Quite the Valedictorian speech

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have had 2 kids go through the HS and one still in it, I guarantee I am not 100% aware of all that goes on.
The district and school certainly aren't open with parents, just the general "incident" emails but never any details. Unless it makes the local newspaper then I have no idea what is truly going on.
What struck me is that she said "regularly" came to class drunk and IMO that means the school administration most likely knew there was an issue and never did anything about it. That is what she exposed- not the fact that he was hauled away by police but that coming to class drunk was an issue up until that point.
You think if parents knew that was an issue that it would have gone on so long? I don't.

What's done is done, she clearly has people who support her for doing what she did so those who don't probably don't matter much to her.

I didn't imply that everyone knew. I said kids talk parents talk. You said "she did parents and students a favor by exposing it." I'm saying it's hardly realistic that she's the one who can take credit for exposing it. If it was happening regularly I'm certain she's hardly the only one to notice either.

Public intoxication is a matter for police and we have zero idea what the school administration was doing and neither does she. I would hope she talked to the school to let them know but after that she has no idea if they went to the police and it was handled from there with police procedures. She also doesn't know that there weren't parents who didn't go to the school to discuss what they had heard. We never hear the full 100% story anyways.

In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers.

College hasn't started yet and reprecussions are still possible for her actions; again may not happen but I wouldn't be confident if I were her that she's in the clear from any and all things.

 

[luvsJack]

She did this in a snide way. She was not sincerely giving her gratitude to the teacher with alcoholism. I feel so sorry for the recovering alcoholics in the audience that had to sit through this girl rehashing something that was already taken care of...just so she could serve her personal needs to get the "last laugh". It's an embarrassing and debilitating disease to many people. It was not the time or place to bring this up, especially in such a smug manner. I don't know how anyone could think this was appropriate.



I guess it depends on where you are reading. I have seen mostly negative comments all over the internet about this girl. Really, who would think this was an uplifting speech to her graduating class?

Well, I am well aware that she wasn't sincerely thanking the teacher. I didn't hear where she said the teacher was an alcoholic. But I know a few recovering alcoholics, and they don't want teachers drunk in their kids' classes either nor would they have been offended by what she said.

I don't think the speech was meant to be uplifting. No where is it written that its required to be uplifting.

 

[luvsJack]

I didn't imply that everyone knew. I said kids talk parents talk. You said "she did parents and students a favor by exposing it." I'm saying it's hardly realistic that she's the one who can take credit for exposing it. If it was happening regularly I'm certain she's hardly the only one to notice either.

Public intoxication is a matter for police and we have zero idea what the school administration was doing and neither does she. I would hope she talked to the school to let them know but after that she has no idea if they went to the police and it was handled from there with police procedures. She also doesn't know that there weren't parents who didn't go to the school to discuss what they had heard. We never hear the full 100% story anyways.

In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers.

College hasn't started yet and reprecussions are still possible for her actions; again may not happen but I wouldn't be confident if I were her that she's in the clear from any and all things.

If the teacher continually showed up to class intoxicated prior to finally being hauled away, she probably has a pretty good idea of what they were doing----not much. It doesn't take a huge process to get an obviously intoxicated teacher out of a classroom. That's immediate dismissal, no "building a case" required.

Sort of like when a teacher is accused of behaving inappropriately with a student. Dismissal is immediate. Even before the teacher goes to court or is even charged sometimes.

 

[Imzadi]

I was thinking about that last night. I don't know that it would actually happen but it's possible scholarships relying on student integrity, maturity, etc could be pulled if the people who administer the scholarship disagreed with her actions and it could look worse because she's a valedictorian. It may be worth it still in her mind in her viewpoint just saying it's a possible consequence.

I think this shows that a person may be "book smart," able to memorize concepts to test well. But, have no character or integrity. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I think it would be great if whatever scholarships she received get pulled. She needs to grow up a bit and develop some integrity. Meanwhile, the scholarships go to some really worthy recipient. Someone who may not be valedictorian, but is upstanding and contributed immensely to their community and will likely continue to do so when they have a college degree in hand, which will help them into a great career.

If I was a benefactor, contributing to those scholarships, I'd rather see my money going to the latter student I mentioned.

 

[Hikergirl]

I didn't imply that everyone knew. I said kids talk parents talk. You said "she did parents and students a favor by exposing it." I'm saying it's hardly realistic that she's the one who can take credit for exposing it. If it was happening regularly I'm certain she's hardly the only one to notice either.

This story is now national news, her speech is the reason why.
She spoke up about it in public, that is exposing it. I didn't claim she was the only one who knew it was going on, and "parents and students" includes all the ones in that school, not just those sitting in the audience that day.

Public intoxication is a matter for police and we have zero idea what the school administration was doing and neither does she. I would hope she talked to the school to let them know but after that she has no idea if they went to the police and it was handled from there with police procedures. She also doesn't know that there weren't parents who didn't go to the school to discuss what they had heard. We never hear the full 100% story anyways.

