<p>“Of course they should apologize before they clean out their desks”</p>
<p>But if you’re terminating them, why would they? They’d just leave wouldn’t they?</p>
<p>Hey Opie–I can tell you’ve never been fired. :p</p>
<p>jk - don’t blow a gasket here.</p>
<p>“Hey Opie–I can tell you’ve never been fired”</p>
<p>Yes, and the settlement, while it took a while, helps ease the pain of that time. Not everybody who gets fired is done with just cause. Sometimes it’s because the employer can’t meet an obligation and their only way out is to terminate the at wills. The problem for them was they still had to honor the contract prior to the terminations. </p>
<p>Sometimes it isn’t necessilary what you think at first glance.</p>
<p>So, apparently the bit about the hooded teacher pulling on the door etc. was true. Not only that, another teacher drove up in a car, flashing lights etc. Just indefensible.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/16/faked.attack.ap/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/05/16/faked.attack.ap/</a></p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I agree with Opie. I think that this error in judgment has been blown out of proportion by a combination of scandal-starved media and eager to finger-point Mommys and Daddys. (Not the parents of the kids who were actually there, mind you - for the most part, they seem to be ready to move on.) I think the outrage expressed by the posters to the Tennessean website, as well as here on CC, is excessive. I think a lot of people are gettin’ their sanctimony on by playing “I’m more outraged than you are.”</p>
<p>And I’m not surprised at the general lack of acknowledgment of Fundingfather’s story about a similar (in fact, objectively more over the line) experience from his own youth, and the lack of long term trauma associated with it. </p>
<p>Hereshoping, to answer your not-too-apt comparison to the corporate world, I wouldn’t be too surprised if something like this happened at a corporate retreat (which is the closer comparison to the week long school field trip to a state park than “company headquarters” or the post office) and I wouldn’t expect heads to roll if it did.</p>
<p>Heads would roll at the company I work for. They’re very safety oriented, and the inherent risk of injury in something like this would be too high.</p>
<p>I could picture it at some other places though. Sounds like the kind of thing Ross Perot might have done, back in the day.</p>
<p>Kluge,
I don’t think there will be long-term trauma to these kids. I actually don’t see a lot of people on this board arguing that point. (The other website you quoted from does seem outrageous and ridiculous). I do think the short-term (immediate) anguish was predictable and wrong. And I did respond to your query about FF’s story, and the differences between it and this one, but you’ve let that pass with no acknowledgment.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting the CNN link Roshke. So now the school is saying it was prank (not a drill or learning experience). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also in the article:
</p>
<p>Reaction from the children:
</p>
<p>The article ends with districtspokesperson Harris saying that "the counselor said the children were upset because their teacher was not going to be there for the end of school." </p>
<p>LOL. Nice spin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would acknowledge it but he claims to have loved it and these children described being terrified and crying, so I’m not really sure how it’s the same. Honestly, people are different. It complicates things but that is a fundamental element in a situation like this. People can be affected by similar things very differently. And sometimes, it is kind of sad to see, that people will say, well this is a “right” way you should have been affected by it. I’m not sure that’s necessarily fair. People feel the way they feel, sometimes even if they shouldn’t feel that way. It is good to offer encouragement but just because someone else does not seem to be affected in the long term, does not mean necessarily that every other person wasn’t either. I am also not a pyschologist, and I also was not there for either event so I cannot possibly speak to the similarities or differences, except for the fact that the secondhand reactions are very different. Events and reactions are colored by the climate around us, the culture that we have grown accustomed too. Time passes. Things change. And attitudes change too. There is absolutely no reason to say that just because FF was not affected by this experience, that not one of these children will be, not to mention we haven’t heard from the numerous others present at the event FF describes and what their interpretation of it was. One person is not really evidence. </p>
<p>And let’s play devil’s advocate. What if just ONE kid was affected, even just affected some? That’s about as bad IMO. That’s still not acceptable. There was no point to this and that is a problem. To even take the CHANCE that you might hurt someone, physically, emotionally, by something that is so completely and obviously inappropriate and useless, is really very callous. I hope the entire school system will address this and others will follow suit in some sort of addressing of the training of these teachers, because something is inadequate regarding judgement here. </p>
<p>I believe there is a generally accepted interpretation of many problems that stem mentally or emotionally as the idea of (ironically) a gun, bullet, and trigger. People are genetically predisposed to conditions (gun), they are exposed to circumstances that exacerbate that (bullet), and then there is one or a series of a triggers that sends them much farther down the path into destructive behavior. That is why you can have two people experiencing similar things or having similar genetics, and ending up differently, because there is more than one factor that goes into the end outcome, and all the factors have to be present to get to that point. Unfortunately we never know what one event can do to a person. It can be a contributing factor to larger problems down the road. I am not sure learning that people you trusted will play with your emotions to the extent of making you believe you were in one of the worst situations imaginable, is something that has no potential to affect anyone. When one of these kids ends up having problems down the road, you will not be able to say it was this, or it was something else, but to be honest, I think it is probably accurate to say this along with everything else contributed. There is really no way to say how such a thing could affect someone, but I believe it is probably not completely accurate to suggest none of the kids will experience any long term effect.</p>
