Mother's call gets son in hot water

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/images/common/spacer.gif
BY ANGELIQUE SOENARIE
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Staff Writer
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/images/common/spacer.gif
<!-- begin body-content --> Kevin Francois gave up his lunch break to talk to his mother, but it ended up costing him the rest of the school year.

Francois, a junior at Spencer High School in Columbus, was suspended for disorderly conduct Wednesday after he was told to give up his cell phone at lunch while talking to his mother who is deployed in Iraq, he said.

His mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, left in January for a one-year tour and serves with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division.

"This is our first time separated like this," said Francois, 17, on Thursday.

Bates came to Fort Benning with her son from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga. She enrolled him at Spencer in August. Since her deployment overseas, Francois, whose father was killed when he was 5 years old, lives with a guardian who has five children in Columbus.

The incident happened when Francois received a call from his mother at 12:30 p.m., which he said was his lunch break. Francois said he went outside the school building to get a better reception when his mother called. A teacher who saw Francois on his phone told him to get off the phone. But he didn't.

According to the Muscogee County School District Board of Education's policy, students are allowed to have cell phones in school, but cannot use them during school hours.

"They are really allowed to have those cell phones so that after band or after chorus or after the debate and practices are over they have to coordinate with the parents," said Alfred Parham, assistant principal at Spencer. "They're not supposed to use them for conversating back and forth during school because if they were allowed to do that, they could be text messaging each other for test questions."

Francois said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

Francois said the teacher tried to take the phone, causing it to hang up.

The student said he then went with the teacher to the school's office where he surrendered his phone. His mother called again at 12:37 p.m. and left a message scolding her son about hanging up and telling him to answer the phone when she calls.

Control issue

Parham said the teen's suspension was based on his reaction when he was asked to give up the cell phone and told about the school's cell phone policy.

"Kevin got defiant and disorderly with Mr. Turner and another assistant principal," Parham said Thursday. "He got defiant with me. He refused to leave Mr. Turner's office. When a kid becomes out of control like that they can either be arrested or suspended for 10 days. Now being that his mother is in Iraq, we're not trying to cause her any undue hardship; he was suspended for 10 days."

Wendall Turner is another assistant principal at Spencer.

Parham said the student used profanity when he was taken into the office. He said he tried to work out something with the student. But Francois said he was too frustrated he couldn't answer the phone when his mother called him the second time.

"I even asked Kevin, 'You know we can try to work something out to where if your mother wants to call you she can call you at the school,'" Parham said. "So we've tried to work with Kevin and we're going to continue to try to work with Kevin and his mother and his relatives. In the course of good order and discipline, we have to abide by our policy."

Francois admitted he was partially at fault for his behavior but said he should have been allowed to talk to his mother.

"I was mad at the time, but I feel now maybe I should've went about it differently," he said. "Maybe I should've just waited outside to pick up the phone. But I don't I feel I should've changed any of my actions. I feel I was right by not hanging up the phone."

For Francois, he said he gets to hear from his mother once a month, and phone calls vary depending on when she can use the phone in Iraq. Francois said his mother calls as late as 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. and tries to catch him during hours he's awake. He said the phone call Wednesday was the first time she called him while he was at school.

Francois, who said he's been struggling with his grades in school, wants to go back to school and finish the rest of his year. He fears he may have pay for summer school because of his punishment.

"My grades had been low, but I was bringing them up. My grades were coming back up. On one of my report cards I had like a 'F' in one of my classes, but I brought it back up to a low 'C.' This just brought me all the way down."

My brother and sister-in-law both teach in that school district. I'm curious to see if they know any of the teachers/administrators involved, and what their take on it is.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...
Gwinnett teacher who refused to alter grade is fired

By D. AILEEN DODD, MIKE MORRIS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/06/05

The Gwinnett County School Board voted early Friday to fire a Dacula High School science teacher who refused to raise the grade he gave a student athlete who appeared to be sleeping in class.

At the end of a Thursday night hearing that stretched into the early morning hours of Friday, the board decided by a 4-1 vote to terminate veteran physics teacher Larry Neace, school system spokeswoman Sloan Roach said.

Neace left the building after the ruling and would not comment.

His lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

"These students lost a teacher who cared not only about their academic growth, but their growth as individuals," said Deidre M. Stephens-Johnson, who represented Neace.

While the board agreed 5-0 that Neace violated school board policy by using grades as a disciplinary measure, board member Carol Boye, who represents Dacula High School, voted against the termination. She declined to comment on her vote.

School system spokeswoman Sloan Roach said she did not know when the termination would take effect. "He was already suspended with pay until the outcome of this hearing," she said.

More than 200 students, parents and teachers packed Thursday night's hearing to see whether Neace would lose his job.

Gwinnett school officials said Neace was barred from campus for insubordination after he repeatedly refused to comply with the district policy that prohibits using grades as discipline.

Neace, who has taught at Dacula High for 23 years, was removed from class after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

"What we have in this case is a case of a pampered football athlete sleeping in class and being given favored treatment on an academic grade," said Michael Kramer, another of Neace's lawyers. "What we have here is the principal essentially attempting to coerce and intimidate a teacher."

School officials said they gave Neace a chance to restore the football player's grade. When he refused, they sent him home. He has not been allowed back at school since April 14, when he was told he could resign or face being fired.

Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks recommended to the board that Neace be fired. "He cannot have a policy that supersedes board policy," Wilbanks said. "He had no right to do that."

Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs." No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.

Neace said during the hearing that he also noted another student appeared to be sleeping in class on the same day. It was not clear Thursday what happened with the other student's grade.

School officials said Thursday that it appeared Neace allowed students to sleep in class. "He said it was not his job to wake up students," Assistant Principal Donald Mason said.

When asked Thursday if students sleep in his class, Neace responded, "Very rarely."

As school administrators presented their case to the school board, supporters of the teacher spilled over from the hearing room into a hallway outside. Some wore buttons saying "What's Up Doc?" and Dacula junior Clark Hurst wore a shirt bearing the acronym SADD, for "Students Against Dumping Doc."

Neace said he has been overwhelmed by the support he has received from students.

Posters calling for his return decorated the high school's halls. Some students wore T-shirts protesting the principal's action and passed out fliers saying, "Forget the whales, save Doc." Students also circulated a petition asking administrators to reinstate Neace.

"It's overwhelming -- the support, the phone calls, the e-mails, the [editorials] in the paper," Neace said Thursday afternoon. "I am getting support from all over the country. I got an e-mail from a professor at Rutgers University that said he wishes more teachers would do what I was doing, because it would make his job so much easier in the classroom if kids were prepared to take responsibility for what they do."

Neace said he got the nickname "Doc" years ago because of an exercise he led in class. That day he wore a lab coat and a stethoscope as he took the blood pressure of students. "Somebody said, 'Mr. Neace looks like a doctor,' " he said. "That was 22 years ago, and the name stuck."

Dacula High parent Nancy Penn said she supports Neace's methods. She said her daughter, a former student of Neace's, understood and respected his practice of penalizing students who fall asleep in class.

"As a parent, if my student was falling asleep in class, I would be upset," Penn said. "I do not have a problem with him using tactics to bring my student to attention in class. A teacher needs authority to govern his students. If someone takes away his authority, how can he manage his classroom?"

School officials said the issue was not that a student fell asleep in class. Instead, they said, Neace refused to abide by a school district policy that says, "Grading is not to be used for discipline purposes."

"Kevin got defiant and disorderly with Mr. Turner and another assistant principal," Parham said Thursday. "He got defiant with me. He refused to leave Mr. Turner's office. When a kid becomes out of control like that they can either be arrested or suspended for 10 days. Now being that his mother is in Iraq, we're not trying to cause her any undue hardship; he was suspended for 10 days."


Wendall Turner is another assistant principal at Spencer.

Parham said the student used profanity when he was taken into the office. He said he tried to work out something with the student. But Francois said he was too frustrated he couldn't answer the phone when his mother called him the second time.

"I even asked Kevin, 'You know we can try to work something out to where if your mother wants to call you she can call you at the school,'" Parham said. "So we've tried to work with Kevin and we're going to continue to try to work with Kevin and his mother and his relatives. In the course of good order and discipline, we have to abide by our policy."




Sorry, he deserved to be suspended. No "if", "and(s)", or "buts".

All I know is that at least a few of the administrators at my school were frickin corrupt

Sounds to me like both punished parties deserved it.

The kid was cursing and throwing a fit in the office. He got suspended. Waaah.

The teacher violated district policy. He gave a grade of 50 on a perfect assignment as discipline for sleeping in class, which he is not allowed to do.

These two stories should eliminate any wonder on why parents often work two to three jobs to send their kids to private school.

These two stories should eliminate any wonder on why parents often work two to three jobs to send their kids to private school.


Actually, it is a good example of how the media can sensationalize the mundane.

Sounds to me like both punished parties deserved it.

The kid was cursing and throwing a fit in the office. He got suspended. Waaah.
It's more the lack of descression by the teachers. If the kid was talking to his school budy - fine. But to have a rare conversation with his mom in Iraq - the teacher should have let him finish the call and walked him to the principle afterwords to deal with their policy and maybe setup an exemption. But grabbing the phone and hanging it up on a kid talking to his mom stationed in a warzone shows a massive lack of judgement. What did you expect the kid to do? Say "Thanks" and go back to class. Sheesh, the adult should have had a better understanding of the situation and not relied on the kid to act in the professional manner.

The teacher violated district policy. He gave a grade of 50 on a perfect assignment as discipline for sleeping in class, which he is not allowed to do.

Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs." No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.
It seems like this policy didn't seem to bother anyone until a football player was its victim. If it's been on the syllabus for a decade and violates school policy, you have to question the competancy of the principles. I would think that in the past decade some student or parent would have complained or atleast brought the policy to the attention of the school.

