School Pranks (9 page)

     Each class period lasted one and one half (11/2 hr.) hour.  The discipline problem happened within the first thirty minutes of class.  Mr. Murphy responded promptly, accompanied by a campus cop.  Why come so heavily armed?  What was all the smiling about?  It appeared he expected a show-down or a classroom that was out of control.  When they entered the classroom both men’s countenance fell. How odd! This was the time for smiling.  Students were orderly and doing their work, indicating the discipline problem was minor.  But those students, with exception of one, were honoring Mr. Murphy.

     If Miss Forest had been Head School Master, her approach to the problem would have been different from Mr. Murphy’s.  She would have listened intently to details of the problem provided by the teacher.  She would have reassured the teacher the action taken was in keeping with his requirement.  He had reminded teachers not to allow students to idle, which those students had been doing when discipline referrals were written.  Realizing it was springtime, some were suffering from a touch of Spring Fever, especially the one who kept the young lady from doing her work.  Others were just “trying themselves.”  To the teacher she would have said

“Let’s give them another chance.”

Teachers understood the mood of teenagers.  Noticing the students, all of them, were doing their work, she would have taken her notepad and written a note such as “Keep it up” or “Stick with now” or the like.  She would have gone from seat to seat of the cutting-up students letting them read one of the notes, showing each of them her approval of their attitude at present.

Another Approach:

     After hearing detail of the problem, students would have been ushered from the classroom.  A few paces down the hallway Miss Forest would have expressed her disappointment of the conduct of such intelligent young minds.  Continuing with, “Didn’t you hear my announcement over the intercom “no idling”? “You know better,” she would have said.  Sending them back to class saying – “Go back and complete your work and stop acting like what you are not.”  At the end of class, disciplined students would have been required to submit the assignment to the headmaster, except the young lady who was interrupted.

     All involved would have been pleased:

Students: Head School Master praised and had confidence in their ability.

Teacher: showed tolerance; thought highly of them.

Head School Master: Found students working quietly – a great show of respect.

But those students were kept from class the remainder of the period and did not have to do their assignment.  Another example of Mr. Murphy’s brand of “high expectation.” 
They
did
not
return
to
class
.

              This episode is only one of several which exposed problems occurring at Ciber-Blue High School during Mr. Murphy’s tenure as head master.  Results of problems:

1. Books not required in classroom; Students were aware; teacher unaware
   
2. Students encouraged to criticize teacher.
   
3. Administrators encouraged and tolerated misconduct.
   

These factors caused discipline problems, making teaching difficult.

The Headmaster

     On July17, 2002, under the questioning of Atty. Bell, Mr. Murphy unflinchingly testified he never saw Miss Forest make use of the media center (library), nor did he ever see her students do research.  But the other Social Studies teachers had been observed doing these activities.  (From Transcript of the Deposition of Stone Murphy.  July 17, 2002. Case: Clark Regent vs. Mary Forest.)

     With “…I never saw…” Mr. Murphy alludes to his respect for research.  He was not sure whether Miss Forest’s students used research or not, and he never asked her.  Why didn’t Mr. Murphy ask her, he had concluded her unfitness as a teacher?  It seems Mr. Murphy had inquired into that matter, and discovered Miss Forest’s students did research, also. But acknowledging she did something he admired would not have met the approval of the others.  “…I never saw…” was intended to show his cleverness.  Instead, he exposed a lack of knowledge of an important fact and his refusal to ask Miss Forest for clarification shows his disrespect of her.  His decision making is tainted. 

     The Social Studies teachers used numerous strategies in instructing their classes, but Miss Mary Forest, testified Mr. Murphy, depended on lecture and student discussions.  From transcript of the deposition of Stone Murphy:  July 17, 2002.  Case Dr. Clark Regent vs. Mary Forest.  Mr. Murphy was examined by atty. Bell.  Twice Mr. Murphy was questioned about the effectiveness of the strategies used by Miss Forest; both times he dodged, not being responsive to the question.  The last reply shows what Mr. Murphy is noted for – falsehood!  Two questions and Mr. Murphy’s answers follow:

Q:  Give me an example of what you observed that you did not consider effective.

A. Okay.  Are we still talking about one year now or any example?

Q.  Let’s go, if you can, with that year.

A. “99 – 2000

Q. and 2000 – 2001.

A. 2000-2001 school years

Q.  As a STEP evaluator is what we’re dealing with right now?

A.  Okay.  One of my concerns would have been the, considerable dependency presentation as a means of conveying lessons to students.  I would have been concerned and shared concern; I recalled doing so, about
the interaction with students, the effective monitoring of student progress.
  I recalled those as being concerns I would have discussed.

