And This Seemed Like a Good Idea Because...?
I first heard about this one on my local news, last night. When they reported it, they said it was a prank by the teachers. But even going on AP's version of events (i.e., that it was a teaching tool), you're left kinda blinking your eyes and tilting your head to one side in Scooby-Doo fashion. It still sounds to me like these teachers were acting out some serious resentment against their students.
Edited to add: Other reports around the web continue to say it was a prank, even quoting school officials to that effect.
Edited to add: Other reports around the web continue to say it was a prank, even quoting school officials to that effect.
posted by juvenal_urbino | 3:14 PM
18 Comments:
Wow. That's a horrible prank, if that's what it was. I can't imagine teachers doing this, and I can't imagine how they'd escape being punished for it. If a student were to do something similar, they'd be arrested.
If teachers can't think of better ways to educate or prepare students, they don't need to be in a classroom.
Whoa.
And these people are supposed to be "teaching" kids?
Yeah, this floored me too.
It's just not funny. I mean, scaring kids around a camp fire has always been kind of the way it is, but w/ the threat of a gunman in a school. It's just so not cool I can't even wrap my head around what kind of person would think this was a good prank. Then to justify it by calling it a "teaching tool"--yeah, whatever.
My word verification sums up my feelings: "Biyoiia"
Good point, Whitney. Maybe this does stem from scaring kids around the campfire. I couldn't come up with a single reason for why this would even be considered a prank. How could someone -- someone the kids trust -- make such a lapse in judgement? And how can the school system not immediately condemn the actions?
Seriously, if a kid were to make the same kind of threats and shrug it off as a prank, they'd still at the very least be suspended. Immediately. No questions asked. Why would teachers be held to a different standard here?
Excellent point, Mikey. And we don't even have to speculate about what would happen if a student had pulled such a "prank." It's happened, and, IIRC, the student was charged with a crime.
As for the "teaching tool" argument, if schools want to start having drills to teach students what to do in the case of someone dangerous entering the building, that's probably a good idea (in some form and for students of a certain age). But to just spring this on a bunch of 11-year-olds is just wrong in every conceivable way. Spectacularly wrong.
That's the part of this that leaves me stuttering, as my post title suggests. I mean, come on, in what possible way does a grown man or woman think this is a good idea? There's an inherent meanness to it that's just not necessary.
That's why I think it sounds like the teachers were exacting some payback for the crap they take from their students over the course of a school year.
There's payback and then there's payback.
What ever happened to swirlies and wedgies and whatnot?
JU, I agree that there's something more going on that just a prank, albeit probably not and understandably conscious decision by the teachers in question.
Accordingly, I don't believe it was malicious intent that drove this to happen--but I could be wrong.
I think one person--someone with quite an influence on the group as a whole--probably said, "Hey, let's scare these kids. That'll be fun." (Probably some immature 21 year old "teacher" who makes you and me look like a granpa & grandma, but that's another issue of mine...) As they started talking about ideas, plans got bigger & bigger (and stupider & stupider) and nobody had the cojones to step up and and say "That's enough, we're going to far." Maybe because they didn't want to make waves within the group, maybe because they wanted to fit in, or maybe because they were so caught up in the "plan" that they just quit thinking for themselves. All of these are principles of social behavior (or in-group behavior) that can explain why normally rational people would do something so ridiculous and mean.
You'll see some journal articles on this for sure.
Mikey,
Swirlies & wedgies get you sent to sexual harassment training for a year or something equally ridiculous. Sad, but true.
That'd be appropriate, probably. Not like those are good things to do. But those are more of pranks than, hey, I've got a gun.
Swirlies & wedgies get you sent to sexual harassment training
At the very least. Especially if any of the wedgers were male and any of the wedgees were female. Holy moly. When word got out, people 50 miles away would see the mushroom cloud. Yikes. Don't even say it. Not even in jest.
You may be right about how it happened, Whitney. I'm just guessing, obviously. Either way, though, it doesn't say anything good about the maturity level of the teachers. They can't all have had the excuse of being 21. (BTW, I was a 21 year old teacher.)
The teacher and assistant principal have been suspended without pay for the rest of the year.
I didn't mean to suggest that swirlies and wedgies are good ideas. And I've never even heard of a teacher giving them. That's usually just what I think of when someone mentions camp pranks.
Given how close we are to the end of the school year, that seems a bit like a slap on the wrist.
Agreed, although, it probably means they won't be able to teach again. This will be on their record. Unless a school is desperate for someone...
So it might not be legal action, but at least they won't be working with kids anymore anytime soon.
Unless the school decides "it weren't so bad" over the summer.
I thought a suspension -- rather than an outright firing -- implied that both teachers would be back next year. Not so?
I'm not sure about the process. BUT. I would assume that there are steps that have to be followed here. Teachers who are tenured can't be dismissed outright without a hearing, I don't believe. And I'd think the Assistant Principal's firing would have to come from the school board. A suspension at this point -- without pay -- is a really big deal for teachers. Not for the money but for their careers. I don't know enough about how this works -- I could call my dad and ask if anyone's just dying to know -- but I would assume that the suspension is just a first step. The school district is probably trying to cover backs from two sides. The kids and their families -- who are justifiably upset. And and the teachers -- who will undoubtedly sue the school once they are fired. But if the school shows they are going through a thorough process and not just firing based on gut-reaction, then the teacher's case would be less valid.
I'm rambling. I know nothing of administration at the primary school level. Nor do I know the law. That's why I have so much to say about this.
Heh. You're probably right. You're much closer to these kinds of things than I am. Too, it may be that they're going to suspend them and then not renew their contracts. If they don't have tenure. (Teachers still get tenure?)
Tenure is an almost meaningless term in primary schools. I mean, teachers still get one year contracts, for the most part. They just can't be fired in the middle of the year. But their contracts can simply not be renewed, I believe, if there suddenly isn't a need for that position. It's not like at the university level when tenure is for life.
Post a Comment
<< Home