It's more the lack of descression by the teachers. If the kid was talking to his school budy - fine. But to have a rare conversation with his mom in Iraq - the teacher should have let him finish the call and walked him to the principle afterwords to deal with their policy and maybe setup an exemption. But grabbing the phone and hanging it up on a kid talking to his mom stationed in a warzone shows a massive lack of judgement.




Ummmm....no. If the kid was going to break a school policy, he needed to get permission first. It sounds like the school would have worked it out with him. He chose to break school policy, refused to follow the instructions of a teacher, and then proceeded to cuss out the adminstration. Nope, he deserved to be suspended.

Sounds to me like both punished parties deserved it.

The kid was cursing and throwing a fit in the office. He got suspended. Waaah.
I don't know that you can really tell from the article if he deserved it or not. Is it really that shocking that a high school kid might go off the deep end a bit and start cursing when a teacher caused to hang up on his mom in Iraq and then wouldn't let him answer when she called back? For all he knows that might be the last time he ever gets to talk to her. And it also might have been the first time he got to talk to her in a long time.

It;s hard to tell from the article what the extent of his reaction was. If he was throwing stuff around the office and was literally uncontrolable then I would probably agree that the suspension was deserved. If he was just upset and let his emotions get the better of him to the point where he was swearing at the school officials I am not certain the punishment fits the crime. If a teahcer had done that to me in high school I probably would have cursed at him too.

On the second story, there are way too many differing stories there. I know "rush to judgement" is the American way, but I just don't know which side is spinning the media more.

Ummmm....no. If the kid was going to break a school policy, he needed to get permission first. It sounds like the school would have worked it out with him. He chose to break school policy, refused to follow the instructions of a teacher, and then proceeded to cuss out the adminstration. Nope, he deserved to be suspended.
I agree his actions after the teacher cancelled his phone call deserve a suspension. My issue is with the manner in which the teacher handled the phone call. Again, if the kid is speaking with his mother in Iraq, what's the harm in letting him finish the call before taking him to the office? It's not like the kid was going anywhere.

I don't know that you can really tell from the article if he deserved it or not. Is it really that shocking that a high school kid might go off the deep end a bit and start cursing when a teacher caused to hang up on his mom in Iraq and then wouldn't let him answer when she called back? For all he knows that might be the last time he ever gets to talk to her. And it also might have been the first time he got to talk to her in a long time.

It;s hard to tell from the article what the extent of his reaction was. If he was throwing stuff around the office and was literally uncontrolable then I would probably agree that the suspension was deserved. If he was just upset and let his emotions get the better of him to the point where he was swearing at the school officials I am not certain the punishment fits the crime. If a teahcer had done that to me in high school I probably would have cursed at him too.


Again, if you are going to break a school policy, he should have gotten permission first. Second, if a teacher tells you to hand them the phone, you do it. Third, it is never acceptable for a student to cuss at adminstrators of a school. Three strikes, he is out.

I'd be swearing and cursing to if I was talking to my Mom who was in Iraq and I was being forced to hang up the phone, and then not being let to answer when she called back. I'd probably end up in jail in the process of getting the phone back.

That teacher in the second story is an idiot.

I just hope their mascot is the Vampires.

I agree his actions after the teacher cancelled his phone call deserve a suspension. My issue is with the manner in which the teacher handled the phone call. Again, if the kid is speaking with his mother in Iraq, what's the harm in letting him finish the call before taking him to the office? It's not like the kid was going anywhere.


Because the teacher has no idea if he is lying. The student could have gotten permission first. Once he didn't do that, the teacher has every right to ask for the phone, I don't care if he is talking to the President.

Again, if you are going to break a school policy, he should have gotten permission first.
So, he was supposed to use divine intervention to know that his mom would get a break to call him during school that day for the first time since she had been stationed? It's not like calls from a warzone can be pre-planned.

Again, after the call, the teacher, student and principle could have worked to setup a process for allowing such calls in the future. But to act like this kid should have known his mom would call him at lunch (when she had never called him during school before) is a little unfair to the kid.

Second, if a teacher tells you to hand them the phone, you do it.
99% of the time, I agree. But if it's a situation where it may be the last time I can talk to a parent in a war zone I probably don't hand over the phone. Again, my experience is that tact is something most teacher's possess, this one seemed to lack even a minor amount of it.

Third, it is never acceptable for a student to cuss at adminstrators of a school.
Agree here. But I do think extenuating circumstances were at play.

Again, if you are going to break a school policy, he should have gotten permission first. Second, if a teacher tells you to hand them the phone, you do it. Third, it is never acceptable for a student to cuss at adminstrators of a school. Three strikes, he is out. You are assuming he knew he was going to get the call in the first place. Again there is now way to know that for certain. And school policy or not if my mother is part of a war in another country and she calls me I am going to answer the phone. It's also not clear exactly what happened when the teacher told the student to hang up the phone.

You don't think it is possible that the teacher saw the kid on the phone and went over a demanded he hung up and when the kid said no it was his mom from Iraq the teacher immediately tried to grab the phone from him? Again if I was in that situation and someone popped up and demanded I hang up the phone my first reaction would absolutely be to say no I am talking to my mom in Iraq. As for cussing at the administrators I agree it is never acceptable. I am not saying it should go unpunished, but rather that the punishment given might have been too harsh. It just doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect a kid to lose it a bit in a situation like that. I know plently of adults that would have lost it in a situation like that. It is difficult to determine exactly what happened from the article, but with the way it was laid out it sounds like both parties could have handled the situation better and because of that I think they could have cut the kid a little slack.

So, he was supposed to use divine intervention to know that his mom would get a break to call him during school that day for the first time since she had been stationed? It's not like calls from a warzone can be pre-planned.

He had the phone on (which is against the rules) that suggests he knew the phone call was coming.

Again, after the call, the teacher, student and principle could have worked to setup a process for allowing such calls in the future. But to act like this kid should have known his mom would call him at lunch (when she had never called him during school before) is a little unfair to the kid.

See above. The kid knew she might call. Even if he didn't "know" it was that day, he should have had "open permission" so it would not be a problem. No divine guidance needed.


99% of the time, I agree. But if it's a situation where it may be the last time I can talk to a parent in a war zone I probably don't hand over the phone. Again, my experience is that tact is something most teacher's possess, this one seemed to lack even a minor amount of it.

I don't agree. My experience is students will lie to do what they want. If this student would have asked permission, then the teacher would have been at fault.

Agree here. But I do think extenuating circumstances were at play.

I actually think it is emotionalism causing people's judgement to be clouded. There are times when extenuating circumstances come into play. This is clearly not one of them.



The student had to know his mom could call, or he was already breaking the rules by having the phone on! There is no excuse for this kid.

You are assuming he knew he was going to get the call in the first place. Again there is now way to know that for certain. And school policy or not if my mother is part of a war in another country and she calls me I am going to answer the phone. It's also not clear exactly what happened when the teacher told the student to hang up the phone.

You don't think it is possible that the teacher saw the kid on the phone and went over a demanded he hung up and when the kid said no it was his mom from Iraq the teacher immediately tried to grab the phone from him? Again if I was in that situation and someone popped up and demanded I hang up the phone my first reaction would absolutely be to say no I am talking to my mom in Iraq. As for cussing at the administrators I agree it is never acceptable. I am not saying it should go unpunished, but rather that the punishment given might have been too harsh. It just doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect a kid to lose it a bit in a situation like that. I know plently of adults that would have lost it in a situation like that. It is difficult to determine exactly what happened from the article, but with the way it was laid out it sounds like both parties could have handled the situation better and because of that I think they could have cut the kid a little slack.

Again, if he had no idea his mom could call, he was already breaking the rules by having the phone on! You're also ignoring the fact that kids lie. This teacher had no idea, but easily could have been warned earlier. The kid breaking the rules caused the problem, and every action he performed afterward exacerbated it. Nope, the suspension is justified.

The student had to know his mom could call, or he was already breaking the rules by having the phone on! There is no excuse for this kid.
Are you sure it was against the rules to have a phone turned on during school hours? I hadn't seen that mentioned. If that was the case, then the phone should have been removed prior to the call occurring. Again, once the teacher had learned the student was talking a parent stationed in Iraq, that teacher should have let the person finish his conversation before punishing him for the rules breach.

Let's say the kid had just gotten a phone call from his younger sibling at home saying something bad had happened to his mom. Should the teacher have been allowed to hang up the kid's phone once the point of the call was known? After all, he was breaking rules by being on the phone.

If Spencer is anything like most of the high schools I've been around, the problem is probably also related to inconsistency of enforcement. Tucker has a "no-cell-phone-use-during-school" policy, but I've seen a kid hand her cell phone to the principle to talk to another student in another part of the building who needed to ask him a question. From spot conversations over time with other youth workers and teachers around, it is the norm that the rules are *very* inconsistently enforced. That's why I'm reserving judgement until I talk with my brother and sister-in-law about this one.

Same issue with the situation up in Dacula. By all reports, he's had this policy for over a decade, and no one--a parent, teacher or administrator--has ever complained about it.

Are you sure it was against the rules to have a phone turned on during school hours? I hadn't seen that mentioned. If that was the case, then the phone should have been removed prior to the call occurring. Again, once the teacher had learned the student was talking a parent stationed in Iraq, that teacher should have let the person finish his conversation before punishing him for the rules breach.

Let's say the kid had just gotten a phone call from his younger sibling at home saying something bad had happened to his mom. Should the teacher have been allowed to hang up the kid's phone once the point of the call was known? After all, he was breaking rules by being on the phone.


The article states the kid's are not allowed to use the phones at all during school. They are allowed to have them for after school, not during school.

And again, how does the teacher know the kid is not lying? The kid is already breaking rules, why should he believe him? A split second desicion means the teacher errs on the side of the rules. With warning, it might be otherwise.