Q.  When you stated that there was considerable dependency on the lecture method of teaching, what was your concern about its effectiveness?

A.  I do not recall an instance where I went into the classroom where I saw specific examples of other, of diverse teaching strategies…

     Neither time did Mr. Murphy admit whether he considered her teaching effective or non-effective.  But when questioned about methods other department members were using, he proudly listed several, one was research.  His answer ended with, “I saw none of that in Miss Forest’s classroom.”

     Here, he implies the positive value he places on research.  From the beginning of Mr. Murphy’s tenure he claimed his concern was to help Miss Forest improve her instruction skill; the reason for the Remedial Plan, which was designed for Miss Forest by the Area Administrators, with Mr. Murphy’s approval.  Then, why wasn’t the skill he valued so highly been suggested to her, or assigned to her, using his policy of documentation for his protection?  Claiming other teachers in the Social Studies Department were observed in the noble act of research although not under observation, officially shows he admired them all, yet, under surveillance for three years (his figures are 2 ½ years) Mr. Murphy denies seeing evidence of students doing research in her, (Miss Forest’s) classroom! 

Well, I declare! Hogwash! Was Mr. Murphy looking for evidence of that skill?  No! And he never asked for that information, either.  Mr. Murphy is like this: He would have requested Miss Forest to assign research to students, and given a copy of the document to everybody connected with that Remediation Group.  But to his disgust, plenty evidence of research was left in Miss Forest’s classroom over the years he served as her headmaster.  Miss Forest’s classes did research before Mr. Murphy’s tenure at the high school and during his tenure.  This evidence was included in students’ notebooks.  Periodically these notebooks were collected and stacked by class.  Each notebook contained a Table of Contents which included Research.  All of those notebooks at the front of the classroom on the floor and he, Mr. Murphy, didn’t
see
them!  If Mr. Murphy wanted to know whether Miss Forest’s classes did research, the librarians would have gladly obliged him; they did the scheduling.  But why couldn’t Mr. Murphy ask the teacher he was “Concerned” about – Miss Forest.  Because research was positive, an instructional heavyweight.  Their attention of Miss Forest seemed geared to the negatives; positives did not set so well with them if Miss Forest was involved.  She and her students used the library often.  Most students enjoyed the library.  Below is recalled an incident that happened in route to the media center (library) which teaches an invaluable lesson:

Before leaving the classroom to do research, students were reminded of their expected conduct – while in the hall, and while in the library.  Classes were in session, therefore, no talking, because some teachers would have their classroom door open.  Miss Forest’s classes always walked single-filed, to the right.  Miss Forest was in the rear.  Approximately half the distance to the library they met some students who began to laugh and tease the orderly conduct of the students.  Miss Forest’s students began to get uncomfortable and some began to “chicken-out”, and broke away from the line.  When they reached the library most were in groups, talking.  They entered the library a few paces before Miss Forest.  Some had begun with the assignment, others were in preparation.  Miss Forest entered and had a word with the librarian, and told her of her (Miss Forest’s) decision.  Since students disobeyed a rule of conduct in route to the library, each would gather their belongings and return to the classroom.  When they returned, some were sulky.  “How are we going to do research”, some fumed. (Obey was one of the character – building terms on the classroom walls.)  Miss Forest explained what happens when a rule or law is not obeyed. “Research for this grading period has to be done on your own time.  Your misconduct has interrupted the teacher’s schedule, also.”  Said Miss Forest.  She told the students all would have to readjust.  She further explained to them that by allowing a few students influence them to break a rule caused them this unnecessary inconvenience.  A short discussion followed.  The class continued with lesson from the text.

Valuable lessons were highlighted.  It was concluded that:

1. People who break the law hurt themselves and others.
   
2. Breaking the law is costly.
   
3. It takes character to obey the law.
   

     Although Mr. Murphy was not a resident of Grande`, citizens held a positive impression of him, at first.  Miss Forest was no different.  She admired the way he communicated.  It was distinct.  She encouraged her students to practice this skill during class and used Mr. Murphy as a prime example.  That age group (grades 11
th
and 12
th
) is usually fussy with details, especially attire, sports, and the like.  Miss Forest was patient with their fussiness.  That gave her opportunity to take their fussiness in stride, carrying it a little further.  During discussions, students were taught to communicate their thoughts as if communicating with an English teacher(s) or with Mr. Murphy, a news reporter or anybody they admired in that category.  She constantly reminded them that effective speech is a part of one’s attire.  It is a means to understanding.  It is outstanding! In order to communicate effectively, students were taught to observe the following: word usage, pronunciation (articulation), expression, and the like.  Make sure you listen, be courteous, and be open-minded.  Whenever the TV was used as a teaching/learning tool in the classroom, before turning it on Miss Forest would call students’ attention to those pertinent communication skills mentioned earlier.  That skill is ageless, timeless and invaluable.