She said the teacher regularly came to class drunk, that means more than once. If the school was doing something about it, it would have been only one time.

In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers.

College hasn't started yet and reprecussions are still possible for her actions; again may not happen but I wouldn't be confident if I were her that she's in the clear from any and all things.

I was speaking about those of us on the internet as far as not mattering to her. I'm sure she doesn't care that a bunch of people on a Disney board thinks she's a brat.
As far as college, my guess she has already applied and become accepted. If the school rescinds her acceptance for her exercising free speech and not doing anything illegal or immoral well I hope that gets exposed too.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was speaking about those of us on the internet as far as not mattering to her. I'm sure she doesn't care that a bunch of people on a Disney board thinks she's a brat.

Yes I don't think she cares what we have to say. Why would I think she cares what I and other strangers think on the DIS (a forum she probably doesn't even know about). I never made statements that she would care what we have to say here.

and please don't lump me into the brat aspect. I haven't personally called her that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If the teacher continually showed up to class intoxicated prior to finally being hauled away, she probably has a pretty good idea of what they were doing----not much. It doesn't take a huge process to get an obviously intoxicated teacher out of a classroom. That's immediate dismissal, no "building a case" required.

Sort of like when a teacher is accused of behaving inappropriately with a student. Dismissal is immediate. Even before the teacher goes to court or is even charged sometimes.

I didn't say it wasn't grounds for immediate dismissal did I?

I said

In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers.

 

[Hikergirl]

Yes I don't think she cares what we have to say. Why would I think she cares what I and other strangers think on the DIS (a forum she probably doesn't even know about). I never made statements that she would care what we have to say here.

and please don't lump me into the brat aspect. I haven't personally called her that.

I was making a general statement about all of us here, commenting and sharing our opinions about her. No need to take things so personally.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I was making a general statement about all of us here. commenting and sharing our opinions about her. No need to take things so personally.

I wasn't taking it personally just clarifying though I can see why you could read it like that. No worries

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think this shows that a person may be "book smart," able to memorize concepts to test well. But, have no character or integrity. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I think it would be great if whatever scholarships she received get pulled. She needs to grow up a bit and develop some integrity. Meanwhile, the scholarships go to some really worthy recipient. Someone who may not be valedictorian, but is upstanding and contributed immensely to their community and will likely continue to do so when they have a college degree in hand, which will help them into a great career.

If I was a benefactor, contributing to those scholarships, I'd rather see my money going to the latter student I mentioned.

It's not that I think scholarships in general should necessarily get pulled. I think that depends on how the scholarships are structured. Ones that are more centered around moral codes vs how you did in school or obscure or random qualifications are more what I'm talking about.

I guess my point was really the decision to give a scholarship (if it's based on moral codes, etc) is subjective and thus one benefactor if you will may completely agree with what she says and have zero issues with it while another may not agree and doesn't wish to seem to support it. In that sense there would be nothing wrong with a scholarship being pulled if whoever administers it doesn't agree with things that come to light. She opted to stand up for what she believes is right in the manner in which she did it that should also go if the admins of X scholarship opt to stand up for what they believe is right and rescind a scholarship if they so choose to.

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying though just expanding on my earlier comment you quoted.

 

[luvsJack]

I didn't say it wasn't grounds for immediate dismissal did I?

I said

Immediate dismissal doesn't need a "case built". And you said perhaps the school was building a case.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Immediate dismissal doesn't need a "case built". And you said perhaps the school was building a case.

I'm not sure you're actually reading what I'm saying. I didn't say they needed to build a case. Please re-read what I said. Or perhaps we'll just leave it as what's already been said

 

[Pink Partridge]

You really think that calling 911 because a teacher is drunk is the appropriate use of 911? Really? Unless there is actual medical emergency or danger don't go calling 911.
If a teacher is drunk maybe a student could meander down to the office and say "hey someone needs to come down to room X as Mrs. B is acting odd". Not call the police.

Yes. An adult in charge of children under the influence? In a school where it was so bad that nobody cared (according to this girl)? 911 cares. Call 'em to your crappy school that doesn't care about children. Again, that is on the word of this upstanding valedictorian.

Bad things have been happening in schools. Very bad things. If my child saw a teacher that was SO severely under the influence that it had to be brought up at a graduation, I think authorities should have been notified.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm not sure you're actually reading what I'm saying. I didn't say they needed to build a case. Please re-read what I said. Or perhaps we'll just leave it as what's already been said

Literally copied and pasted from YOUR post: "In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers"

You are clearly saying that "perhaps" the school was building a case before the teacher was arrested. And you go on to say that schools have had problems from releasing teachers even when they were 100% right. I am confused as to how you think you said anything else.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Literally copied and pasted from YOUR post: "In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation. It has backfired in the past for schools who don't take care with how they go about releasing teachers even when they are 100% right for releasing those teachers"

You are clearly saying that "perhaps" the school was building a case before the teacher was arrested. And you go on to say that schools have had problems from releasing teachers even when they were 100% right. I am confused as to how you think you said anything else.

