolding mine).
Isn’t this the “second call” that you’re talking about? His Mom rang again, the teacher had the phone so he couldn’t answer it (see bolding), and she left a message on his voicemail instead. Doesn’t this way of reading it make so much more sense.
There wasn’t an occasion where the phone was ringing in front of him but he was “too frustrated” (whatever that means) to answer it. I really don’t know how you can still be hanging on to that odd interpretation
mswas, what a spectacular post. I couldn’t have put it better if I had all day to write it.
aww shucks
Ummm. no. But nice strawman dude.
I’ll walk you it through it one more time…
- There are TWO encounters. You aimed your venom at the teacher in the first encounter based ONLY on the account of the person who LATER swore at administrators, and refused to leave an office. Correct?
I, on the other hand am not offering a strong opinion one way or another on that first encounter because of the paucity of facts. I offered up a hypothetical (which I noticed you chose to ignore when I questioned you about it) that could explain the teacher’s actions in a different light.
I also “admitted” that it IS quite possible that the teacher could have picked a better response. WE JUST DON’T KNOW. Does that stop you from wanting the head of the teacher…nah. Who needs facts, I guess.
-
I DID offer an opinion about Kevin’s encounter with the administrators…since we have more details about that encounter.
-
I ALSO belittled the notion of at least one poster that poor little Kevin is at" too emotional of an age", at age 17, to behave reasonably.
Reasonably for an averager 17 year old, or average for a 17 year old with a mother in a war zone and a teacher committing battery on him?
Nope, still not buying it.
Let’s be honest, I’m not really interested in much that happened after the first encounter, for after this point the damage was done. Of course he swore at administrators, they wouldn’t let him speak to his mother in Iraq. Of course he wouldn’t leave the office, that’s where his phone was.
By the way, he did behave reasonably. He didn’t smack the idiot who grabbed his phone in the mouth, did he?
Okay, I’m a teacher, and I could see something like this easily happening in any of the schools I’ve taught or substituted at.
It’s lunchtime. You’re walking from your classroom to another building - admin, lounge, whatever - you see a student talking on a cellphone, which is against the rule. Spencer High School has over 900 students. Chance is, the teacher doesn’t know the kid, has no idea what the circumstances are, and only sees the rule being broken.
Teacher tells kid to get off the phone. Kid answers: “This is my mom in Iraq. I’m not about to hang up on my mom.” Now, text can’t carry vocal nuances, but this doesn’t strike me as being the most reasonable answer. Maybe something like “It’s my mom. She’s in Iraq, and I only get to talk to her once a month.” The student’s answer strikes me as being confrontational and hostile. Not the best way to answer.
Put that together with the relative anonymity of a large campus, and as a teacher, my first reaction would probably be along the lines of “he’s totally lying. If it were his mom, he would have worked out some deal to take her call in the office so he wouldn’t get in trouble. He’s probably talking to his girlfriend.” So, I’d say something along the lines of “hang it up or hand it over.” If he is talking to his mom, all he has to do is hand it over, the teacher talks to the person on the end of the line, and from there, the best answer is to say “okay, let’s take it to the office. You can talk to your mom in privacy, and no one will have a problem with it.”
But the kid didn’t. He didn’t offer to let the teacher verify who he was talking to, he didn’t work out a deal in advance, he didn’t explain politely, he mouthed off with “This is my mom in Iraq. I’m not about to hang up on my mom.” The teacher’s job is to enforce campus rules.
I would not, however, have made a grab for the phone. It’s a bad idea to get physically involved with a student. At best, you look like a jerk, at worst, you lose your dignity in a ridiculous game of tug-o-war. The next step should have been “follow me to the office”.
The teacher made one miscalculation - grabbing for the phone. The student made several - not explaining well, being hostile and confrontational, and not handing over the phone. Call it a draw, since the teacher should have known better.
Once in the office though, it’s all on the kid’s head. You DO NOT cuss out teachers. You just don’t. At least, you don’t and expect to get off scot free. You especially don’t ignore two assistant principals telling you what to do. Assistant principals handle discipline at schools, yes, but two of them at the same time means they viewed the student as a threat - violence perhaps, totally out-of-bounds verbal abuse absolutely.
So my scorecard looks like this:
Mom = D for communicating by cell phone at crazy hours. If your schedule is so iffy, stick to letters and use phone calls for absolute emergencies.
Student = F for not going to the administration and explaining the situation to them before the call was made, for being a dipwad to the teacher, for losing it in the office, and for being a total git and refusing to take responsibility for his behavior.
Teacher = C- for grabbing the phone (IF that is indeed what happened).
Administration = A for following the rulebook and trying to diffuse a difficult situation. Parham, and assistant principal, said they tried to work out a deal with the student but couldn’t. The student wouldn’t calm down, wouldn’t follow instructions, and, to my mind, presented a threat. They were pretty generous in not having him arrested. A ten day suspension is pretty harsh, but, to my mind again, not unwarranted.
OK, phouka, lets add you to the asshole list at least for now. Read mswas’s second last post again. When come back. Bring clue
The facts we don’t have would only matter if someone were actually going to be dispatched to bring us the teacher’s head. As we are talking about a hypothetical situation based upon a real situation, they become less relevant, because as you have said, we have a paucity of facts.
I ALSO think you are are at too emotional of an age to be immune to tantrums, though you seem to have a few extra years of practice on this young lad. As to your comments about things he will be expected to do at 18 I would say that
-
When he goes into the voting booth hopefully he won’t have recently been physically assaulted by a teacher attempting to keep him away from his mother.
-
When he joins the military he will go through basic training first
-
Many soldiers even after basic are quite immature
-
War is patently ridiculous
-
When he goes out and gets a job, he will sink or swim on his own merit, but he isn’t at the point where we toss him into the deep end QUITE yet, and has a little more time to prepare left, unfortunately now that he has been suspended for 10 days he will fall behind in what already seems to be a struggle that is stacked against him because of circumstances beyond his control.
Erek
Has anyone here pitted the student? In fact many of us have said that the teacher probably didn’t take the best course of action. However that doesn’t excuse Kevin for going on a profanity laden tirade nor does it mean the administration should be pitted for suspending him.
In what way are either of you suppositions of what the student said confrontaional and/or hostile?
Same question I asked before… is swearing worth a 10 suspension or threat of arrest?
The way I read the story, the kid did tell the teacher that he was talking to his mother in Iraq. Common sense and common decency would have been to let him finish the call and then decide if the rules could be bent a little. I’m sure the school has ways to find if out the kid is lying or not. If it’s the truth, no harm is done. If it’s a lie, then there’s ways to deal with it, harshly. Grabbing the phone out of his hand is a show of utter disrespect and contempt. It is a power play. Using the threat of possible arrest is idiotic and out of proportion. If anyone did that to most adults, they’d get a broken arm. Many adults would say “if I’m getting arrested anyway, let’s make it worth my while” and the fight would be on. From me, you would have gotten every swear word in the book, plus some new ones. We “adults” demand respect from those younger than us. Unless we give respect back, it’s all bullshit.
Apparently, the way I read the story, it WAS his mother on the phone. That is one hell of an extenuating circumstance. Whether the kid has poor grades is irrelevant. Whether he is normally a jerk is irrelevant. The teacher and the school overstepped their bounds, and if their rules are so inflexible, they need to be changed.
No but thats not all he did. The article said he became “disorderly and defiant” and then refused to leave the office. Again we simply don’t know exactly what happened in the office so its impossible to judge whether 10 days is justified.
I vaguely remember from high school that 10 days is significant for some reason. It might be the minimum possible suspension for insubordination or something I don’t remember exactly.