     But Mr. Murphy paid no attention to anything positive concerning Miss Forest in reference toward her students.  Instead he took the audacity to ridicule her, by using sarcasm and contempt.  He seemed mad with a hunger to hurt her.  Evidently he never paid attention to terms Miss Forest had on her classroom walls relative to character and patriotism.  He has documented his scorn of both character and patriotism.

     On February 12, 2002, Mr. Murphy required a listing of strategies that Miss Forest was using in her classroom.  The third strategy she submitted was:

          III Research/Discussion

1. Read article I of the 14
   th
   amendment.  What do you think the amendment means when it denies states the right to deprive any person’s equal protection of the laws?  Were the segregation laws in violation of the Grande` Constitution?
   

     Stating on July 17, 2002 under oath that he never saw Miss Forest make use of the Media Center (library) with her students nor did he ever see them doing research brings out the true character of Mr. Murphy.  The following admissions are made:

1. He did not read important assignments Miss Forest submitted that he required, or
   
2. He deliberately lied, or
   
3. He was not concerned with his so-called “remedial instructional” duties toward her, or
   
4. All of the above and then some.
    
   

      Work by her students of this sort was done long before Mr. Murphy’s arrival in our area.  That type work was successful.  Miss Forest still fails to understand why Mr. Murphy would say she did not use a skill he held in high regard, unless he was unaware she was able to prove that accusation by documentation.  He made himself the laughing-stock of everything educational.  Mr. Murphy’s actions toward Miss Forest fit into several categories, but the best is “incredulous.”  To assign a “Remedial Plan” program to a Grade “A” Certified, Superior rated teacher; a teacher who was able to refute by documentation an accusation of not using research, a skill held in high regard, with her students is incredulous indeed!

     The student news magazine,
upfront
, was popular with her classes.  Many students were subscribers.  For several years Miss Forest collected and mailed subscription fees directly to the publisher.  When Dr. Regent and Mr. Murphy began tenure, that policy changed.  Fees were collected and reported to the area office which completed the transaction.  Mr. Murphy must have been aware of those subscriptions: evidence was visible in the classroom.  That extra reading boosted the reading program enormously.  But, nothing was ever said (mentioned).

     The following is a recount of a classroom observation.  Course: Civics. Date 2-8-02; Observer: Mr. Murphy’s; activity: writing exercise in compliance with Mr. Murphy’s Student Reading and Writing Improvement Plan.

     Miss Forest encouraged students to select their own writing topics.  When they faltered, attention was called to something that might be considered.  Mr. Murphy ridiculed her suggestion for the topic which dealt with current weather.  She reminded the students that that beautiful day had ended a period of rain and dark clouds.  “So,” she said, “you all could write about the sunshine, or about this bright and cloudless morning.”  They (students) agreed on their topic and got started; some were enthusiastic.  Time was called at the end of the fifteen (15) minute period.  As usual, three students were asked to voluntarily stand before the class and read their work.  After they finished, two other students who were all “fired up” were granted permission to read theirs.  After they finished, Miss Forest began to collect the work.  But, another student pleadingly asked permission to read his work also.  Miss Forest was surprised at his request.  That student had earned a reputation of being a troublemaker, at home and at school.  His mother had visited Miss Forest’s classroom twice, once with the student’s stepfather seeking Miss Forest’s aid in helping her manage him at home.  Since this was his first attempt at writing, and, after all, he was eager to show Mr. Murphy what he had done, denying him the chance to share what he had written would have been too harmful, so permission was granted.  He read his poem on Sunshine.  At the completion of his reading, Mr. Murphy exited the room, without saying anything.

     Miss Forest was disappointed with Mr. Murphy’s attitude toward the students.  He just left them hanging.  Surely he must have been aware of the opportunity he had to plant a seed of success into the being of every person in that classroom.  Didn’t he see that the teacher and the students were trying to put into practice the reading and writing improvement plan he had designed?  No, he did not see. As the remedial plan he helped design for Miss Forest, likewise, that reading and writing improvement plan of his which he designed for students was
just
for
the
record
– both of them, teacher and students!