1) I never said it wasn't grounds for immediate dismissal
2) I never said they needed a case

Those two things you've somehow come up with despite the fact that neither were in my comment nor were they implied whatsoever.

I think you're thinking I'm talking about something else when I'm not. I'm under no illusions that they need a case or that they can't immediately dismiss the teacher.

Maybe I can put it another way. I live in an at-will state. Despite that fact employers don't always immediately dismiss someone even if they legally can. Sometimes they document the heck out of things and then dismiss or put the employee on action plans so they can show they did something. This in turn can lessen the chance of said employee from getting unemployment benefits (which goes against the company in the end) and can help in terms of PR issues just to name two things. Now they don't need to document, they don't need to put the employee on an action plan. They can simply let them go and the employee can file for unemployment if they wish to. That doesn't negate the fact that the employer can opt to document incidents over time and/or put the employee on an action plan rather than just immediately let them go.

Hopefully that helps. In either case let's just agree to disagree and move on at this point

 

[MrsPete]

Yes! If there is a drunk or drug addicted adult within the school during school hours, I actually think that is a legal issue that should immediately be handled

But it already has been handled. The girl said in her speech that he was removed from the school. I don't know what else the school could've done after the teacher was removed. Bringing up a problem that the school had already handled is just mean and vindictive.

Sounds like your school has a very organized way of getting the information out. Not all do.

Yes, and I strongly suspect most schools have similar methods.
However, in spite of our school having a system, LOTS of kids have no idea that the system exists ... some kids just don't pay attention.

You realize that at most schools, if a student were to call 911 about a drunk teacher, the first thing dispatch or even the responding officers are going to do is talk to admin?

911 for a drunk teacher? No. If a teen is sitting in a classroom with a drunk teacher, he or she is in no immediate danger ... the smartest /most expedient /easiest thing to do is to get up /walk to the next classroom and say to that teacher, "Mrs. Smith? I think something's wrong with Mr. Jones. Would you please step over to our classroom? It's important." OR leave the room and walk to the office to fetch an administrator. This makes so much more sense than calling 911.

And, again, you darn well better have some facts to back up such an accusation ... There are many reasons why people slur, walk with an uneven gait, stumble, etc.

Thought 1: Given that this teacher was removed from the classroom (instead of being taken to the school nurse), he or she probably was drunk.
Thought 2: Yes, at least a dozen ailments can make any individual look as if he is drunk. I specifically remember once we were at the grocery store, and the cashier definitely looked drunk. The store was busy, and I was kinda irritated. A manager noticed what was going on, snapped at another employee to RUN and grab orange juice ... the manager (who knew the cashier's medical history) was aware that the the kid was slipping into a diabetic coma. The manager led the kid away and called out a quick explanation to us in line.

If the manager hadn't told us, we might've thought he was employing a drunk, but -- because we were informed -- we left thinking the manager had handled the emergency efficiently.

and please don't lump me into the brat aspect. I haven't personally called her that.

Feel free to lump me in. I think she's a brat.

Literally copied and pasted from YOUR post: "In terms of reprecussions on an employee aspect she doesn't know that they weren't building a case against the teacher or that they weren't taking care with the situation.

Some thing require that "a case be built"; for example, you can't fire a teacher for neglecting to take attendance ONCE. You can't fire a teacher for being slow about grading a test ONCE. On the other hand, if you can show a pattern that the teacher fails to maintain vital records on a regular basis /this has been brought to the teacher's attention / he or she still doesn't keep up with classroom records ... THEN that teacher can be fired. Yes, for those small things-that-add-up-to-big things, building a case is fair and right.

Other things are one-and-done. For example, a teacher who brought a gun to school, or who touched a child inappropriately, or who had illegal drugs, or -- as in this case -- was drunk on the job, could be fired IMMEDIATELY. You don't give people second chances for major offenses.

 

[luvsJack]

1) I never said it wasn't grounds for immediate dismissal
2) I never said they needed a case

Those two things you've somehow come up with despite the fact that neither were in my comment nor were they implied whatsoever.

I think you're thinking I'm talking about something else when I'm not. I'm under no illusions that they need a case or that they can't immediately dismiss the teacher.

Maybe I can put it another way. I live in an at-will state. Despite that fact employers don't always immediately dismiss someone even if they legally can. Sometimes they document the heck out of things and then dismiss or put the employee on action plans so they can show they did something. This in turn can lessen the chance of said employee from getting unemployment benefits (which goes against the company in the end) and can help in terms of PR issues just to name two things. Now they don't need to document, they don't need to put the employee on an action plan. They can simply let them go and the employee can file for unemployment if they wish to. That doesn't negate the fact that the employer can opt to document incidents over time and/or put the employee on an action plan rather than just immediately let them go.