Just to note, if the kid was only suspended for using the phone, then I would say it was probably excessive. But by the adminstitators comments and the students own admission, his behavior afterward is what caused him to be suspended. The school seemed to want to work with him, but he refused to listen.

If Spencer is anything like most of the high schools I've been around, the problem is probably also related to inconsistency of enforcement. Tucker has a "no-cell-phone-use-during-school" policy, but I've seen a kid hand her cell phone to the principle to talk to another student in another part of the building who needed to ask him a question. From spot conversations over time with other youth workers and teachers around, it is the norm that the rules are *very* inconsistently enforced. That's why I'm reserving judgement until I talk with my brother and sister-in-law about this one.



Yeah, we don't know if the school enforcement is spotty, but I'd take from the reaction from the teacher that it was probably strongly enforced.

actually, the article just says the phones aren't supposed to be used. It says nothing about whether or not they can be turned on. I'm with Primelord on this one. This was an emotional situation exacerbated by what appears to be an asshatted teacher. I wonder if the kid would have cussed at the teacher had the teacher handled the situation a little differently.

You cuss at the teachers, you get suspended. But I can't help but feel bad for the kid.

Yeah, we don't know if the school enforcement is spotty, but I'd take from the reaction from the teacher that it was probably strongly enforced.Maybe. Maybe not. More often than not, a good student usually gets away with "minor infractions" such as using a cell phone, slightly breaking the dress code, etc., while a bad student, like this kid, gets jumped on for every little infraction.

Again, if he had no idea his mom could call, he was already breaking the rules by having the phone on! You're also ignoring the fact that kids lie. This teacher had no idea, but easily could have been warned earlier. The kid breaking the rules caused the problem, and every action he performed afterward exacerbated it. Nope, the suspension is justified.


Oh good lord.. some of you have no idea what goes on in schools. I taught English at a school with 3000 students for two years. They have cell phones and use them, they bring guns to school, they swear at teachers and administrators, etc. all the time. Here's the interesting bit: if a kid swears at teachers all the time, he'll probably get away with it because by this time the school is just trying to get that kid to finish. Measures may be taken but there are always circumstances to take into account: he/she's from a broken/abusive home, he/she has an emotional disability of some sort. Eventually this kid gets into an ED curriculum. Ask an ED teacher what they have to put up with. You will be surprised.

Some schools have relatively less of this to deal with than others, but the point I'm making is, this is what goes on in there. Teachers learn what sets these kids off and they minimize what they can to try to get the kids learning something.

Now, you get a kid who isn't labelled ED/LD and he curses and look what happens. The circumstances here are obviously extreme. His mom in in IRAQ for crying out loud. She may never come home. OF COURSE he's going to break rules to try to talk to her. I understand it perfectly.

If we allow labelled kids wiggle room so they can get through school, why don't we allow non-labelled kids the same when we can clearly understand what is going on?

...the teacher also never took a moment to see if the kid was lying or not. The teacher is not a robot and rules are made to bent a little with the use of a little common sense. She could have easily said to the kid to hand the phone over so that the teacher could speak with the parent for a moment to a) prove the kid wrong or right and b) to let the parent know what the rule was and that her son would have to hang up shortly. The teacher is the adult in the situation and could have easily took a moment to think that far. Like others have said i would have went off too seeing as though the next call i got from Iraq could be " We're sorry to inform you that ..." I don't blame the kid at all.

Because the teacher has no idea if he is lying. The student could have gotten permission first. Once he didn't do that, the teacher has every right to ask for the phone, I don't care if he is talking to the President.
The teacher does have every right to ask for the phone. But in today's school system, the teacher does not have the right to forcfully take the phone.

Oh good lord.. some of you have no idea what goes on in schools. I taught English at a school with 3000 students for two years. They have cell phones and use them, they bring guns to school, they swear at teachers and administrators, etc. all the time. Here's the interesting bit: if a kid swears at teachers all the time, he'll probably get away with it because by this time the school is just trying to get that kid to finish. Measures may be taken but there are always circumstances to take into account: he/she's from a broken/abusive home, he/she has an emotional disability of some sort. Eventually this kid gets into an ED curriculum. Ask an ED teacher what they have to put up with. You will be surprised.

Some schools have relatively less of this to deal with than others, but the point I'm making is, this is what goes on in there. Teachers learn what sets these kids off and they minimize what they can to try to get the kids learning something.

Now, you get a kid who isn't labelled ED/LD and he curses and look what happens. The circumstances here are obviously extreme. His mom in in IRAQ for crying out loud. She may never come home. OF COURSE he's going to break rules to try to talk to her. I understand it perfectly.

If we allow labelled kids wiggle room so they can get through school, why don't we allow non-labelled kids the same when we can clearly understand what is going on?


Every school is different, and I'd suggest you have no idea what was "going on" in this school. I'd this school seems to have the discipline your school was lacking.

One thing that's not clear from the article is the tone both teacher and student used during the initial confrontation. It's clear that the student was beligerantin the office, but how did he really respond when the teacher initially approached him. Did he respectfully explain to the teacher the situation with his mom or did he immediately take an attitude? For that matter, how did the teacher initially approach him? Respect is a two way street and I've seen plenty of teachers who were more than happy to throw a little weight around.

We wonder what is wrong with education when teachers and administrators can't enforce rules without public lynching. Sad.

Again, if you are going to break a school policy, he should have gotten permission first. Second, if a teacher tells you to hand them the phone, you do it. Third, it is never acceptable for a student to cuss at adminstrators of a school. Three strikes, he is out.



Horse shit. This kid got screwed by some teacher having a power trip. #1 as a teacher you NEVER forcefully handle a student. it will get you fired in most states and could get you killed in some schools depending on your local.

The kid had no idea his mother would call during school hours, SHE has no real control over her opportunites to even USE a phone. How the hell do you expect him to ask permission first? Thats just fucking ignorant.

As for the second, if the regulations state that he CANNOT use grades to enforce classroom discipline then adious asshole, you're fired. I don't much care how long it took the superintendant and others to catch up with this prick's policies, but in the end he's getting what he deserves.


School officials and teachers are custodial, they are not security personnel nor are they god. Both the teacher in segment #2 and the school staff in segment #1 are completely over the line in these situations.


Fuckers.

And again, how does the teacher know the kid is not lying? The kid is already breaking rules, why should he believe him?
If the kid was creative enough to make up a story about his mom in Iraq and its shown to be false, he loses all benefit of the doubt in the future and would certainly get the toughest punishment. But, I think most people would allow the kid to finish the call if he stated it was an emergency or something like what happened. Then, they could decide later if he was lying.

I'm sure teachers have made exemptions for in-school cell phone use over the past few years for much lower priority calls.

We wonder what is wrong with education when teachers and administrators can't enforce rules without public lynching. Sad.

It's not that they can't enforce the rules... it's that the "rules" are ridiculously drafted to exclude any attempt at common sense or explanation on behalf of the student.

And I'd hardly call this a "public lynching", although I do have to ask if you're a member of the NEA?

...the teacher also never took a moment to see if the kid was lying or not. The teacher is not a robot and rules are made to bent a little with the use of a little common sense. She could have easily said to the kid to hand the phone over so that the teacher could speak with the parent for a moment to a) prove the kid wrong or right and b) to let the parent know what the rule was and that her son would have to hang up shortly. The teacher is the adult in the situation and could have easily took a moment to think that far. Like others have said i would have went off too seeing as though the next call i got from Iraq could be " We're sorry to inform you that ..." I don't blame the kid at all.
This is the best post yet. Had this course of action been taken, I doubt anything would have come of this and no suspensions would have been needed.

We wonder what is wrong with education when teachers and administrators can't enforce rules without public lynching. Sad.Let me be a little more clear here: I've spent a good bit of time in high schools during school hours over the last 15 years. If my brother and sister-in-law tell me that the cell phone rule is strictly enforced at Spencer, of all places, I would be *COMPLETELY SHOCKED.* So, I'm reserving judgement, because there's a small chance that they could be a rare school that actually is consistent with discipline. However, based on what I've seen, the odds are *far* more likely that other kids--good students--had used cell phones that very day, during school hours, while teachers/administrators watched and did nothing. Anyone with experience about dealing with teenagers will tell you that virtually nothing will set one of 'em off like even *perceived* unfairness will. If, as I strongly suspect, you have a situation of REAL unfairness here, then the *ADULTS* here showed incredibly bad judgement. Either ban them and enforce it across the board, or write a new no-using-them-in-class-without-teacher-permission rule (which is how it is probably enforced in 95% of the cases.)

Re: Story A. I'd just be pissed if one of the assistant principals at my school said 'conversating' while being interviewed.

Re: Story B. When I was in class to get my certification, they told us it was a big no-no to take away points that have been earned, and I can see why. If this guy wants to base his grades on this, he can award (or not award) for participation, which also gets around the policy of using grades for discipline.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually agree with Arles on this one. This is after the fact of course, but how many kids at this school have a parent in Iraq? This teacher could of easily waited for this kid to finish his phone call. I mean who the hell thinks up an exuse of I am talking to my mother in Iraq? This could of been handled better on both ends of the first situation.

On the second issue. From the educators on the board, is this a common policy? That grades can not come into play when disciplining students? High school seems like such a lifetime ago and I really can't remember what happened to us.

This is after the fact of course, but how many kids at this school have a parent in Iraq?Oh, I'm sure lots do. Spencer is in far South Columbus, just a couple of miles from Fort Benning. Benning is the world's largest infantry training center. Kids that live on base who don't attend private schools go to Spencer, and also some kids from South Columbus attend there as well.

