Free School Pranks by Lousia Evelyn Carter

the Evaluation Committee discussed the complaint made by the parent against her, which determined the future of her career.  Miss Forest was totally unaware.  She sought answers to important questions.  She had a reputation of cooperation.  Why was there such a rush to judgment?  Why was she omitted from important meetings?  Those questions and others were met with silence.  Miss Forest noticed that silence was a tactic they all used in dealing with her.  Such acts are disturbing.
     

 
     
     
     
    Ms. Green and Mr. Murphy
    January, 2000
     
     
         Upon returning to school in early January after the holidays, Mr. Murphy arranged a meeting with Miss Forest in his office.  The purpose of the meeting was to further explain the remedial program designed for her “teaching improvement.”  Below is a description of that confusion:
     
         The hour arrived for Miss Forest’s conference with Mr. Murphy.  When she reached the entrance to his office, Mr. Murphy beckoned her inside and offered her a seat.  Mr. Murphy began dialing someone on his telephone.  Listening to his part of the conversation, the person he had contacted was friendly.  Mr. Murphy talked in codes, under his breath; he seemed to be gloating, expressing self-satisfaction.  Clearly, a common bond existed between them.  From Mr. Murphy’s end there was indication that the mission had been accomplished.  Seemingly, he was reporting he had delivered as promised.  Mr. Murphy was glad, up-beat, and jubilant.  Miss Forest didn’t like that secrecy, as though she was in the way. 
    If Mr. Murphy wished to talk secretly, then reschedule his meeting with her.  After all, he was the one who did the scheduling.  He hung up and turned toward Miss Forest.  Before anything could be said Ms. Green entered with her walkie-talkie.  Was Ms. Green the person Mr. Murphy was talking with? They presented short-comings observed in Miss Forest’s teaching.  She listened to each concern and she had done them all.  Weren’t they aware of that?  Miss Forest suggested an error had occurred.  Their reply was the plan for her improved teaching had already been formulated and approved by the area office.  Such reply was not properly responsive to Miss Forest’s suggestion.  That was the standard pattern of communication with her.  Responses to her communication with them were usually categorized as: not suitable, not responsive to question or silence.  None of those responses were acceptable.  The action toward a co-worker whose aim was help in teacher improvement was opposite of intention.  Instead of helping, it was designed to debase Miss Forest.  A remedial program is for a person on the lowest level.  But Miss Forest was on the highest level (Grade “A” Certificate, superior rated.)
      The work assigned to persons of that caliber (distinction) should have been designed to an advanced program, or one they deemed highest.  If they had communicated with Miss Forest before the “plan” was decided upon, probably the error would have been avoided.  Nothing can be solved without understanding.  That’s logic, natural and that is gotten by communication.  But their dealing with Miss Forest was opposite professionalism.  Since they refused to deal with her on a professional level, they documented their unjust (unfair) attitude toward Miss Forest for the duty entrusted them by the citizens of Grande`.
     
         Miss Forest looked at the two administrators who were supposed to “ help ” her.  She wondered whether they were able to define Help!  “Actions speak louder than words,” as an ole saying goes.  They had designed an elaborate plan, characterized with minute detail in putting it into effect.  They pulled out all the stops to belittle her character, quality, and value.  It was evident the two administrators hated her overwhelmingly.  Glaring at her in Mr. Murphy’s office was a view of unpresented evil.