MUNDEVUSE

Report about event during the 2007-2008 school-year at Schaumburg elementary school.  

Multiples incidents happened during this school-year at Schaumburg. I started with good expectations, having heard Ms Ripoll projects and expectation for her school. I have never been more disappointed in my whole life… The ultimate evaluation report done by Ms Ripoll showed very well the lack of seriousness and the abuse of power exerted.  At first, after the locks being changed, I never had been given a key. So, I spent most of the school year with absolutely no key to my classroom, in spite of repeatedly asking for one. It is good to notice that the workers cleaning the classrooms have keys, but not all the teachers. 

I had no functional power outlet in my classroom; therefore use of music or personal computer was very limited or impossible. Of course, elective teachers never received any TV and, in spite of receiving computer desks (most of them got destroyed by the students, the plastic part serving as missiles), I never had any computer in my classroom. Therefore, work on line and programs to teach French through internet games were completely unavailable.In spite of these limitations, I offered different approaches, consultable in my teaching plans, such as games, songs, manipulative activities, colouring, reading activities, written exercises, etc… Nevertheless, Ms Ripoll gave me a 0 in line number three: “the teacher demonstrates planning for a variety of types of assessments, including both alternative and traditional”.  

Ms Ripoll reproaches me not to follow suggestions. On of the few suggestion received being that I should use more manipulatives, more “cut and paste” work with high grades, like 7 and 8^th graders, instead of really teaching them French. Ms Ripoll suggested once that I might have been encountering disciplinary problems with the students if I was not speaking in English during the class, to give directions for example. I have been therefore quiet surprised to receive a 1 for “the teacher uses French/English almost exclusively as the language of instruction and communication”. The idea of using English in a bigger proportion came from Ms Ripoll, and that is actually one of her suggestions that I implemented.  

Giving me a 0 for “the teacher dresses in a professional manner according to local guidelines” suggest that I came all year long to work in flip-flops and shorts. A quick survey done by asking my colleagues about my outfits during the school year would be enough to prove Ms Ripoll wrong. 

It would be possible to take each line of the evaluation done by Ms Ripoll in her last evaluation form, like done for few of them above, and show that it is completely wrong. Globally, the very few suggestions done by Ms Ripoll were unadapted to the pedagogical patterns used to teach foreign languages, unadapted to the technological reality or impossible to implements. The major problem has been all year long discipline. Students fighting in the classroom generally was not given any detention or did not serve them, and were anyway return to class few minutes after being removed, allowing them to more violence.

I progressively lost good students, constantly disturbed and teased by the bad ones: seeing that they were no consequences for such behaviours, they just started to mess around and play in the classroom.  People who would had been found guilty of assault and battery in a court have been returned to class with no consequences. A first grade student who spent his time punching and globally bullying his classmates, received a demand of suspension for one week from his home room teacher, suspension I personally supported. Mr Knight decided that instead the student would not be allowed to go to the field trip. Weeks after, I learnt from other students that the violent student actually went to the field trip… 

Teachers never received any feed back about detentions they had given.

Teachers had been asked repeatedly to come on Saturday morning to monitor after school detention for their students, administration refusing to do its job. 

When I asked to call the police after receiving an item in the head, thrown by a student, the secretaries asked me to first speak with Ms Ripoll and refused to let me use the school phone. The student, guilty of aggravated battery, was given a three day suspension, not because she had actually attacked a teacher, but because she was not in the appropriate classroom. Ms Ripoll explained to me that the other student involved would not suffer any consequence, since he threatened to killed himself because, giving him therefore power to do whatever he felt like doing. 

I had a case, a Friday afternoon, in the 7th graders class, when I was insulted and threaten during half an hour by the students. I called office for back up but no one came. When finally the secretary came over she did nothing to remove the troublemaker (it was not her job). I finally decided to go home to preserve my own security that day. Globally, I do not know any teacher with who I generally talk and interact satisfied by Ms Ripoll’s work. But being the one openly disagreeing with her ineffective management of the school, repeatedly complaining, and stating as soon as December that I would not work in Schaumburg or for the RSD  the following year, I guess it did not help to receive fair evaluation.But how it is possible for a teacher like me, having fairly good evaluations last year, to be evaluated like the worse teacher ever this year, having only “poor” and “unacceptable” as evaluation? 

Ms Ripoll reported that the two main problems were that I did not follow her suggestions (already explained why above) and that I was excessively absent. Since I lost all my sick days before starting the school year because of Carolyn Love’s mistake (RSD employee), and since I had to leave the country to renew my visa following a CODOFIL mistake, staying more than the RSD holidays, I had ask for permission from the office. Ms Kelly, vice-principal, and Ms Stewart, secretary, told me that it was okay, that they understood. I refused a $600 discount offered by the airline to stay one more day in Ecuador, just to be in time for work (to be present the date I had indicated, which I thought was professional). But when I arrived I have been informed that Ms Ripoll had asked for the termination of my contract, stating that I had missed more than three days of work with no authorization. I therefore lost one week of work before actually returning to the school. After this experience I really understood that I was dealing with a dishonest person.  

Globally, Schaumburg is a very unsafe place to be, the policy being basically “if you are not injured it is okay”,  were learning and teaching are far from easy, the disturbing people being allowed to insult, threaten or even assault their teachers or classmates. I am just happy no one in my family is attending that school and that I will not have to work in such awful conditions.

digg it | del.icio.us