Oh, I'm sure lots do. Spencer is in far South Columbus, just a couple of miles from Fort Benning. Benning is the world's largest infantry training center. Kids that live on base who don't attend private schools go to Spencer, and also some kids from South Columbus attend there as well.Dola:

This is the other thing I'm trying to find out. I'm wondering how the school has specifically handled calls from parents in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not like he is anywhere near the first kid from Spencer to have a parent over there.

I find the reaction on this board amusing. Looking at it, those arguing the kid was treated unfairly are those who usually say the rule breaker did something wrong, while those defending the school are normally those who post these issues as something large... I wonder why that is........ I wonder if its the word "Iraq".

Skydog, whether or not the rule is consistently forced doesn't matter. He broke the rule. By definition, the punishment fits. Is it a dumb rule (zero-tolerance), yes, but thats not the issue here. Thats the punishment for his offence. If they want to amend it, great, but its too late for this kid. Besides, the kid was suspended for being beligerent, not having a cell-phone. It seems the punishment for a cell-phone is being made to put it up. its not really the teacher's fault no one else enforces a rule. If anything, the teacher should be commended for enforcing it. Granted, the circumstances were extreme, but the kid broke the rules.

Its like speeding. 99% of the time, you won't get pulled over. Lets say one time, you're kid is being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. You're coming from work and speeding. The cop stops you. Maybe the cop has a heart, maybe he does it, but isn't it his job to give you a ticket? just because its an extreme situation doesn't mean its not breaking the rules (and yes, its a vague, dumb rule, but its still the rule.)

I say the teacher overreacted and was a bit heartless, but the kid got himself into this trouble by completely being an idiot during and after the fact. I feel for him, but he deserves the suspension for his offense.


As to the second story. Most teachers at my school would make participation a percentage of the overall grade, but wouldn't dock points from specific things. I'd say the guy's policy was extreme, and he should be disciplined for violating rules, not fired though... thats extreme (unless its the punishment)

My favorite part.


His mother called again at 12:37 p.m. and left a message scolding her son about hanging up and telling him to answer the phone when she calls.

Nice, lets go all nuts on the kid not knowing what had happened to him.

As far as the whole situation goes, I think the school needs to add something to their policy. Something about waiting until the kid is off the phone and then punishing them. How long before a kid is in the middle of a call that is with someone delivering bad news (a death, accident) and a teacher grabs the phone and hangs it up? I would go nuts on that one if a teacher did that to me (if I was in school).

And how did our parents ever make it out of childhood, not having cellphones so they could talk to their parents oversees in war? It is amazing we ever got to the 21st century....

I find the reaction on this board amusing. Looking at it, those arguing the kid was treated unfairly are those who usually say the rule breaker did something wrong, while those defending the school are normally those who post these issues as something large... I wonder why that is........ I wonder if its the word "Iraq".
This is more about common sense than how to handle rule breaking. If I am a teacher and a kid is talking to his mom at lunch and I find out she is trapped in an elevator, I am not going to hang up on her because of school policy. I am going to let him finish the call, maybe speak with her myself and worry about punishing the kid at a later time.

Skydog, whether or not the rule is consistently forced doesn't matter. He broke the rule. By definition, the punishment fits. Is it a dumb rule (zero-tolerance), yes, but thats not the issue here.
I think SD's point was that it might not be zero tolerance for all students.

Its like speeding. 99% of the time, you won't get pulled over. Lets say one time, you're kid is being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. You're coming from work and speeding. The cop stops you. Maybe the cop has a heart, maybe he does it, but isn't it his job to give you a ticket?
Perhaps, but if you were on the phone with the hospital and the cop verified your kid was there, I would hope he would give you a break. But there's also a difference here in that the kid was not endangering anyone's life by speaking on the phone at school. Speeding is a different issue.

I say the teacher overreacted and was a bit heartless, but the kid got himself into this trouble by completely being an idiot during and after the fact. I feel for him, but he deserves the suspension for his offense.
I don't disagree. But, again, this is akin to putting a kid in a candy store all night with no locks and asking him not to eat anything. The kid would certainly be braking the rules by eating some candy, but you would hope the adult would have a little more sense than putting him in that situation to begin with.

I find the reaction on this board amusing. Looking at it, those arguing the kid was treated unfairly are those who usually say the rule breaker did something wrong, while those defending the school are normally those who post these issues as something large... I wonder why that is........ I wonder if its the word "Iraq".
This is more abone time, you're kid is being taken to the hospital in an ambulance. You're coming from work and speeding. The cop stops you. Maybe the cop has a heart, maybe he does it, but isn't it his job to give you a ticket?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but if you were on the phone with the hospital and the cop verified your kid was there, I would hope he would give you a break. But there's also a difference here in that the kid was not endangering anyone's life by speaking on the phone at school. Speeding is a different issue.

I say the teacher overreacted and was a bit heartless, but the kid got himself into this trouble by completely being an idiot during and after the fact. I feel for him, but he deserves the suspension for his offense.
I don't disagree. But, again, this is akin to putting a kid in a candy store all night with no locks and asking him not to eat anything. The kid would certainly be braking the rules by eating some candy, but you would hope the adult would have a little more sense than putting him in that situation to begin with.

Hey Arles, between this and the Favre thread, maybe even a couple others, you sure are doing a lot of debating.

Get your ass back to programming mofo, I have dibs on New Mexico in the FOFC League for Bowl Bound College Football.

CHOP, CHOP! ;)

Hey Arles, between this and the Favre thread, maybe even a couple others, you sure are doing a lot of debating.

Get your ass back to programming mofo, I have dibs on New Mexico in the FOFC League for Bowl Bound College Football.

CHOP, CHOP! ;)
Cringer, your check is in the mail. How much did we agree on again? ;)

I'll throw two cents out there:

1. The mother was just as much at fault. I knew what time it was in the states when I called and I had a list of phone numbers. She should have called the school.

2. The boy was at fault for cussing them out...while I probably would've done the same, it was still wrong.

3. The school needed to have some empathy for the boy and what he might be possibly going through. His mother may die any day and he got a phone call from her.

Skydog, whether or not the rule is consistently forced doesn't matter. He broke the rule. By definition, the punishment fits. Is it a dumb rule (zero-tolerance), yes, but thats not the issue here. Thats the punishment for his offence. If they want to amend it, great, but its too late for this kid. Besides, the kid was suspended for being beligerent, not having a cell-phone. It seems the punishment for a cell-phone is being made to put it up. its not really the teacher's fault no one else enforces a rule. If anything, the teacher should be commended for enforcing it. Granted, the circumstances were extreme, but the kid broke the rules.{wipes tear from eye}

Easy is now articulating the "compassionate conservative" position on the case. :p

In all seriousness, I agree with your premise as a general principle, but what you're leaving off here is that they're dealing with the most volatile people on the planet--teenagers. If you don't have, but don't enforce, a so-called zero tolerance policy straight down the line, then you're going to create problems like this for yourself.

Cringer, your check is in the mail. How much did we agree on again? ;)

$3.63


:D

1.) Sometimes people do bad things.

2.) We have established a system of rules and punishments to deal with those situations.

3.) Because any rule, no matter how carefully written, will not be perfect, there will be some instances in which the rules call for a person to be punished to a higher degree than we feel is "right" based on the particulars of the situation.

4.) Accordingly, we have traditionally allowed those interpreting the rules or enforcing the punishment some amount of discretion.

5.) Sometimes those in charge of exercising discretion in interpreting and enforcing rules will exercise it in such a manner that others will believe that not enough punishment was meted out.

6.) When that happens, a public backlash ensues against that discretion, and the masses call for such things as "zero tolerance" "three strikes & you're out" laws and unappealable decisions.

7.) More specifically, people are deciding that we would rather some people get punished too harshly with no chance for clemency than have a discretionary review process that may cause a person to not be punished harshly enough.

8.) Shit like this happens.



I'm not surprised that this kid was treated too harshly under our modern system of discipline and punishment. I am surprised that any of you are surprised. This is the bed that we seem very comfortable making for ourselves.

Most everything has already been said on this thread.

The kid broke a policy - but for a decent reason. The teacher who took the phone probably overracted. That set off a kid, who is probably already troubled, in an emotional situation and the fact he couldn't answer her call again was probably the final straw. Is it reasonable to expect the kid to act in a calm, mature fashion in this situation? You'd hope so, but you need to be prepared to take the higher road if you're the teacher.

All in all, I'm surprised there wasn't a physical altercation. The situation resulted in a 10 day suspension and for a kid struggling with his grades, that's a piss-poor solution. Is the kid blameless? No. But it's the adults in this case who should share in the blame. They created the situation with the rules, exacerbated the situation and should be ashamed of themselves.

As for teacher two...sorry bub. It sounds like he was a total dick about it too after the fact.

Horse shit. This kid got screwed by some teacher having a power trip. #1 as a teacher you NEVER forcefully handle a student. it will get you fired in most states and could get you killed in some schools depending on your local.

The kid had no idea his mother would call during school hours, SHE has no real control over her opportunites to even USE a phone. How the hell do you expect him to ask permission first? Thats just fucking ignorant.

As for the second, if the regulations state that he CANNOT use grades to enforce classroom discipline then adious asshole, you're fired. I don't much care how long it took the superintendant and others to catch up with this prick's policies, but in the end he's getting what he deserves.


School officials and teachers are custodial, they are not security personnel nor are they god. Both the teacher in segment #2 and the school staff in segment #1 are completely over the line in these situations.


Fuckers.


I'm not sure how I feel about either of these stories... i'm very much on the fence with both...

but.. i had to call RendeR out on the hypocrisy in this post..

So... with the student, we should apply some common-sense to the rules

with the teacher, it's hard-line, we need to enforce the rules 100%?

WTF?! You are talking about both sides of your mouth here.

I'm not sure how I feel about either of these stories... i'm very much on the fence with both...

but.. i had to call RendeR out on the hypocrisy in this post..

