Allow me to aquaint you with the notion of hyperbole. As I alluded to earlier…bluecanary has no problems with judging the actions of the TEACHER based on a few details provided by the STUDENT who later refused to leave an office and swore at administrators. Maybe he was telling the truth…maybe not. Not surprisingly that doesn’t stop bluecanary (or you, I guess) from jumping to conclusions.
Your “emotional age” comment earlier referred to ALL teenagers…not just teenagers who had been “physically assaulted” (snicker) by the big bad teacher.
Given that it was his mother (in a combat zone) on the phone and the teacher did in fact grab the phone causing it to hang up, I think a bit of defiance was in order.
Slight quibble but from my reading of the article the school adiminstration was more than willing to make an exception or come to a compromised solution. My grades would probably be:
Teacher: D, It isn’t * that * big of a deal that he grabbed the phone out of the kids hand but it certainly wasn’t the best option availible for him.
Kevin: F- Simply can’t go one a tirade against the principals of a school especially when they are trying to fix the situation.
Administrators: A- They get a ‘-’ becuase 10 days seems like an awful lot but easily could have gotten an A+ depending on how bad the tantrum was.
If the teacher did touch the student then they should lose their job, period. There is never an excuse for someone in a position of authourity to touch (touch=battery, threat of touch=assault) somebody under their charge. Or, if this happened to your kid would we not be seeing a thread in The Pit about it?
BTW…I love this phrase “physically assaulted” to describe the act of taking a phone out of someones hand.
Occasionaly I have to take a toy out of my 3 year old daughters hand if she won’t put it away before dinner.
She sometimes doesn’t like when I do that.
Does the simple act of taking the toy equate to “physically assaulting” my daughter?
(yeah I know the situations are a bit different…but I’m talking about the physical action, not the reason, …is the physical action that I make “physically assaulting” her? Should I be turned into DCFS for the action?)
See, I act like an adult all the time. I DON’T get irate when people DON’T try to forcibly remove my cell phone from my hand, because I am an adult and have the authority to talk on my phone any time I want.
Oh yeah, if anyone DID try to take a phone out of my ADULT hands, I’d punch them in the mouth. Kevin showed more restraint than I would have. If you continue to say that he should have acted like an adult, I’ll require a cite from you proving that he IS an adult.
Ignoring what the kid did or didn’t say for now, and looking at what the teacher did: Was it a misguided and stupid idea to grab the cellphone? Yes. But part of the other problem with this situation is that the kid was (presumably) outside at lunchtime. Where every other kid can see him talking on his cellphone. From my own (not too far distant) experience in high school, if we saw anyone doing something that was clearly breaking the rules, and they continued to do so even after being confronted by a teacher, we wouldn’t have thought “Well, something serious must be up if they’re letting him talk on the phone in school hours like that.” We would have gotten the idea of “Hey, if he can do it, why can’t I do it too?” in our heads, and more than likely started trying to bend/break the rules too.
Again, I’m not supporting what she diud, but my take on the teacher’s actions is that she was trying to enforce the rules, but also trying to show to anyone else who may have been watching that breaking the rules isn’t acceptable at all, and that there are punishments for breaking said rules. She certainly didn’t go about it in the best way, but as has been mentioned in response to the student’s behaviour, she was probably not thinking as clearly as she should have, and responded in the most effective way she could think of at the time.
I’d give the teacher a D too. Physical force/intimidation, assumption of automatic guilt, etc.
The administrators get a B for trying to do something about it, and for having to receive whatever tirade was maybe directed at them. The B is given instead of an A because they even considered or mentioned arrest for such a thing. Schools claim for instance to be teaching people to think for themselves and to understand/enjoy free speech, but step out of line and it’s jail time? Homey don’t think so.
I am going easier on the “alleged victim” a C. I think the tirade should always be directed at the person who deserves it - a rule I often fail to follow myself.
Under the circumstances, I can’t honestly claim I would have acted any more mature or reasonable - yank my phone out of my hand for any reason, and I will be very upset - tirades, insults, foul comments about family heritage and inbreeding, etc. Heck, I would have worked on getting expelled, knowing my short fuse.
This is the part that I find most annoying. Absolutely rigid, unyielding slavishness to “our policy”, no matter what the extenuating circumstances. I can appreciate that everyone, the student, the teacher and the administrator reacted poorly. But once the dust settles and cooler heads prevail, they should rescind the suspension. But it appears there is more than a little ego involved here on the part of the school administrators who cannot imagine reversing a decision or deviating from “our policy”. This is what makes them morons, and this is why they deserve every once of opprobrium directed at them.
I am a “prison hack” and I routinely make exceptions to minor rules if an inmate has a valid reason.
As for the arguments about the kid not acting like an adult - I’m 43 years old. If my wife was serving in combat and I only got one phone call from her a month and you hung up the phone during that call, you’d hear so much profanity your ears would leap off your head and run down the street screaming.
I’d be amused (but not surprised) at you punching a cop.
Actually I didn’t use the word “adult”…you did… I said “act reasonable” as opposed to poor little emotional teenager. I’m not sure what “cite” you’re looking for.
He’s old enough to go to college this fall (although his grades might preclude that). He’s probably old enough to vote in a few months…join the military in a few months…drive a car…hold a full time job in a month or two get married without parental consent etc…
You lumped ALL teenagers together as being at an “emotional age” …remember your earlier post?
They can change The Policy. If it is so inflexible, and it seems to be, they should do something about it. They do have that authority, and it would be perfectly reasonable. Just saying “it is policy” drops their grade down to a C.
