Free School Pranks by Lousia Evelyn Carter Page B

stigmatizing Miss Forest’s teaching.  She objected to lecture.  By linking lecture to the past, she saw no use of it in the present.  Her dissatisfaction of Miss Forest’s use of lecture documents her lack of knowledge of the past.  One of the oldest and best methods of instruction is by lecture.  This method of teaching has qualities associated with age, wisdom and long use.  The lecture method is timeless.  Ms. Green was very careful not to say that that method was a failure, because the year before she evaluated Miss Forest’s teaching perfect .   Her co-worker was so enthused with Miss Forest’s teaching that Ms. Green thought her objection to the score perfect would cause confusion.  Therefore she went along just to get along.  The co-worker resigned at end of the school year.  If a method being used is successful, then why change it unless another method is more successful?  Or stated another way – Is method better than result?
     
         From Ms. Green’s stereotyping of Miss Forest, one sees prejudice firmly embedded in her character.  She recognizes none of the individuality of Miss Forest; instead her teaching is compared to teachings of ancient times, which Ms. Green implies is worthless in these modern days.  Not so.  Many citizens disagree with Ms. Green.  One-sentence statements from two student evaluators and one administrator are recorded below:
     
Student 5-29-87 ”She keeps your interest”
Student 3-11-02 “First you are a good teacher”
     
Administrator “Outstanding.”  (lesson plan -superior rated)
     
         Early in her career, Miss Forest was aware of the “dull” course she was assigned to teach.  Therefore, from the beginning she involved students’ participation.  Students were encouraged to evaluate their teacher.
     
         Ms. Green complained by deposition 7-17-02, that needs of special education students were not being met while under Miss Forest’s instruction.  “There was no distinction being made between them and regular students in the classroom… “pp28, 29 (note: Mr. Murphy made no distinction 2-19-02 while sub-teaching in Miss Forest’s classroom.)  Evaluators did not assign special education students for Miss Forest’s observation, a help they failed to provide.  Below is an exchange between Ms. Green and an attorney from deposition expressing her concern for lack of distinction between special education students and normal students:
     
    Q.                 So you expressed those concerns to the administrator, not to Miss Forest?
     
    A.                 I also talked with Miss Forest’s about these concerns too.
     
    Q.              But they did not appear in writing?
     
    A.              No… Ms. Green continues with “The only thing that changed, that was with course syllabus.  There was a requirement in Miss Forest’s course syllabus that all the students had to do a certain memorization thing.
     
         This negative attitude toward Miss Forest continues throughout. Next is a statement from Data Collection Form: from III Professional Preliminary Evidence: evaluators state, ‘Teacher seems to stand alone in her method and strategies of teaching history and maintains that memorizing “songs are still important…” What was the memory work about?  Failure to identify it is an indication of something amiss.  Referring to the memory assignment as Things and songs without giving the titles shows an incompleteness of the report and testimony, thereby making the information insufficient evidence in making the right decision.  Why was the memory assignment so painstakingly unidentified?  That question still remains unanswered.  It mystifies the cleverest minds in the nation of Grande`.
                 
         Mr. Murphy promised to keep Miss Forest’s teaching record on file permanently in the education department in Dromedary.  The purpose of