So... with the student, we should apply some common-sense to the rules

with the teacher, it's hard-line, we need to enforce the rules 100%?

WTF?! You are talking about both sides of your mouth here.

Huh?

In story #2, they didn't have any choice but to enforce the grading rules. There's a big difference between school grade policies and disciplinary policy rules. If the school district rules say that grades can't be altered as punishment for disciplinary issues, then there is no leeway. The student (and his parents) have every right to ask for the grade to be changed to what he earned and the school has no power to deny that request.

Once the teacher admitted to doing it as punishment, the grade HAD to be changed. And they asked him to do it and he repeatedly refused - he essentially gave them no choice.

I've been forwarded a press release from the school:


The Muscogee County School District has over 3700 military students enrolled. We have a long and strong relationship with Ft. Benning. Spencer High School has the greatest number of military students of any of our schools. All of our counselors have received training in supporting students whose parents have been deployed, and military personnel serve as Partners in Education in over half of our schools.



When the Spencer teacher approached the young man about using a cell phone on campus, contrary to Board of Education policy which is designed to preserve instructional time and decorum in our schools, the young man did not tell the teacher he was speaking to his mother in Iraq. He indicated he would not comply with a request to turn over his cell phone and used profanity. The teacher escorted the young man to the office, where assistant principals tried to get him to calm himself and to cease the use of profanity. It was only at this point that administrators learned he was talking to his mother in Iraq.



The Guidance Department at Spencer High School has arranged for a number of students to receive calls from parents who are deployed. They would have been happy to do this for this young man. The issue here was not so much the use of the cell phone as it was the choices the young man made in handling the situation. We are empathetic to all students whose parents serve in the armed forces; we do have behavior standards which we uphold.



The school has been in touch with personnel from Ft. Benning. We are endeavoring to have the young man readmitted after a three day suspension, which was the first option for him. It was only after greater defiance and profanity that the suspension was extended. We will ask that the student and his guardian sign a behavior contract indicating that he will comply with the same standards of behavior which apply to all of our students. We will continue to be sensitive to the needs of students whose parents serve our country.


So the school district says Francois never told the teacher he was on the phone with his mom.

I confess, I'm suspicious about this. The original newspaper account quotes two assistant principals, neither one of whom makes that statement. The school district is now also offering to reduce the suspension to three days, instead of the original ten. This just smacks of "spin" to me.

Then again, if I was Francois and I didn't tell the teacher I was on the phone with my mom, I wouldn't admit it if I was trying to get a positive story in the local paper.

Then again, if I was Francois and I didn't tell the teacher I was on the phone with my mom, I wouldn't admit it if I was trying to get a positive story in the local paper.

Not sure if this is going to pop into many 17 year olds heads. Maybe after it is too late.....

Not sure if this is going to pop into many 17 year olds heads. Maybe after it is too late.....

true. like I said, my first inclination upon reading the press release is that the school is desperately spinning the story.

The release mentions that there are 3700 children of military families in the district. I'd imagine a large number of those are calling or have called the district to ask what they hell the administrators are thinking.

Then you have the fact that the superintendent says Francois was originally offered a three day suspension, but continued cursing and so it was upped to ten days. The newspaper article quotes an assistant principal as saying the choice was ten days suspension or arrest... no mention of a three day suspension.

And then you have the fact that the school district, if they're telling the truth, is now rewarding a kid who:

-cursed out a teacher

-cursed out two assistant principals

-LIED to the media about what really happened

He's done all this and now the school is going to give him a three day suspension instead of a ten day suspension? And this is supposedly done in the name of "enforcing discipline"?

Just my opinion, but I think this is being done in the name of "covering our asses".

The mother was just as much at fault. I knew what time it was in the states when I called and I had a list of phone numbers. She should have called the school.
I totally agree with you. This might've been lost on the first page of the thread since it was the last post. The mother could have alleviated this by simply calling the school instead of his cell phone. Again, this is assuming that she knew he couldn't have a cell phone on during school hours (but couldn't you assume that anyhow?).

I totally agree with you. This might've been lost on the first page of the thread since it was the last post. The mother could have alleviated this by simply calling the school instead of his cell phone. Again, this is assuming that she knew he couldn't have a cell phone on during school hours (but couldn't you assume that anyhow?).

LOL. I'd hope you agree!

For #1: The teacher had every right to tell him to hang up the phone, but he/she had absolutely no right to forcibly take the phone from the student. Let him finish the call and then punish him appropriately. It wasn't like he was using it in a classroom or anywhere where it would have caused a disturbance to let him finish the call.


If it had been me in that situation and the teacher tried to forcibly take the phone away I guess I would have ended up in a bit more trouble because no way in hell would the teacher have been successful.

Dang! Turns out my brother was with his kids on a field trip all day today, and my sister-in-law was sick. I probably won't be able to get the skinny until Monday.

Under no circumstances is it right for a teacher to forcefully take a phone. I don't care if the kid is talking to a friend, his girlfriend, the 900 chat line he uses to get off, or his mom in Iraq.

The teacher wants to ask him to hang up the phone? Fine. The kid answers "It's my Mom calling from Iraq" and she doesn't believe him? Fine again. That can always be checked out later. The situation dictates you let the kid finish his call and then you walk him to the office and take all the action you deem necessary. (Which IMO probably is some sort of month long detention, not a suspension for a kid whose under some serious stress and probably NEEDS the schools help right now more than he needs them acting like idiots)

The teacher was out of line. Her actions led to every event that followed. Without knowing anything other than the story above, I think this teacher should be suspended as well. Teachers don't have police powers. They should NEVER grab something by force from a student. That crosses their bounds.

As for the teacher who flunked the football player. . . what a bunch of garbage. You think the kid fell asleep in your class? Ask him a question in class. When he doesn't answer walk by his desk and drop a book. Tell his parents and the football coach what happened.

Don't flunk him on an assignment he aced and make an excuse later. That's BS. Grades simply cannot be used as punishment in a scholastic setting. That's what suspensions, detention, and even some public humiliation are for. Why not just call a pop quiz and let the kid sleep through it? Where in the hell do we draw that line? If a kid misses a problem on the chalkboard or gives the wrong answer in a class discussion, do they get docked 5 points? No way.

The teacher is lucky he was given a chance to do the right thing. He didn't take it, he can find a new profession.

Call me an old fuddy dud but why the hell do kids need cell phones at school?

Call me an old fuddy dud but why the hell do kids need cell phones at school?One primary reason that mobile phones are often overlooked by school authorities is convenience. If the kids have a mobile phone with them, they're not going to tie up the phone in the office, or create long lines at pay phones when they need to call home. Plus, when a kid is in a more "open" class such as annual, newspaper, or PE, and an administrator or teacher needs to ask them a question, they'll just call the kid up rather than go look for them or make an announcement over the PA. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've personally witnessed a Principal at a high school where mobile phones are "banned" talk to a student who was on her mobile phone at the other end and on another floor of the buliding rather than walk down there or summon the student.

Under no circumstances is it right for a teacher to forcefully take a phone. I don't care if the kid is talking to a friend, his girlfriend, the 900 chat line he uses to get off, or his mom in Iraq.
If the teacher forcefully removed the phone from the student, the student's guardian should be able to file charges against the teacher. Most states have clear laws that state educators cannot use physical force on a student without just cause (attack a classmate, etc.). I wouldn't be suprised if there is a challenge to the suspension and a possible civil rights suit filed against the school district.

One primary reason that mobile phones are often overlooked by school authorities is convenience. If the kids have a mobile phone with them, they're not going to tie up the phone in the office, or create long lines at pay phones when they need to call home. Plus, when a kid is in a more "open" class such as annual, newspaper, or PE, and an administrator or teacher needs to ask them a question, they'll just call the kid up rather than go look for them or make an announcement over the PA. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've personally witnessed a Principal at a high school where mobile phones are "banned" talk to a student who was on her mobile phone at the other end and on another floor of the buliding rather than walk down there or summon the student.
It's a wonder how we ever made it through school knowing how inconvenienced we were.

It's a wonder how we ever made it through school knowing how inconvenienced we were.I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the reasoning, but it is my observation that it IS the reasoning. Plus, I can't really argue that it doesn't increase productivity for the annual and newspaper staffs to be able to save one of their staff members 5ish minutes every time they need to clear something with the main office. My personal opinion, based on experience working with this age group, is that they need to adopt rules that they actually enforce in virtually all cases. Rather than "We have a no-mobile-phone policy, but we make exceptions to it several times every day, but we'll enforce it when we see a 'bad kid' or a kid who has recently ticked us off using one," (which is the reality of how I've seen this policy "enforced" in schools), it would be MUCH better to say that the policy is, "A mobile phone may be used when not in class, but may be used in class only after a teacher or other school authority gives express permission for it to be used." (which is how they REALLY enforce it)

I probably get 2-3 phone calls a week from kids at the 2 high schools and 2 middle schools in my area of responsibility. All four of them have a "no-mobile-phone-during-school-hours" rule in place. What's funny/sad is that any teacher or school administrator worth his or her salt will be among the first to tell you that "the most important thing for teenagers is that they be given have clearly defined boundaries, with consistent consequences for stepping outside of them." :rolleyes:

One primary reason that mobile phones are often overlooked by school authorities is convenience. If the kids have a mobile phone with them, they're not going to tie up the phone in the office, or create long lines at pay phones when they need to call home. Plus, when a kid is in a more "open" class such as annual, newspaper, or PE, and an administrator or teacher needs to ask them a question, they'll just call the kid up rather than go look for them or make an announcement over the PA. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've personally witnessed a Principal at a high school where mobile phones are "banned" talk to a student who was on her mobile phone at the other end and on another floor of the buliding rather than walk down there or summon the student.

Aren't cell phones and other technological devices used in cheating in some ways?