Hopefully that helps. In either case let's just agree to disagree and move on at this point

You need to re-read what you said, you very much implied that they may have been building a case. You flat out said it. What else could you be talking about? You said that the student didn't know what the school did about the teacher. You said, they could have been building a case against the teacher and went on to say schools have had problems from not building their case first. I am unclear as to how you can spin that to mean anything except exactly what you said.

I am well aware of what building a case means. I am aware of the process of documenting things before someone is terminated. All of that makes perfect sense. I live in an at will state too. And in MOST cases, employers still document what is happening before terminating anyone. But in a case such as this, any school system will have the employee escorted off campus immediately with no option to come back in the building. And that is what "immediate termination" means.

 

[luvsJack]

But it already has been handled. The girl said in her speech that he was removed from the school. I don't know what else the school could've done after the teacher was removed. Bringing up a problem that the school had already handled is just mean and vindictive.
Yes, and I strongly suspect most schools have similar methods.
However, in spite of our school having a system, LOTS of kids have no idea that the system exists ... some kids just don't pay attention.
911 for a drunk teacher? No. If a teen is sitting in a classroom with a drunk teacher, he or she is in no immediate danger ... the smartest /most expedient /easiest thing to do is to get up /walk to the next classroom and say to that teacher, "Mrs. Smith? I think something's wrong with Mr. Jones. Would you please step over to our classroom? It's important." OR leave the room and walk to the office to fetch an administrator. This makes so much more sense than calling 911.
Thought 1: Given that this teacher was removed from the classroom (instead of being taken to the school nurse), he or she probably was drunk.
Thought 2: Yes, at least a dozen ailments can make any individual look as if he is drunk. I specifically remember once we were at the grocery store, and the cashier definitely looked drunk. The store was busy, and I was kinda irritated. A manager noticed what was going on, snapped at another employee to RUN and grab orange juice ... the manager (who knew the cashier's history) was aware that the the kid was slipping into a diabetic coma. The manager led the kid away and called out a quick explanation to us in line.
Feel free to lump me in. I think she's a brat.
Some thing require that "a case be built"; for example, you can't fire a teacher for neglecting to take attendance ONCE. You can't fire a teacher for being slow about grading a test ONCE. On the other hand, if you can show a pattern that shows that the teacher fails to maintain vital records on a regular basis /this has been brought to the teacher's attention, and he or she still doesn't keep up with classroom records ... THEN that teacher can be fired. Yes, for those small things-that-add-up-to-big things, building a case is fair and right.

Other things are one-and-done. For example, a teacher who brought a gun to school, or who touched a child inappropriately, or who had illegal drugs, or -- as in this case -- was drunk on the job, could be fired IMMEDIATELY. You don't give people second chances for major offenses.

No "most" schools do not. SOME do. Some have a completely different system, but a system still the same. And some have no system whatsoever. And regardless of the system, if its not carried out, it doesn't matter how great it sounds.

 

[MrsPete]

Disagree; I think most schools do care that their students have the wherewithall to apply for scholarships and take steps to be sure info is available. Regardless, we have no way to know what the school in question actually did /didn't do.

Evidence: Schools are measured on MANY, MANY, MANY details. These include the building itself, the number of highly qualified teachers, cafeteria food, and what guidance counselors do for problem students, to help all students register, to help with scholarships, and many other details -- all those things count towards the school's public report card score. If a school isn't "up to muster", the state will take it over /fire all personnel. No one wants this.

The school can't control everything upon which they're graded (for example, we have very limited control over student attendance and whether students try their best on state exams) ... so why would any school NOT manage simple things like availability of scholarship information?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You need to re-read what you said, you very much implied that they may have been building a case. You flat out said it. What else could you be talking about? You said that the student didn't know what the school did about the teacher. You said, they could have been building a case against the teacher and went on to say schools have had problems from not building their case first. I am unclear as to how you can spin that to mean anything except exactly what you said.

I am well aware of what building a case means. I am aware of the process of documenting things before someone is terminated. All of that makes perfect sense. I live in an at will state too. And in MOST cases, employers still document what is happening before terminating anyone. But in a case such as this, any school system will have the employee escorted off campus immediately with no option to come back in the building. And that is what "immediate termination" means.

Ok for the last time..the last time. I know what I said. I said they may be building a case I never negated that part. You interpreted that to mean they NEEDED to build a case. I've really tried to get that aspect through to you that I know for sure 100% that they didn't NEED to build a case. I even tried to give another example related to unemployment benefits but alas I don't think you're getting it. I'm refraining from further commenting on the matter with you.