<p>Again, I’m a teacher, not a “finger-pointing-Mommy” and I say these teachers acted inappropriately, terribly, unprofessionally…inexcusable.</p>
<p>Whether or not it is fireable depends on their contract language. Untenured teachers won’t be brought back next year, I betcha. Tenured teachers should be judged against the terms in their contract clauses such as “doing egregious harm to children,” etc. Although it’s hard to fire a tenured teacher, it is still do-able for egregious harm (like the teachers who are sexually inappropriate with children, for example).</p>
<p>But if you understand children, you also know that they feel MORE scared, not reassured, when adults --even those in error – are removed from their lives without explanation or a proper farewell. (If you don’t know this from schools, you surely know this from children’s reactions to divorce; they blame themselves when adults leave or are removed). If a student “loved” or even “liked” the teacher before this, which is entirely possible if the teacher was good inside the classroom, and then that teacher is fired, it will make the children who were on the camping trip feel more, not less, secure about their lives. Kids blame themselves for things. So I wasn’t surprised to read the counselor’s report (2 posts above this one) that “children were upset that teachers would not finish out the year.” That is totally in keeping with kids’ psychology.</p>
<p>To help children, it’s best to have the teachers apologize publicly to the children at a school assembly, and to parents at a school board meeting (two SEPARATE functions; no hollering parents allowed at the school assembly, please, it’s not a soccer match). Then, give the children the affirming power to forgive their teachers, if they wish to. Then get on with school. Dock the paychecks as penalty, contract permitting, and require those teachers to attend summer coursework in emergency management, adolescent psychology, and anything else that will retrain their fool heads not to act this way in the future. IMHO.</p>
<p>“To help children, it’s best to have the teachers apologize publicly to the children at a school assembly, and to parents at a school board meeting (two SEPARATE functions; no hollering parents allowed at the school assembly, please, it’s not a soccer match). Then, give the children the affirming power to forgive their teachers, if they wish to. Then get on with school. Dock the paychecks as penalty, contract permitting, and require those teachers to attend summer coursework in emergency management, adolescent psychology, and anything else that will retrain their fool heads not to act this way in the future. IMHO.”</p>
<p>Excellent, I agree this concept completely. </p>
<hr>
<p>Re the campfire incident: Many things were considered acceptable 30 years ago that are not acceptable today. There was no sexual harrassment; boys will be boys, after all. Schools, buses, lunch counters were still segregated. There was no cry for diversity. Girls took home ec and typing; boys took wood shop. Ivies were all male. So were professional schools. (Sandra Day O’Connor graduated at the top of her law school class; her first job was as a legal secretary.) And in my youth, there had been no real school shootings, no planes flown into skyscrapers, no metal detectors at the school entrances. Societal context must be considered. What was a campfire prank long ago can be terrifying real today.</p>
<p>I agree with Chedva. Context and the times must be considered. Given the unfortunate reality of school shootings, simulating one and telling kids it is real, is instilling a lot of trauma. A prank should not instill that level of trauma. A prank is like short sheeting a bed…something that is amusing or out of the ordinary, playful. A prank that teachers conduct should be more of a practical joke (“I’m giving you ten hours of homework tonight…” and later…Just kidding!) A prank should be to “trick” the kids. It is meant to be a joke of sorts. If it is a campfire type thing, then it is more like ghost stories about the boogeyman or some such. I don’t think a so called prank that simulates real criminal behavior that would instill very real fear for one’s life, is appropriate ever, let alone in a school situation with adults being the ones to pull this so called “prank.”</p>
<p>I’m having a hard time imagining the teachers sitting around and thinking up this particular “prank.” I’m having a harder time still to think that the others on the faculty team attending this field trip all went along with it and that nobody questioned the appropriateness of this prank. I have no problem that they were trying to do some practical jokes with the kids on this kind of camping trip. But I can’t imagine the thinking of this idea, and thinking it would be amusing.</p>
<p>I don’t know that there is anything else to be said- but I will give a recap anyway :)</p>
<p>I agree it was a really bad idea- particulary in this day and age , but I also don’t think that FFs story was that typical or a good idea either, except in those type of “take it like a man” situations.</p>
<p>Along with the class for the teachers on responsible behavior and child development, I would require all the adults who were present but didn’t intervene to take the class as well.</p>
<p>I feel it is important that we raise young people who don’t allow wrongdoings to go unnoticed, and who don’t abuse their positions of trust, one of the ways that we can do so, IMO, is to have adult role models they can look up to.</p>