As for the teacher changing the grade, its a totally differnet level at college. My professors have a percentage of the grade in terms of attendence/participation. Some of my professors will tell you to pay attention or get out. You go to school to learn, not sleep.

Fair enough. But I'm still stuck on "annual". Do you mean "yearbook"? Must be a Southern thing.

Aren't cell phones and other technological devices used in cheating in some ways?They could be, which is why they are generally not allowed in the classroom (although I have gotten text messages from kids during class time, too).

Fair enough. But I'm still stuck on "annual". Do you mean "yearbook"? Must be a Southern thing."They can call them 'yearbooks' in government schools. We call them 'annuals' here at Brookstone."--Nan Pate, Annual Staff Supervisor, The Brookstone School, Columbus, GA, circa 1986.

"They can call them 'yearbooks' in government schools. We call them 'annuals' here at Brookstone."--Nan Pate, Annual Staff Supervisor, The Brookstone School, Columbus, GA, circa 1986.
F'n elitist. LOL.

They could be, which is why they are generally not allowed in the classroom (although I have gotten text messages from kids during class time, too).

Yeap, but you can't "Search" a student if they hide it somewheres. I know they set up to vibrate, text, ect. without making a sound.

F'n elitist. LOL.Hey, I'm just quoting my teacher. :p

Yeap, but you can't "Search" a student if they hide it somewheres. I know they set up to vibrate, text, ect. without making a sound.I agree, but it would be pretty hard to read that sucker and send messages back and forth to someone without being noticed. (Your fingers and hands would be moving in a very suspicious manner.) If a student *really* wants to get away with cheating, why would they use a 3-dimesional object with a backlight, as opposed to a 2-dimensional cheat sheet that can be made in a color to blend in? If I were going to try to cheat on a monitored test, text messaging with a mobile phone would be one of the LAST methods I'd consider using.

I agree, but it would be pretty hard to read that sucker and send messages back and forth to someone without being noticed. (Your fingers and hands would be moving in a very suspicious manner.) If a student *really* wants to get away with cheating, why would they use a 3-dimesional object with a backlight, as opposed to a 2-dimensional cheat sheet that can be made in a color to blend in? If I were going to try to cheat on a monitored test, text messaging with a mobile phone would be one of the LAST methods I'd consider using.

True, but I know kids do it sometimes. Not exactly sure how though.

It's more the lack of descression by the teachers. If the kid was talking to his school budy - fine. But to have a rare conversation with his mom in Iraq - the teacher should have let him finish the call and walked him to the principle afterwords to deal with their policy and maybe setup an exemption. But grabbing the phone and hanging it up on a kid talking to his mom stationed in a warzone shows a massive lack of judgement. What did you expect the kid to do? Say "Thanks" and go back to class. Sheesh, the adult should have had a better understanding of the situation and not relied on the kid to act in the professional manner.

Mark this day on the calendar as the day I completely & fully agreed 100% with Arles.

The student had to know his mom could call, or he was already breaking the rules by having the phone on! There is no excuse for this kid.

That's not how it works. My brother's stationed at Camp Shelby in Mississippi in training to be sent to Iraq in a month. Even though we're both in the U.S., I have absolutely no clue when he's going to call me. He just does when he gets the time. He's never told when he'll get free time, or for how long that'll be, or if he'll have access to a phone during that time. And he's in training. In the United States.

So yeah, I'm sure the student knew his Mom would call, but couldn't you know, actually pinpoint the day, much less the hour, that she'd call.

And how did our parents ever make it out of childhood, not having cellphones so they could talk to their parents oversees in war? It is amazing we ever got to the 21st century....

Reading accounts from WWII, it's clear that a good number of parents said goodbye for real when their sons left for war, expecting to never see them again, because at least they'd be prepared (so they thought), if that's what happened.

Huh?

In story #2, they didn't have any choice but to enforce the grading rules. There's a big difference between school grade policies and disciplinary policy rules. If the school district rules say that grades can't be altered as punishment for disciplinary issues, then there is no leeway. The student (and his parents) have every right to ask for the grade to be changed to what he earned and the school has no power to deny that request.

Once the teacher admitted to doing it as punishment, the grade HAD to be changed. And they asked him to do it and he repeatedly refused - he essentially gave them no choice.

Boy, you and I have not been getting along on school topics ;)...

I agree with you...

But... how can you say that and then turn around and say something totally different in case #1... the kid was told the rules and then went apeshit (ok, maybe i'm exaggerating a bit there) even though being told something could be worked out WITHIN the rules (he could have his mom call the school, #2 could change the grade)...

I do not think I'm articulating myself here.. but it seems like in both situation you have

A) Rule was broken
B) Rule was re-emphasized with rule breaker
C) Rule breaker was given an alternative method within the rules
D) Rule breaker refused alternative method

Now... somehow, with the kid, step E should be different in RendeR's argument..

Boy, you and I have not been getting along on school topics ;)...

I agree with you...

But... how can you say that and then turn around and say something totally different in case #1... the kid was told the rules and then went apeshit (ok, maybe i'm exaggerating a bit there) even though being told something could be worked out WITHIN the rules (he could have his mom call the school, #2 could change the grade)...

I do not think I'm articulating myself here.. but it seems like in both situation you have

A) Rule was broken
B) Rule was re-emphasized with rule breaker
C) Rule breaker was given an alternative method within the rules
D) Rule breaker refused alternative method

Now... somehow, with the kid, step E should be different in RendeR's argument..

Because the types of rules are different. Things like "no cell phones" are disciplinary rules, usually made up by the Principal or school administration, selectively enforced and at the whim of that administration.

Schhol grades are much different. There are laws about those. Those rules are set up by the School Board, consistently enforced and cannot be broken. At least, not without legal ramifications.

I know some people will say a "rule is a rule", but it's not. Think about it this way - if that grade doesn't get changed, the school system will be successfully sued by the parents to get it changed. Would they be if the kid talks on the cell phone? See the difference now?

Because the types of rules are different. Things like "no cell phones" are disciplinary rules, usually made up by the Principal or school administration, selectively enforced and at the whim of that administration.

Schhol grades are much different. There are laws about those. Those rules are set up by the School Board, consistently enforced and cannot be broken. At least, not without legal ramifications.

I know some people will say a "rule is a rule", but it's not. Think about it this way - if that grade doesn't get changed, the school system will be successfully sued by the parents to get it changed. Would they be if the kid talks on the cell phone? See the difference now?


Actually, yes...

Had not thought about it in that light... So your argument is that the "ruling body" is the difference.. for instance (to pull another school example that seems like an obvious situation to me.. and make it extreme...) if a teacher has a rule that says, "no candy in the classroom"... but the teacher decides that the kids have been good for a week, so she brings in candy for them and let's them eat it that day... that to me says, "ok, no problem". But, if the state has a law that says, "candy will not be allowed in the classroom" and the teacher does the same thing, the teacher should be punished because this is a hard and fast law set by the state.. .

I can buy that argument....

I probably articulated poorly again... but anyway... I definately see your point..

Then again, if I was the media and the kid didn't tell the teacher he was on the phone with his mom, I wouldn't admit it if I was trying to get a positive story in the local paper.
fixed that for you. I'd say the chances are just as good if not better that the kid lied to the press (or got the details wrong, even more likely) than its some vast cover-up by the school. It had to get to the media somehow, and I doubt the school brought it to the paper's attention... its not like there's police reports for them to dig through. Doesn't really matter how the school handles the kid now, all the damage is done. Its only natural a government entity tries to save whatever face they can now.

Not trying to be rude, but if this kid has a dad, I wouldn't be surprised if he convinced him to go to the media, if we're just throwing out conspiracy theories and cover-ups here.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/11590638.htm

Associated Press

ATLANTA - A day after being fired for lowering the grade of a student who fell asleep in his class, science teacher Larry Neace said he would do things differently next time.

Neace said Friday that he will begin looking for a new teaching post Monday morning.

"What I did cost me my job," he said.

At the end of a Thursday afternoon hearing that stretched into the early morning hours of Friday, the Gwinnett County School board voted 4-1 to terminate the Dacula High teacher. Neace had taught at Dacula for 23 years.

Neace had a practice of reducing the grades of students who wasted time or slept in class, but he said he never sought guidance from his principal regarding his grading policy, an act he said Friday was a mistake on his part.

The teacher also said Friday that he was aware that using grades to discipline students was against school board policy. But he said he believed sleeping in class was an academic problem, not a disciplinary problem.

Neace said if he gets another teaching job, he will continue to make students responsible for their class participation.

"If I was asked by an employer what I might do differently, I would tell them I would try to set up my discipline and grading parameters to satisfy whatever the principal wanted me to do," Neace said.

Neace was removed from his Dacula class April 14 after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

An official with the state Professional Standards Commission said he advised Neace two weeks ago that he was wrong.

"You do not use grades for disciplinary means," said Gary Walker, director of the PSC's educator ethics division. "In fact, if the grade doesn't reflect the student's academic ability, that grade would be in violation of (the state's falsification) standard."

Students rallied last week to defend the teacher they call "Doc." Posters calling for his return decorated the high school's halls. Some students wore T-shirts protesting the principal's action and passed out fliers saying, "Forget the whales, save Doc."

At Thursday's hearing, more than 200 students and parents crowded into the hearing room.

Neace's lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/11590638.htm

Associated Press

ATLANTA - A day after being fired for lowering the grade of a student who fell asleep in his class, science teacher Larry Neace said he would do things differently next time.

Neace said Friday that he will begin looking for a new teaching post Monday morning.

"What I did cost me my job," he said.

At the end of a Thursday afternoon hearing that stretched into the early morning hours of Friday, the Gwinnett County School board voted 4-1 to terminate the Dacula High teacher. Neace had taught at Dacula for 23 years.

Neace had a practice of reducing the grades of students who wasted time or slept in class, but he said he never sought guidance from his principal regarding his grading policy, an act he said Friday was a mistake on his part.

The teacher also said Friday that he was aware that using grades to discipline students was against school board policy. But he said he believed sleeping in class was an academic problem, not a disciplinary problem.

Neace said if he gets another teaching job, he will continue to make students responsible for their class participation.

"If I was asked by an employer what I might do differently, I would tell them I would try to set up my discipline and grading parameters to satisfy whatever the principal wanted me to do," Neace said.

Neace was removed from his Dacula class April 14 after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

An official with the state Professional Standards Commission said he advised Neace two weeks ago that he was wrong.

"You do not use grades for disciplinary means," said Gary Walker, director of the PSC's educator ethics division. "In fact, if the grade doesn't reflect the student's academic ability, that grade would be in violation of (the state's falsification) standard."

Students rallied last week to defend the teacher they call "Doc." Posters calling for his return decorated the high school's halls. Some students wore T-shirts protesting the principal's action and passed out fliers saying, "Forget the whales, save Doc."

At Thursday's hearing, more than 200 students and parents crowded into the hearing room.

Neace's lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

Information from: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, http://www.ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/)

While obviously, the teacher went against the district policy, does anyone else find it a dumb policy? I thought the point was to get the kids to pay attention. Do they have exceptions for participation in the policy? I know putting your head down in class generally got some points taken off our participation grade. I do think the punisment for the kid was excessive to begin with (1/2 off his grade, thats a bit much), kids need to be disciplined these days, and it looks like parents are trying to do everything the can from helping schools keep order.

No, it's not a dumb policy. Disciplinary problems are handled in other ways (detention, call to parents, being sent to another classroom or the office, suspension). Grades should only measure academic performance. Now, if part of the grade is class participation, and the student habitually doesn't participate, then of course, that will be part of the participation grade. But it should never affect the grade on any other kind of assignment.

You know, I guess this is supposedly supposed to be a good thing, but when every yahoo out there has access to the media and every media outlet loves a trumped up story- I just wish I didn't ever see some of this crap reported. Nothing like putting the glaring spotlight of thousands or even millions of grossly underinformed people on a situation using a biased story written by someone who has an agenda which only serves to rile up people who never can get the whole story.

SI

While obviously, the teacher went against the district policy, does anyone else find it a dumb policy?

{raises hand}

I'd be looking to replace the board/admins that put such a policy in place.

{raises hand}

I'd be looking to replace the board/admins that put such a policy in place.


Sorry Jon, we disagree greatly here. You simply cannot penalize a student with a lower grade as a form of punishment. There are processes for misbehavior. Falling asleep in class, if it happened, was a ridiculous thing for the student to do.

The teacher would have every right to send him to the office, call his parents, force detention or any number of other things. He had no right to change the grade on a perfect assignment.

There isn't any wiggle room in this one IMO. You just can't allow a teacher to alter the grade of a completed assignment or test for ANY reason. The ethics of that is just wrong. What's more, this is one of the rare cases where I fully believe the "if we let this slide, it's gonna take us places we have no desire to go" statement.

There are processes for misbehavior. Falling asleep in class, if it happened, was a ridiculous thing for the student to do.


Not necessarily. What if the student has an undiagnosed medical condition, like sleep apnea? I have that condition, and I'll tell you that before it was diagnosed and treated, there were days at work where it was impossible for me to stay awake at times. That's probably not the case here, but if a student is frequently falling asleep habitually, the first appropriate step is to determine what is really going on, not immediately assume that it is a disciplinary problem.

Sorry Jon, we disagree greatly here. You simply cannot penalize a student with a lower grade as a form of punishment. There are processes for misbehavior.

Yeah, we do disagree.

And I believe those processes you refer to should include this as an option (hence my comment about replacing those responsible for policy).

Not trying to be rude, but if this kid has a dad, I wouldn't be surprised if he convinced him to go to the media, if we're just throwing out conspiracy theories and cover-ups here.
Francois, whose father was killed when he was 5 years old

In situation one: The teacher bears the brunt of the blame for how the situation turned out. Sure the kid violated a rule. But the teacher violated the kid's person in enforcing the rule (i.e. violated an even bigger rule and exacerbated the situation).

It's seems like the school administration is lying, as well.

Both parties violated rules and used poor judgement. But the kid's got extenuating circumstances and is a minor. The teacher is a professional and is expected to exercise good judgement.

I think #2 is a dumb policy, because as has been pointed out, you can get around it by simply having a participation grade. At least he was honest about it. What bothers me about this situation is that he's had this rule in place for so long, but the first time it causes a stink is when it applies to a football player. I highly doubt we would be reading about this today if it was any other student.

Yeah, we do disagree.

And I believe those processes you refer to should include this as an option (hence my comment about replacing those responsible for policy).


But where do we draw the line on this one Jon? Are you really trying to tell me a teacher can dock a students grade for anything they want? That's just ridiculous.

And at what point is it a teachers responsibility to let the student know he/she has been punished? Is it OK for all of the violations to add up til the final test and have the teacher take a 90% final and turn it into a 10% grade?

In both of these cases we have adults acting like ten year olds and wondering what was wrong with how they conducted themselves. I know you are going to tell me that students who break the rules should be allowed to be punished by whatever means the teacher feels appropriate. Grades included.

Well, what about a teacher who KNOWINGLY breaks the rules? I'm glad this guy was fired. He deserved it.

FWIW, I think you'll be hard pressed to find many school districts in the US that allow a grade on a completed assignement to be altered as punishment. I know on the college level, this is one of the few things that can cause a loss of tenure.

Are you really trying to tell me a teacher can dock a students grade for anything they want? That's just ridiculous.

It's also was the case my entire lifetime as a student, or as one teacher succinctly & regularly put it "The man with the pen wins." He was also, by a ridiculously wide margin the best teacher I ever saw in K-12. Acclaimed pretty universally by peers and students alike, even those (like me) who flunked the hell out of his classes.

Now, in this example, I'd prefer there be an administrative option exercised, but clearly there was no confidence that would be done, so I'm heartily in favor of him exacting punishment in this way. Better that than yet another case of "oh well, nothing we can do", which is an ongoing state of affairs when it comes to student discipline. If you can't throw 'em out, at least don't reward them for being a fucktard.

Larrymcg hit on the truth of this matter, it wasn't an issue until their was a football player involved, and in the area where this happened, that's not a real shocker.

It's more the lack of descression by the teachers. If the kid was talking to his school budy - fine. But to have a rare conversation with his mom in Iraq - the teacher should have let him finish the call and walked him to the principle afterwords to deal with their policy and maybe setup an exemption. But grabbing the phone and hanging it up on a kid talking to his mom stationed in a warzone shows a massive lack of judgement. What did you expect the kid to do? Say "Thanks" and go back to class. Sheesh, the adult should have had a better understanding of the situation and not relied on the kid to act in the professional manner.
Without reading the rest of this thread for other responses, you took the words right out of my mouth. Obviously, none of us know the real story of what happened in that first incident, but if I was that kid and a teacher tried to forcefully take the phone away after telling them who I was talking to, I would have told 'em to f--- off. It's not like the mom could just pick up and call at any convenient time.

It's also was the case my entire lifetime as a student, or as one teacher succinctly & regularly put it "The man with the pen wins." He was also, by a ridiculously wide margin the best teacher I ever saw in K-12. Acclaimed pretty universally by peers and students alike, even those (like me) who flunked the hell out of his classes.

Now, in this example, I'd prefer there be an administrative option exercised, but clearly there was no confidence that would be done, so I'm heartily in favor of him exacting punishment in this way. Better that than yet another case of "oh well, nothing we can do", which is an ongoing state of affairs when it comes to student discipline. If you can't throw 'em out, at least don't reward them for being a fucktard.

Larrymcg hit on the truth of this matter, it wasn't an issue until their was a football player involved, and in the area where this happened, that's not a real shocker.

Somehow, I'm sure it wouldn't have taken just a football player. All it would have taken would have been a pissed off student who had some backing from his parents and the policy would have been destroyed. With a written rule in place on the books and the teacher going against it, it was only a matter of time before someone challenged it. I think the same result would have taken place.

As for the punishment, there had to be some punishment this teacher could have imposed. As discussed earlier, there were a variety of options he could have used. It's not about rewarding the dumbass who fell asleep. It's about giving an appropriate punishment. Taking away 50% on a homework assignment is not appropriate, it's ridiculous. There were other avenues this teacher could/should have taken. The teacher was read the policy and then given the chance to change the grade. He could have then had a pretty good dicussion with the board about what powers he did/didn't have. Instead this guy teaching students decided that he was above a written rule on the books. Yup, great teacher there.

Bye - Bye. That had to be one of the simplest votes in the history of a school board. That gets taken to court, they have ZERO chance of winning.

I'll give my 2 cents on story number 2.

I graduated high school 3 years ago so I have some experience with the way schools work now. I believe the problem with the kid falling asleep is more with the material and the way it is being presented than with the student. The student aced the class despite sleeping his way through it? Come on, this teacher is obviously completely out of touch with those he is teaching.

My senior year I had 14 classes. Out of those 14, I slept my way through 2 of them. Advanced Health class was one of them. The class was completely boring. The teacher didn't care about the material. Most of the time we either watched a movie, or were given free time. During my free time I chose to sleep. No suprise I recieved an A+ in this class.

The other was Econ. The Econ teacher was boring and prone to 2 hour long speeches[he would literally begin his lectures as soon as the bell rang, and many time continue them up to bell ending class, 2 hours later]. I had no choice but to sleep through these. He never presented the material in a manner that connected with me, or any other student in the class. He would constantly put his hand on my shoulder and shake me to wake me up. I would raise my head, look at him, and go back to sleep. The first time that happened he decided to give a "pop quiz" over the days material at the end of class and cited me as the reason.

More on this pop quiz. The teacher had a thing where he would announce the person who scored the highest in the class on tests/quizes and tell the class how many points were added to thier grades. He would take the highest score in the class and make it a 100. If the highest actual score was a 85, he would add on 15 points to it, and every other paper in the class. Imagine the shock on his face, and in the classroom when he announced that I had set the curve on that "pop quiz."

I am a firm believer that it is as much the teachers job to keep the student awake and make them learn as it is the students. Teachers, especially high school teachers in a public school, should try to connect with thier classes and present the material in a manner that interests them. The problem in this Econ class was that I already knew everything he was saying and he was presenting it to me in a boring way. It was like pulling teeth listening to him each day. He would never include visual aids, or ask us questions. There was very little class involvement. I ended that Econ class with a 97 percent A.

Other classes were much more interesting. Take my english lit class. She would assign a reading assignment at the end of class. We would take the book home, read it and come back to class the next day. She would then include the entire class in conversations about the reading assignment. She would explain what she took from it, and include things that the class brought up along the way, all in an interesting manner. She would use diagrams, the chalkboard to make tables, and classmembers to re-enact scenes from the reading. It was VERY interesting and no one ever fell asleep during that class.

My history teacher had a similar setup to my Econ teacher in that he would give long lectures, but his were much more interesting. It's really had to explain it in words, but some teachers are just completely out of touch with todays kids. I'm guessing the teacher in story number 2 falls into this. There is no reason that a kid should be able to sleep through a class and then turn around and ace the tests. That tells me the kid wanted to learn the material[and DID], but the teacher was unable to keep his attention, or present the material in a manner that related with the students. Keep in mind these are teenagers, not adults.

Sorry Jon, we disagree greatly here. You simply cannot penalize a student with a lower grade as a form of punishment. There are processes for misbehavior. Falling asleep in class, if it happened, was a ridiculous thing for the student to do.

The teacher would have every right to send him to the office, call his parents, force detention or any number of other things. He had no right to change the grade on a perfect assignment.

There isn't any wiggle room in this one IMO. You just can't allow a teacher to alter the grade of a completed assignment or test for ANY reason. The ethics of that is just wrong. What's more, this is one of the rare cases where I fully believe the "if we let this slide, it's gonna take us places we have no desire to go" statement.
But what about teachers who take off points for forgetting a name? Or teachers who take off 5 points for a grammatical error when you don't gain 5 points for correct grammar? This has always driven my math addled brain up the wall- how can you take points from nothing.

SI

I can't believe I'm agree with JonInMiddleGA, but in Situation 2, maybe this is colored from my more recent college experience, but when I was in (public) unversity, we had plenty of classes where the professor said if you miss more than X classes, you'll fail, no matter what grade you get on the exam.

I agree, he violated a rule and therfore there was little choice in the matter (though I'd prefer a suspension to a firing), but I'd also vote out the idiots who made up such a rule. To me sleeping in class is akin to missing class. You should get docked for it.

As for situation 1, with a school that close to a military base, I DOUBT the teacher told him to hang up immediately if told it was the kids mother in Iraq on the line. I think it is the result of media spin to get a more symphathic story (as someone already said). I'm more likely to believe the teacher came up to him and said turn the phone off and the kid said "Fuck Off" or something to him

The one thing I wonder is that his mom left the kid the nasty message, but wouldn't she hear at least part of the altercation with the teacher before the phone went dead? And are we at the point that we expect perfect reception in every single area in the country?!

Anyway, a hypo (and it is TOTALLY unrelated to Situation 1, so don't say that didn't happen, I know it didn't). Say this happened in class. He got the call in class and said it was his mom from Iraq and in the middle of lecture kept on talking... what then?

But what about teachers who take off points for forgetting a name?

I agree, it's kind of petty to do that, but when I had a long-term sub assignment last year, there were people who got no credit at all for work they did because they left their names off papers, I had no idea who turned them in, and no one ever claimed them.

Or teachers who take off 5 points for a grammatical error when you don't gain 5 points for correct grammar? This has always driven my math addled brain up the wall- how can you take points from nothing.

SI

There are two ways to look at this. Either you start with a perfect 100%, and deduct points for each mistake, or you start at zero and add points for each correct item. You don't do both at the same time. Obviously, if a teacher is deducting 5 points for grammatical errors, he/she is starting from a score that already incorporates the points for correct grammar.

I agree, it's kind of petty to do that, but when I had a long-term sub assignment last year, there were people who got no credit at all for work they did because they left their names off papers, I had no idea who turned them in, and no one ever claimed them.
That's a justification I can very much see.

There are two ways to look at this. Either you start with a perfect 100%, and deduct points for each mistake, or you start at zero and add points for each correct item. You don't do both at the same time. Obviously, if a teacher is deducting 5 points for grammatical errors, he/she is starting from a score that already incorporates the points for correct grammar.
That's not how math works. You can only have X number of points available. You can't take points away if you don't give them. This is like the teacher who I had who graded things on a 5 point scale and couldn't for the life of her understand that giving people a 3 out of 5 was giving them a 60 because "their other papers will average it out".

SI

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that one of your teachers took points for incorrect grammar when there was no grammatical component of the assignment?

Or teachers who take off 5 points for a grammatical error when you don't gain 5 points for correct grammar? This has always driven my math addled brain up the wall- how can you take points from nothing.It's implicit that the five points for getting grammar correct are included in the final score, no? From my point of view (as an engineering TA who grades homework and exams), when I take off one point for a math error, I'm doing you a favor -- I could give no credit whatsoever because you got the wrong answer. My goal, though, is to assess how well you understand the material, not how well you can do algebra -- although, at some point, I will be harder on mistakes that give completely unreasonable results, because when you're doing this as a profession, mistakes cost money.

It's implicit that the five points for getting grammar correct are included in the final score, no? From my point of view (as an engineering TA who grades homework and exams), when I take off one point for a math error, I'm doing you a favor -- I could give no credit whatsoever because you got the wrong answer. My goal, though, is to assess how well you understand the material, not how well you can do algebra -- although, at some point, I will be harder on mistakes that give completely unreasonable results, because when you're doing this as a profession, mistakes cost money.

I believe the point is that if an essay question is worth 5 points you can get 0 points for using correct grammar, but having a completely off the wall answer. While you can nail the answer with incorrect grammar and still not get all the points. Not sure of my thoughts on this, it really doesn't affect me anymore and never bothered me while I was still in school.

It's implicit that the five points for getting grammar correct are included in the final score, no? From my point of view (as an engineering TA who grades homework and exams), when I take off one point for a math error, I'm doing you a favor -- I could give no credit whatsoever because you got the wrong answer. My goal, though, is to assess how well you understand the material, not how well you can do algebra -- although, at some point, I will be harder on mistakes that give completely unreasonable results, because when you're doing this as a profession, mistakes cost money.
No, that's the problem. These are the types of papers where you get points for content yet somehow you can miss magical points for grammar that you don't get points for. That's the difference between that and math errors. If you get a part of the problem but don't get another part, you still got part of it right- there's you partial credit you are talking about. This wasn't really an issue, frankly, because in Engineering, I actually pass for a good writer (sampling bias) but it just drove my math sensibilities up a wall.

SI

I have a hard time casting this correctly with essay questions. If we shift it to the engineering arena...

...I wouldn't give any credit if you used the wrong equations and approach but didn't make any mistakes in your math.

But you're not looking at it the right way if you try to break the points down as such-and-so many for getting the math right. There's a point breakdown for getting aspects of the problem right, but in the details, I start from the high end and then grade down for different mistakes. I don't know that all of the TA's take my approach, my ultimate goal is for the grade for a problem, or portion of the problem, to fairly represent the studen'ts understanding of how to solve the problem.

I can't believe I am saying this, but I actually agree with Arles on this one. This is after the fact of course, but how many kids at this school have a parent in Iraq? This teacher could of easily waited for this kid to finish his phone call. I mean who the hell thinks up an exuse of I am talking to my mother in Iraq? This could of been handled better on both ends of the first situation.

Well, Spencer serves an army base, so a lot of kids have parents overseas actually. That doesn't make taking the phone excused though. Also, I saw the principal quoted as saying the school allows calls from parents overseas, but they must come through the office. If a parent calls the office, they are allowed to take their kid out of class to talk to them.

More on this pop quiz. The teacher had a thing where he would announce the person who scored the highest in the class on tests/quizes and tell the class how many points were added to thier grades. He would take the highest score in the class and make it a 100. If the highest actual score was a 85, he would add on 15 points to it, and every other paper in the class. Imagine the shock on his face, and in the classroom when he announced that I had set the curve on that "pop quiz."


Man, I wish my teachers gave me curves like that :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/09/student.cellphone/index.html

They backed off even further today...shortened his suspension to the two days already served.

I had a law school professor who had unique policy regarding being prepared for class. He taught usinf the socratic method. if he called on a student and the student was unprepared or wanted to pass, they could pass. he would then call on another random student. If the second student was unprepared or wanted to pass, they could pass. he would then call on a thrid random student. The third student was not allowed to "pass" and if the student was unprepared the student received an F for the class. I don't know if the teacher would have actually gone through with it, but we never had three unprepared students in a row.

When I was in high school, I received massages from girls during class and would fall asleep during the massages some times. I never received much flak for it though because:
1. I was otherwise a good student who was attentive during class;

2. I was otherwise a polite young man who built up goodwill with his teachers and so was the girl who usually gave me massages;

3. I was the captain of the football team and most of my teachers were football fans.

In retrospect, what in the hell were my teachers thinking? This girl and I would sit there and grope each other during class and nobody said nothing. If this happened today and I was the teacher I don't think I would allow this.